Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2025

6 results

Impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abdulraheem A, Abujaber B, Ayers L, Al-Zureikat Q, Bashiri K, Almhanni G, Altork N, Afzal U, Qarkash D, Spyros P, Cho WK

Surgical endoscopy9 Jul 2025Cited by 6 (Europe PMC)

Summary

The text of this summary is not shown here, because the article license does not allow reuse. Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)

Text rights: Publisher copyright. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study6

No result from this study comes from a test of the peptide.

Studies that did not test the peptide alone6

In this study, the peptide was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. These results are not evidence about taking the peptide.

  1. 01HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In reviewed upper-endoscopy cohorts, pooled GLP-1 drugs including liraglutide were associated with higher gastric residual content rates than non-use (OR 5.57, 95% CI 4.07 to 7.62); no native-specific estimate was supplied.

    In plain wordsIn endoscopy cohorts, pooled drugs including liraglutide were linked to higher retained-content rates than non-use.

    Outcome
    IncreaseGastric residual content
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Non-users
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Gastrointestinal adverse events · Gastrointestinal

    Measurements

    Odds ratio
    5.57
    gastric residual content
    95% CI
    4.07 to 7.62
    gastric residual content

    Source sentences

    Summary
    GLP-1 RA use demonstrated significantly higher rates of GRC compared to non-users (OR: 5.57; 95% CI: 4.07-7.62), an association that remained statistically significant on the analysis of adjusted ORs (3.18; 95% CI: 2.75-3.67).
    4 context sentences
    Summary · context
    We conducted a systematic review of studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (until November 2024), as well as relevant abstracts from Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2024 and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 to assess the impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) on EGD.
    Summary · context
    The primary analysis assessing the association between GLP-1 RA use and GRC or aspiration events included 20 retrospective studies with a total of 207,708 patients (23,366 GLP-1 RA users).
    Summary · context
    A network meta-analysis comparing semaglutide (PO/SQ), exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide in terms of GRC showed no significant difference across these agents (chi square 0.966, p = 0.96).
    Summary · context
    The primary outcomes were the rate of GRC and the rate of aspiration pneumonia.

    In this study, Liraglutide was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Liraglutide.

  2. 02HumanNot a test of Semaglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In reviewed upper-endoscopy cohorts, pooled GLP-1 drugs including semaglutide were associated with higher gastric residual content rates than non-use (OR 5.57, 95% CI 4.07 to 7.62); no native-specific estimate was supplied.

    In plain wordsIn endoscopy cohorts, pooled drugs including semaglutide were linked to higher retained-content rates than non-use.

    Outcome
    IncreaseGastric residual content
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Non-users
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Gastrointestinal adverse events · Gastrointestinal

    Measurements

    Odds ratio
    5.57
    gastric residual content
    95% CI
    4.07 to 7.62
    gastric residual content

    Source sentences

    Summary
    GLP-1 RA use demonstrated significantly higher rates of GRC compared to non-users (OR: 5.57; 95% CI: 4.07-7.62), an association that remained statistically significant on the analysis of adjusted ORs (3.18; 95% CI: 2.75-3.67).
    4 context sentences
    Summary · context
    We conducted a systematic review of studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (until November 2024), as well as relevant abstracts from Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2024 and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 to assess the impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) on EGD.
    Summary · context
    The primary analysis assessing the association between GLP-1 RA use and GRC or aspiration events included 20 retrospective studies with a total of 207,708 patients (23,366 GLP-1 RA users).
    Summary · context
    A network meta-analysis comparing semaglutide (PO/SQ), exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide in terms of GRC showed no significant difference across these agents (chi square 0.966, p = 0.96).
    Summary · context
    The primary outcomes were the rate of GRC and the rate of aspiration pneumonia.

    In this study, Semaglutide was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Semaglutide.

  3. 03HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In reviewed upper-endoscopy cohorts, pooled GLP-1 use including liraglutide was associated with higher gastric residual content than non-use in adjusted analyses (aOR 3.18, 95% CI 2.75 to 3.67); the native contribution was not separately estimated.

    In plain wordsIn endoscopy cohorts, adjusted analyses linked pooled drugs including liraglutide to higher retained-content risk than non-use.

    Outcome
    IncreaseAdjusted gastric residual content association
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Non-users
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Gastrointestinal adverse events · Gastrointestinal

    Measurements

    Adjusted odds ratio
    3.18
    adjusted gastric residual content association
    95% CI
    2.75 to 3.67
    adjusted gastric residual content association

    Source sentences

    Summary
    GLP-1 RA use demonstrated significantly higher rates of GRC compared to non-users (OR: 5.57; 95% CI: 4.07-7.62), an association that remained statistically significant on the analysis of adjusted ORs (3.18; 95% CI: 2.75-3.67).
    5 context sentences
    Summary · context
    We conducted a systematic review of studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (until November 2024), as well as relevant abstracts from Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2024 and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 to assess the impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) on EGD.
    Summary · context
    The primary analysis assessing the association between GLP-1 RA use and GRC or aspiration events included 20 retrospective studies with a total of 207,708 patients (23,366 GLP-1 RA users).
    Summary · context
    A network meta-analysis comparing semaglutide (PO/SQ), exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide in terms of GRC showed no significant difference across these agents (chi square 0.966, p = 0.96).
    Summary · context
    The primary outcomes were the rate of GRC and the rate of aspiration pneumonia.
    Summary · context
    Moreover, to account for possible confounders, adjusted ORs (mainly based on age, sex, body mass index [BMI], diabetes) were pooled and analyzed.

    In this study, Liraglutide was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Liraglutide.

  4. 04HumanNot a test of Semaglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In reviewed upper-endoscopy cohorts, pooled GLP-1 use including semaglutide was associated with higher gastric residual content than non-use in adjusted analyses (aOR 3.18, 95% CI 2.75 to 3.67); the native contribution was not separately estimated.

    In plain wordsIn endoscopy cohorts, adjusted analyses linked pooled drugs including semaglutide to higher retained-content risk than non-use.

    Outcome
    IncreaseAdjusted gastric residual content association
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Non-users
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Gastrointestinal adverse events · Gastrointestinal

    Measurements

    Adjusted odds ratio
    3.18
    adjusted gastric residual content association
    95% CI
    2.75 to 3.67
    adjusted gastric residual content association

    Source sentences

    Summary
    GLP-1 RA use demonstrated significantly higher rates of GRC compared to non-users (OR: 5.57; 95% CI: 4.07-7.62), an association that remained statistically significant on the analysis of adjusted ORs (3.18; 95% CI: 2.75-3.67).
    5 context sentences
    Summary · context
    We conducted a systematic review of studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (until November 2024), as well as relevant abstracts from Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2024 and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 to assess the impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) on EGD.
    Summary · context
    The primary analysis assessing the association between GLP-1 RA use and GRC or aspiration events included 20 retrospective studies with a total of 207,708 patients (23,366 GLP-1 RA users).
    Summary · context
    A network meta-analysis comparing semaglutide (PO/SQ), exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide in terms of GRC showed no significant difference across these agents (chi square 0.966, p = 0.96).
    Summary · context
    The primary outcomes were the rate of GRC and the rate of aspiration pneumonia.
    Summary · context
    Moreover, to account for possible confounders, adjusted ORs (mainly based on age, sex, body mass index [BMI], diabetes) were pooled and analyzed.

    In this study, Semaglutide was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Semaglutide.

  5. 05HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In a network meta-analysis across semaglutide (PO/SQ), exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide, gastric residual content risk did not differ significantly across agents (chi square 0.966; p = 0.96).

    In plain wordsIn endoscopy studies, retained-content risk showed no significant difference across semaglutide, liraglutide, exenatide and dulaglutide.

    Outcome
    No significant changeGastric residual content risk across agents
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Semaglutide (PO/SQ), exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide
    Analysis
    Secondary
    Outcome group
    Gastrointestinal adverse events · Gastrointestinal

    Measurements

    Chi square
    0.966
    gastric residual content risk across agents
    P value
    0.96
    gastric residual content risk across agents

    Source sentences

    Summary
    A network meta-analysis comparing semaglutide (PO/SQ), exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide in terms of GRC showed no significant difference across these agents (chi square 0.966, p = 0.96).
    4 context sentences
    Summary · context
    We conducted a systematic review of studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (until November 2024), as well as relevant abstracts from Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2024 and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 to assess the impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) on EGD.
    Summary · context
    Secondary outcomes included the incidence of aborted EGDs due to GRC, the effect of concurrent CLN on GRC, and a comparison of GRC risk among different GLP-1 RA agents.
    Summary · context
    A network meta-analysis was conducted to assess differences in GRC risk across the various GLP-1 RAs.
    Summary · context
    The primary analysis assessing the association between GLP-1 RA use and GRC or aspiration events included 20 retrospective studies with a total of 207,708 patients (23,366 GLP-1 RA users).

    In this study, Liraglutide was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Liraglutide.

  6. 06HumanNot a test of Semaglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In a network meta-analysis across semaglutide (PO/SQ), exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide, gastric residual content risk did not differ significantly across agents (chi square 0.966; p = 0.96).

    In plain wordsIn endoscopy studies, retained-content risk showed no significant difference across semaglutide, liraglutide, exenatide and dulaglutide.

    Outcome
    No significant changeGastric residual content risk across agents
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Semaglutide (PO/SQ), exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide
    Analysis
    Secondary
    Outcome group
    Gastrointestinal adverse events · Gastrointestinal

    Measurements

    Chi square
    0.966
    gastric residual content risk across agents
    P value
    0.96
    gastric residual content risk across agents

    Source sentences

    Summary
    A network meta-analysis comparing semaglutide (PO/SQ), exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide in terms of GRC showed no significant difference across these agents (chi square 0.966, p = 0.96).
    4 context sentences
    Summary · context
    We conducted a systematic review of studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (until November 2024), as well as relevant abstracts from Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2024 and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 to assess the impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) on EGD.
    Summary · context
    Secondary outcomes included the incidence of aborted EGDs due to GRC, the effect of concurrent CLN on GRC, and a comparison of GRC risk among different GLP-1 RA agents.
    Summary · context
    A network meta-analysis was conducted to assess differences in GRC risk across the various GLP-1 RAs.
    Summary · context
    The primary analysis assessing the association between GLP-1 RA use and GRC or aspiration events included 20 retrospective studies with a total of 207,708 patients (23,366 GLP-1 RA users).

    In this study, Semaglutide was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Semaglutide.

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

  1. Version 3Current

    12 Oct 2026, 11:11 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. Version 2

    9 Oct 2026, 03:06 UTC

    Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC

  3. Version 1

    9 Oct 2026, 03:05 UTC

    First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.