BACKGROUND: Semaglutide, as an innovative weekly formulation, has attracted much attention. Nevertheless, the predominant occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events (GIAEs) poses a noteworthy challenge linked to the use of this medication, substantially affecting its clinical applicability and the overall well-being of patients. Therefore, this systematic review aims to comprehensively discuss the GIAEs, providing a basis for clinical therapeutic decisions.
METHODS: We systematically searched 4 independent databases for randomized controlled trials investigating the application of semaglutide in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus. The search period spanned from the inception of the databases to December 2023. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis, employing Review Manager 5.4.1 software, to systematically analyze and evaluate potential biases. Our primary emphasis was on assessing the gastrointestinal safety profile of semaglutide.
RESULTS: The outcomes unveiled a noteworthy rise in the collective occurrence of GIAEs across all dosage groups of semaglutide in comparison with the control group (P < .05). Upon further analysis, it was observed that semaglutide showed a heightened occurrence of GIAEs in contrast to the placebo. However, statistically significant distinction was not observed when compared to the reduction of conventional doses or the transition to other types of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. Additionally, an extended treatment duration with semaglutide (>30 weeks) demonstrated an association with a certain degree of decrease in the incidence of gastrointestinal events. Funnel plot assessment for publication bias demonstrated high-quality inclusion of studies with no apparent publication bias.
CONCLUSION: The frequency of GIAEs in using semaglutide was observed to be elevated in comparison to the control group. However, it was comparable to other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist or low-dose treatment regimens. Additionally, an extended treatment duration played a role in decreasing the frequency of GIAEs. These findings provide valuable insights for clinical practice. Nonetheless, further research is crucial to explore supplementary data indicators, informing clinical practices and better serving the interests of patients.