The safety and efficacy of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Adverse effects with semaglutide: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

Semaglutide is increasingly used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, overweight and other conditions. It is well known that semaglutide lowers blood glucose levels and leads to significant weight loss. Still, a systematic review has yet to investigate the adverse effects with semaglutide for all patient groups.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science) and clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised clinical trials. We expect to conduct the literature search in July 2024. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk-of-bias assessments. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing oral or subcutaneous semaglutide versus placebo. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause hospitalisation and non-serious adverse events. Data will be synthesised by meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis; risk of bias will be assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for statistical and clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol does not present any results. Findings of this systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024499511.

Efficacy and tolerability of the Subcutaneous Semaglutide for type 2 Diabetes patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To update and assess the efficacy and tolerability of once weekly subcutaneous semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, Clinical trial, Springer, OVID, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) were searched from inception to January 18, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing subcutaneous semaglutide with placebo or any other antidiabetic agent in adults with T2D were eligible. The risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined to synthesize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 17 trials enrolling 14,940 T2D patients were included. For efficacy, compared with placebo, semaglutide exhibited beneficial effects on glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) control [MD -0.97%, 95% CI (-1.33, -0.62), I2 = 91%; MD -1.36%, 95% CI (-1.59, -1.13), I2 = 84%, semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively], body weight reduction, blood pressure control. At the same time, subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg reduced HbA1c by 0.56% (95% CI 0.32 to 0.80) and 0.63% (95% CI 0.35 to 0.91) compared to other glucose-lowering agents. For tolerability, semaglutide did not increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), severe or blood glucose (BG) confirmed hypoglycaemia, acute pancreatitis and diabetic retinopathy compared to placebo or active comparators, but did increase the risk of nausea, diarrhea and vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Semaglutide has a better effect on glycaemic control and weight loss than other therapies. Nevertheless, semaglutide was associated with increased incidence of gastrointestinal-related disorders. Further large, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trials are still needed to obtain more robust evidence to better guide clinical treatment decisions.

Role of Novel Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Analogue Polyethylene Glycol Loxenatide in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Polyethylene glycol loxenatide (peg-loxenatide) is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist developed and available for clinical use in China. This meta-analysis was performed as no meta-analysis has analysed the efficacy and safety of peg-loxenatide in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

Methods

Electronic databases were systematically reviewed for RCTs having patients living with T2DM receiving peg-loxenatide in treatment arm and placebo/any other diabetes medicine in control arm. The primary outcome was to evaluate changes in glycated haemoglobin. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate alterations in weight, blood pressure, fasting glucose, prandial glucose, lipids, and adverse events.

Results

Data from four trials (718 patients) were analysed. Over 12-24 weeks of clinical use, HbA1c was significantly lower in patients receiving standard-dose peg-loxenatide (100 mcg/week) {MD -0.95% [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.19 to -0.71]; P < 0.01; I2 = 76%} and high-dose peg-loxenatide (200 mcg/week) [MD -1.15% (95% CI: -1.47 to -0.82); P < 0.01; I2 = 90%], as compared to placebo. Standard-dose peg-loxenatide was not associated with increased occurrence of nausea [RR 2.87 (95% CI: 0.56 to 14.72); P = 0.21; I2 = 10%], vomiting [RR 4.73 (95% CI: 0.53 to 41.88); P = 0.16; I2 = 0%], and anorexia [RR 0.78 (95% CI: 0.18 to 3.28); P = 0.73; I2 = 0%]. Occurrence of nausea [RR 16.85 (95% CI: 3.89 to 72.92); P < 0.01; I2 = 10%], vomiting [RR 15.90 (95% CI: 2.99 to 84.55); P < 0.01; I2 = 0%], and anorexia [RR 3.85 (95% CI: 1.24 to 11.88); P = 0.02; I2 = 0%] was significantly higher with high-dose peg-loxenatide, as compared to placebo.

Conclusion

Peg-loxenatide (100 mcg/week) is the most appropriate dose for clinical use as it is associated with good glycaemic efficacy with minimal gastro-intestinal side effects.

Semaglutide and cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

French national health care insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) (exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Similar data on semaglutide is not-available. Hence, we undertook this systematic review to look at the safety of semaglutide focussing on different cancers.

METHODS

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies involving patients receiving semaglutide in the intervention-arm. Primary outcome was to evaluate the occurrence of pancreatic and thyroid cancers. Secondary outcomes were to the evaluate occurrence of any other malignancies or severe adverse-events.

RESULTS

Data from 37 RCTs and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo-control group, 16,550 patients in active-control group and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analysed. Compared to placebo, occurrence of pancreatic cancer [OR 0.25 (95%CI: 0.03-2.24); P = 0.21], thyroid cancer [OR 2.04 (95%CI: 0.33-12.61); P = 0.44; I2 = 0%] and all neoplasms (benign, malignant and otherwise unspecified) [OR 0.95 (95%CI:0.62-1.45); P = 0.82; I2 = 0%] was similar in the semaglutide group. Compared to active controls, occurrence of pancreatic cancer [OR 0.40 (95%CI:0.09-1.87); P = 0.26; I2 = 0%], thyroid cancer [OR 1.19 (95%CI:0.15-9.66); P = 0.87; I2 = 0%] and all neoplasms (benign, malignant and otherwise unspecified) [OR 0.91 (95% CI: 0.44-1.89); P = 0.79; I2 = 0%] were similar in the semaglutide group. Real-world data analysis revealed single case each of pancreatic cancer and B-cell lymphoma.

CONCLUSION

Semaglutide use in RCTs and real-world studies was not associated with an increased risk of any types of cancer, and this conclusion is supported by a high grade of evidence.

Efficacy and safety of semaglutide on weight loss in obese or overweight patients without diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objectives: This study aims to explore the weight loss effect and safety of semaglutide as a conventional anti-obesity drug systematically in obese or overweight patients without diabetes.

Methods: The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of semaglutide in obese or overweight patients without diabetes were retrieved from PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception until 2 May 2022. Data extraction and quality assessment of studies meeting the inclusion criteria were performed, and statistical analysis was conducted by Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 14.

Results: Eight studies involving 4,567 patients were enrolled in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, semaglutide induced a significant body weight loss (MD: −10.09%; 95% CI: −11.84 to −8.33; p ˂ 0.00001), elicited a larger reduction in body mass index (MD: −3.71 kg/m²; 95% CI: −4.33 to −3.09; p ˂ 0.00001) and waist circumference (MD: −8.28 cm; 95% CI: −9.51 to −7.04; p ˂ 0.00001), achieved weight loss of more than 5, 10, 15, and 20% with a higher proportion of participants. Semaglutide exhibited a positive effect on blood pressure, C-reactive protein, and lipid profiles, expressed more adverse effects than placebo, mainly gastrointestinal reactions. The results were stable and reliable with dose-dependence.

Conclusion: Semaglutide indicated a significant weight loss with an acceptable safety for obese or overweight patients without diabetes.

Optimal dose of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Objective

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the optimal dose of tirzepatide (TZP) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

Methods

Clinical trials of TZP for T2DM were obtained by searching 8 databases with a time limit from database creation to May 2022. Mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were used for continuous variables, and relative risk (RR) and 95%CI were used for dichotomous variables.

Results

Compared with TZP 5 mg, meta-analysis showed that TZP 10 mg significantly reduced glycosylated hemoglobin type A1c (HbA1c) (MD −0.24, 95%CI −0.31~-0.17, P &lt; 0.00001), fasting serum glucose (FSG) (MD −5.82, 95%CI −8.35~-3.28, P &lt; 0.00001) and weight (MD −2.47, 95%CI −2.95~-1.98, P &lt; 0.00001), and TZP 15 mg significantly reduced HbA1c (MD −0.37, 95%CI −0.44~-0.29, P &lt; 0.00001), FSG (MD −8.52, 95%CI −11.07~-5.98, P &lt; 0.00001) and weight (MD −4.63, 95%CI −5.45~-3.81, P &lt; 0.00001). Compared with TZP 10 mg, TZP 15 mg dramatically reduced HbA1c (MD −0.12, 95%CI −0.19~-0.05, P = 0.001), FSG (MD −2.73, 95%CI −5.29~-0.17, P = 0.04) and weight (MD −2.18, 95%CI −2.67~-1.70, P &lt; 0.00001). The TSA indicated that the benefits observed in the current information set were conclusive, except for the FSG of “TZP 15 mg vs. TZP 10 mg”. In terms of safety endpoints, meta-analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in the serious adverse events (AEs), major adverse cardiovascular events-4 (MACE-4), cardiovascular death, hypertension, cancer and hypoglycemic of the three dose groups of TZP. Compared with TZP 5 mg, TZP 10 mg increased total adverse events (RR 1.06, 95%CI 1.01~1.11, P = 0.03) and gastrointestinal (GI) AEs (RR 1.17, 95%CI 1.03~1.33, P = 0.02), and TZP 15 mg increased total AEs (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.05~1.15, P = 0.0001). There were no significant differences in total AEs and GI AEs for TZP 15 mg compared to TZP 10 mg. The TSA demonstrated that the total AEs of “TZP 15 mg vs. TZP 5 mg” were conclusive.

Conclusions

TZP 15 mg &gt;TZP 10 mg &gt; TZP 5 mg in terms of lowering glycemia and reducing weight. TZP 5 mg &gt; TZP 10 mg = TZP 15 mg in terms of safety. On this basis, we recommend TZP 5 mg as the first-choice dose for patients with T2DM to minimize AEs while reducing glycemia and weight. If patients cannot effectively control their glycemia after taking TZP 5 mg, it is recommended to take TZP 15 mg directly to achieve the best effect of glycemic reduction. However, most of the included studies have the background of basic medication, the independent efficacy and safety of different doses of TZP still need to be tested.

Systematic review registration

Unique Identifier: CRD42022341966.

Impact of semaglutide on biochemical and radiologic measures of metabolic-dysfunction associated fatty liver disease across the spectrum of glycaemia: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

No meta-analysis has analysed efficacy and safety of semaglutide in metabolic-dysfunction associated fatty-liver disease (MAFLD).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for RCTs involving people with MAFLD and/or type-2 diabetes (T2DM) receiving semaglutide. Primary outcome was to evaluate changes in alanine aminotransferase (ALT). Secondary outcomes were to evaluate alterations in other measures of NAFLD, glycaemia, lipids and adverse-events.

RESULTS

Data from 4 RCTs (2115 patients) was analysed. A greater lowering with injectable semaglutide 0.4mg/0.5 mg once weekly was seen with regards to ALT [MD -3.89U/L (95%CI: -5.41 to -2.36); P < 0.01; I² = 0%; 2050 patients], liver stiffness (fibroscan®) [MD -3.19 kPa (95%CI: -3.26 to -3.12); P < 0.01; 162 patients], steatosis [MD -13.40 dB/m (95%CI: 20.56 to -6.24); P < 0.01; 162 patients], triglycerides [MD -21.43 mg/dl (95% CI: 41.63 to -1.23); P = 0.04; I² = 99%; 2050 patients], total cholesterol [MD -5.53 mg/dl (95% CI: -8.45 to -2.61); P < 0.01; I² = 0%; 1888 patients], LDL-cholesterol [MD -3.55 mg/dl (95% CI: -5.87 to -1.23); P < 0.01; I² = 0%; 1888 patients], percent-weight [MD -8.99% (95%CI: -14.64 to -3.34); P = 0.002; I² = 100%; 2115 patient] and HbA1c [MD -0.77% (95%CI: 1.10 to -0.45); P = 0.002; I² = 100%; 2115 patients]. Number of patients inadequate to comment on histopathologic measures of MAFLD. Occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse-events [RR 2.31 (95% CI: 0.76-7.06); P = 0.14; I² = 82%] and severe adverse events [RR 1.07 (95%CI: 0.69-1.65); P = 0.77; I² = 33%] were comparable. Adverse-events leading to trial discontinuation [RR 2.37 (95% CI: 1.33-4.22); P = 0.003; I² = 24%], diarrhea [RR 2.05 (95%CI: 1.17-3.60); P = 0.01; I² = 66%], nausea [RR 4.98 (95%CI: 3.23-7.67); P < 0.001; I² = 0%] and vomiting [RR 3.90 (95%CI: 1.75-8.68); P < 0.01; I² = 54%] were higher with semaglutide.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides reassuring data on efficacy of low dose semaglutide injections in improving ALT and certain radiologic features in MAFLD. Current conclusions are limited by small number of patients evaluated. Urgent need remains for larger studies focussing on liver biopsy.

Semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of safety and efficacy outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To assess the safety and efficacy of semaglutide compared with placebo and other anti-hyperglycaemic agents in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare different doses, durations, and interventions in T2DM. We presented results as mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-six included RCTs studied different doses of subcutaneous (SC) and oral semaglutide, tirzepatide, liraglutide, sitagliptin, canagliflozin, and empagliflozin compared with placebo. Tirzepatide showed the highest efficacy, however, it was comparable to semaglutide. SC semaglutide 1 mg once-weekly showed higher reduction in HbA_1c (MD = -1.72, 95% CI [-2.32; -1.12]), and fasting blood glucose (MD = -1.93, 95% CI [-2.81; -1.04]) versus placebo at 30 weeks and other timepoints. Adverse events (ADs) were comparable to placebo with oral and SC semaglutide, oral sitagliptin, SC liraglutide, and oral empagliflozin at most timepoints. However, SC semaglutide 0.8 mg and tirzepatide 10 mg groups had the highest gastrointestinal adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Tirzepatide, oral and SC semaglutide has a favourable efficacy in treating T2DM. The adverse events were comparable to placebo; however, gastrointestinal adverse events were highly recorded in tirzepatide, oral and SC semaglutide groups.

Semaglutide and Diabetic Retinopathy Risk in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Semaglutide is a recently approved glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The SUSTAIN 6 trial found a significantly higher rate of retinopathy complications in the semaglutide-treated group compared with the placebo group.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the association between semaglutide and the risk of retinopathy in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

Electronic databases were systematically searched up to April 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials that reported diabetic retinopathy (DR) events in semaglutide-treated and control groups. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 software to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 23 randomized trials involving 22,096 patients with T2DM were included. There were 730 incident DR cases-463 in the semaglutide group and 267 in the control group. Overall, semaglutide was not associated with increased DR risk compared with controls when all trials were combined (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98-1.33). Subgroup analysis showed that semaglutide was associated with an increased risk of DR compared with placebo (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.50). Moreover, patient age ≥ 60 years and diabetes duration ≥ 10 years were also factors for increased risk of DR when using semaglutide (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.59; RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04-1.58, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Semaglutide was not associated with an increased risk of DR; however, caution regarding DR risk is needed for older patients or those with long diabetes duration when taking semaglutide.

Weekly Semaglutide vs. Liraglutide Efficacy Profile: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) is a class of hypoglycemic medications. Semaglutide once-weekly (QW) and liraglutide once-daily (OD) significantly improved glycemic control compared to placebo. To date, no long-term phase III trials directly comparing semaglutide and liraglutide are available. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare the long-term efficacy of semaglutide and liraglutide.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception until June 2019 to identify relevant articles. Nine long-term randomized controlled trials comparing once-weekly semaglutide or liraglutide with placebo or other active comparisons were identified. The outcomes of interest were changes in HbA1c and weight after 52 weeks. A Bayesian framework and NMA were used for data synthesis. This is a sub-study of the protocol registered in PROSPERO (number CRD42018091598).

RESULTS

The data showed significant superiority in HbA1c reduction of semaglutide 1 mg QW over liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg with a treatment difference of 0.47% and 0.3%, respectively. Semaglutide 0.5 mg QW was found to be significantly superior to liraglutide 1.2 mg in HbA1c reduction with a treatment difference of 0.17%. Regarding weight reduction analysis, semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg QW were significantly associated with a greater reduction than liraglutide 0.6 mg with a treatment difference of 2.42 and 3.06 kg, respectively. However, no significant reduction was found in comparison to liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Semaglutide improved the control of blood glucose and body weight. The capacity of long-term glycemic control and body weight control of semaglutide appears to be more effective than other GLP-1 RAs, including liraglutide. However, considering the number of included studies and potential limitations, more large-scale, head-to-head, well-designed randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to confirm these findings.

Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

Of 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p<0.01). Discrepancies in reporting were common between similar PRISMA-P and PRISMA items.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis.

The cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 Diabetes: a systematic literature review

Introduction: As a novel glucagon-like peptide-1receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment, the economic value of once-weekly semaglutide had been assessed in several country settings. The authors' objective was to systematically review the existing pharmacoeconomic literature evaluating the cost-effectiveness associated with once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 RAs and provide implications for further researches.Areas covered: We conducted a systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) published up to 25 July 2020 in PubMed, web of science, and the ISPOR presentation database, compared once-weekly semaglutide with other GLP-1 RAs in T2D. Nineteen studies were identified, including 8 short-term and 11 long-term studies. General characteristics and main results of the included studies were summarized.Expert opinion: This review provided references for other countries to overview the value of once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 RAs in T2D in the healthcare decision-making process and to conduct their CEA studies associated with once-weekly semaglutide. The authors found that the cardiovascular (CV) benefit of once-weekly semaglutide was under-estimated in current studies and suggested that the methods of economic evaluations for novel anti-diabetic drugs with CV benefit should be improved in future researches.

Effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists on comorbidities in older patients with diabetes mellitus

Elderly patients with diabetes are at high risk of polypharmacy because of multiple coexisting diseases and syndromes. Polypharmacy increases the risk of drug–drug and drug–disease interactions in these patients, who may already have age-related sensory and cognitive deficits; such deficits may delay timely communication of early symptoms of adverse drug events. Several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been approved for diabetes: liraglutide, exenatide, lixisenatide, dulagluatide, semaglutide, and albiglutide. Some are also approved for treatment of obesity. The current review of literature along with clinical case discussion provides evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs as diabetes medications for polypharmacy reduction in older diabetes patients because of their multiple pleiotropic effects on comorbidities (e.g. hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and fatty liver) and syndromes (e.g. osteoporosis and sleep apnea) that commonly co-occur with diabetes. Using one medication (in this case, GLP-1 RAs) to address multiple conditions may help reduce costs, medication burden, adverse drug events, and medication nonadherence.