Risk of Sight-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy with Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Use in Routine Clinical Practice: Comparative Effectiveness of Semaglutide, Dulaglutide, Liraglutide, and Exenatide.

Barkmeier AJ, Deng Y, Swarna KS, Herrin J, Polley EC, Umpierrez GE, Galindo RJ, Ross JS, Mickelson MM, McCoy RG

Ophthalmology. Retina6 Aug 2025Cited by 6 (Europe PMC)

PMID40774571DOI10.1016/j.oret.2025.07.019PepBankPUB-40774571

Publisher page PubMedAsk about this study

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 study18

18 results from studies that gave the peptide. 18 results from people.

01HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide did not differ significantly from dulaglutide in composite DME or PDR treatment hazard (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79-1.19).
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide and dulaglutide did not differ significantly in eye-complication treatment hazard.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
No significant changeComposite treatment for diabetic macular edema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
Dulaglutide
Analysis
Primary
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
HR
0.97
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI
0.79 to 1.19
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
liraglutide versus dulaglutide (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.79-1.19)
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
no differences were found in the hazard (hazard ratio [HR]) of composite treatment for DME or PDR:
Summary · context
Retrospective observational study under the target trial emulation framework involving adult (≥21 years) enrollees in United States commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2022.
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457101
02HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide did not differ significantly from dulaglutide in DME treatment hazard (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.24).
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide and dulaglutide did not differ significantly in diabetic macular edema treatment hazard.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
No significant changeTreatment for diabetic macular edema
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
Dulaglutide
Analysis
Primary
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
HR
0.99
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI
0.79 to 1.24
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
nor were differences found in any comparisons for treatment of DME (HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.74-1.18]; HR 0.99 [95% CI: 0.79-1.24]; HR: 1.06 [95% CI: 0.80-1.40])
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
exenatide versus dulaglutide (HR 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-1.12), liraglutide versus dulaglutide (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.79-1.19), or liraglutide versus exenatide (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.83-1.38)
Summary · context
Retrospective observational study under the target trial emulation framework involving adult (≥21 years) enrollees in United States commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2022.
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457102
03HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide did not differ significantly from dulaglutide in PDR treatment hazard (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.73-1.51).
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide and dulaglutide did not differ significantly in proliferative retinopathy treatment hazard.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
No significant changeTreatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
Dulaglutide
Analysis
Primary
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
HR
1.05
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI
0.73 to 1.51
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
or PDR individually (HR: 1.16 [95% CI: 0.81-1.67]; HR: 1.05 [95% CI: 0.73-1.51]; HR: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.58-1.40).
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
exenatide versus dulaglutide (HR 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-1.12), liraglutide versus dulaglutide (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.79-1.19), or liraglutide versus exenatide (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.83-1.38)
Summary · context
Retrospective observational study under the target trial emulation framework involving adult (≥21 years) enrollees in United States commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2022.
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457103
04HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk, semaglutide did not differ significantly from dulaglutide in composite DME or PDR treatment hazard (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70-1.11).
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk, semaglutide and dulaglutide did not differ significantly in eye-complication treatment hazard.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
No significant changeComposite treatment for diabetic macular edema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
Dulaglutide
Analysis
Primary
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
HR
0.88
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI
0.7 to 1.11
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
Likewise, when comparing patients initiating semaglutide (n = 30 911, median follow-up 625 days [IQR: 455-850]) versus dulaglutide (n = 32 844, median follow-up 639 days [IQR: 459-878]), the hazards for treatment of DME or PDR (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.70-1.11), DME (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.69-1.14), and PDR…
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Retrospective observational study under the target trial emulation framework involving adult (≥21 years) enrollees in United States commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2022.
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457104
05HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk, semaglutide did not differ significantly from dulaglutide in DME treatment hazard (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.14).
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk, semaglutide and dulaglutide did not differ significantly in diabetic macular edema treatment hazard.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
No significant changeTreatment for diabetic macular edema
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
Dulaglutide
Analysis
Primary
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
HR
0.89
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI
0.69 to 1.14
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
Likewise, when comparing patients initiating semaglutide (n = 30 911, median follow-up 625 days [IQR: 455-850]) versus dulaglutide (n = 32 844, median follow-up 639 days [IQR: 459-878]), the hazards for treatment of DME or PDR (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.70-1.11), DME (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.69-1.14), and PDR…
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Retrospective observational study under the target trial emulation framework involving adult (≥21 years) enrollees in United States commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2022.
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457105
06HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk, semaglutide did not differ significantly from dulaglutide in PDR treatment hazard (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45-1.09).
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk, semaglutide and dulaglutide did not differ significantly in proliferative retinopathy treatment hazard.
Peptide
Semaglutide
Outcome
No significant changeTreatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
Dulaglutide
Analysis
Primary
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
HR
0.7
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI
0.45 to 1.09
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
Likewise, when comparing patients initiating semaglutide (n = 30 911, median follow-up 625 days [IQR: 455-850]) versus dulaglutide (n = 32 844, median follow-up 639 days [IQR: 459-878]), the hazards for treatment of DME or PDR (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.70-1.11), DME (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.69-1.14), and PDR…
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Retrospective observational study under the target trial emulation framework involving adult (≥21 years) enrollees in United States commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2022.
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457106
07HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide did not differ significantly from exenatide in composite DME or PDR treatment hazard (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83-1.38).
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide and exenatide did not differ significantly in eye-complication treatment hazard.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
No significant changeComposite treatment for diabetic macular edema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
Exenatide
Analysis
Primary
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
HR
1.08
liraglutide versus exenatide
95% CI
0.83 to 1.38
liraglutide versus exenatide
Source sentences
Summary
liraglutide versus exenatide (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.83-1.38)
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
no differences were found in the hazard (hazard ratio [HR]) of composite treatment for DME or PDR:
Summary · context
Retrospective observational study under the target trial emulation framework involving adult (≥21 years) enrollees in United States commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2022.
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457107
08HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide did not differ significantly from exenatide in DME treatment hazard (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.80-1.40).
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide and exenatide did not differ significantly in diabetic macular edema treatment hazard.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
No significant changeTreatment for diabetic macular edema
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
Exenatide
Analysis
Primary
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
HR
1.06
liraglutide versus exenatide
95% CI
0.8 to 1.4
liraglutide versus exenatide
Source sentences
Summary
nor were differences found in any comparisons for treatment of DME (HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.74-1.18]; HR 0.99 [95% CI: 0.79-1.24]; HR: 1.06 [95% CI: 0.80-1.40])
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
exenatide versus dulaglutide (HR 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-1.12), liraglutide versus dulaglutide (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.79-1.19), or liraglutide versus exenatide (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.83-1.38)
Summary · context
Retrospective observational study under the target trial emulation framework involving adult (≥21 years) enrollees in United States commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2022.
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457108
09HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide did not differ significantly from exenatide in PDR treatment hazard (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58-1.40).
In plain wordsIn adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk, liraglutide and exenatide did not differ significantly in proliferative retinopathy treatment hazard.
Peptide
Liraglutide
Outcome
No significant changeTreatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
Exenatide
Analysis
Primary
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
HR
0.91
liraglutide versus exenatide
95% CI
0.58 to 1.4
liraglutide versus exenatide
Source sentences
Summary
or PDR individually (HR: 1.16 [95% CI: 0.81-1.67]; HR: 1.05 [95% CI: 0.73-1.51]; HR: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.58-1.40).
3 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
exenatide versus dulaglutide (HR 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-1.12), liraglutide versus dulaglutide (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.79-1.19), or liraglutide versus exenatide (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.83-1.38)
Summary · context
Retrospective observational study under the target trial emulation framework involving adult (≥21 years) enrollees in United States commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2022.
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457109
10HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes, dulaglutide and liraglutide had similar hazards of treatment for DME or PDR.
In plain wordsIn adults with diabetes, dulaglutide was linked to similar risk of treatment for sight-threatening retinopathy compared with liraglutide.
Peptide
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
Outcome
No significant changeDME or PDR treatment
Study
n = 80,349
Comparator
Liraglutide
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
Hazard ratio, composite DME or PDR treatment
0.97 HR
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI of hazard ratio, composite DME or PDR treatment
0.79 to 1.19 HR
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
liraglutide versus dulaglutide (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.79-1.19)
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457111
11HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes, dulaglutide and liraglutide had similar hazards of DME treatment.
In plain wordsIn adults with diabetes, dulaglutide was linked to similar risk of macular edema treatment compared with liraglutide.
Peptide
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
Outcome
No significant changeDME treatment
Study
n = 80,349
Comparator
Liraglutide
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
Hazard ratio, DME treatment
0.99 HR
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI of hazard ratio, DME treatment
0.79 to 1.24 HR
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
nor were differences found in any comparisons for treatment of DME (HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.74-1.18]; HR 0.99 [95% CI: 0.79-1.24]; HR: 1.06 [95% CI: 0.80-1.40])
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457113
12HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes, dulaglutide and liraglutide had similar hazards of PDR treatment.
In plain wordsIn adults with diabetes, dulaglutide was linked to similar risk of proliferative retinopathy treatment compared with liraglutide.
Peptide
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
Outcome
No significant changePDR treatment
Study
n = 80,349
Comparator
Liraglutide
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
Hazard ratio, PDR treatment
1.05 HR
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI of hazard ratio, PDR treatment
0.73 to 1.51 HR
liraglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
or PDR individually (HR: 1.16 [95% CI: 0.81-1.67]; HR: 1.05 [95% CI: 0.73-1.51]; HR: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.58-1.40).
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457115
13HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes, dulaglutide and exenatide had similar hazards of treatment for DME or PDR.
In plain wordsIn adults with diabetes, dulaglutide was linked to similar risk of treatment for sight-threatening retinopathy compared with exenatide.
Peptide
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
Outcome
No significant changeDME or PDR treatment
Study
n = 68,863
Comparator
Exenatide
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
Hazard ratio, composite DME or PDR treatment
0.9 HR
exenatide versus dulaglutide
95% CI of hazard ratio, composite DME or PDR treatment
0.73 to 1.12 HR
exenatide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
exenatide versus dulaglutide (HR 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-1.12)
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457110
14HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes, dulaglutide and exenatide had similar hazards of DME treatment.
In plain wordsIn adults with diabetes, dulaglutide was linked to similar risk of macular edema treatment compared with exenatide.
Peptide
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
Outcome
No significant changeDME treatment
Study
n = 68,863
Comparator
Exenatide
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
Hazard ratio, DME treatment
0.93 HR
exenatide versus dulaglutide
95% CI of hazard ratio, DME treatment
0.74 to 1.18 HR
exenatide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
nor were differences found in any comparisons for treatment of DME (HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.74-1.18]; HR 0.99 [95% CI: 0.79-1.24]; HR: 1.06 [95% CI: 0.80-1.40])
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457112
15HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes, dulaglutide and exenatide had similar hazards of PDR treatment.
In plain wordsIn adults with diabetes, dulaglutide was linked to similar risk of proliferative retinopathy treatment compared with exenatide.
Peptide
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
Outcome
No significant changePDR treatment
Study
n = 68,863
Comparator
Exenatide
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
Hazard ratio, PDR treatment
1.16 HR
exenatide versus dulaglutide
95% CI of hazard ratio, PDR treatment
0.81 to 1.67 HR
exenatide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
or PDR individually (HR: 1.16 [95% CI: 0.81-1.67]; HR: 1.05 [95% CI: 0.73-1.51]; HR: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.58-1.40).
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457114
16HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes, dulaglutide and semaglutide had similar hazards of treatment for DME or PDR.
In plain wordsIn adults with diabetes, dulaglutide was linked to similar risk of treatment for sight-threatening retinopathy compared with semaglutide.
Peptide
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
Outcome
No significant changeDME or PDR treatment
Study
n = 63,755
Comparator
Semaglutide
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
hazard ratio, DME or PDR treatment
0.88 HR
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI of hazard ratio
0.7 to 1.11 HR
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
the hazards for treatment of DME or PDR (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.70-1.11), DME (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.69-1.14), and PDR (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.45-1.09) all found no difference between drugs.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457116
17HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes, dulaglutide and semaglutide had similar hazards of DME treatment.
In plain wordsIn adults with diabetes, dulaglutide was linked to similar risk of macular edema treatment compared with semaglutide.
Peptide
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
Outcome
No significant changeDME treatment
Study
n = 63,755
Comparator
Semaglutide
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
hazard ratio, DME treatment
0.89 HR
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI of hazard ratio
0.69 to 1.14 HR
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
the hazards for treatment of DME or PDR (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.70-1.11), DME (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.69-1.14), and PDR (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.45-1.09) all found no difference between drugs.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457117
18HumanObservational studySafety outcome
In adults with type 2 diabetes, dulaglutide and semaglutide had similar hazards of PDR treatment.
In plain wordsIn adults with diabetes, dulaglutide was linked to similar risk of proliferative retinopathy treatment compared with semaglutide.
Peptide
Dulaglutide (Trulicity)
Outcome
No significant changePDR treatment
Study
n = 63,755
Comparator
Semaglutide
Outcome group
Adverse events · Eye
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
hazard ratio, PDR treatment
0.7 HR
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
95% CI of hazard ratio
0.45 to 1.09 HR
semaglutide versus dulaglutide
Source sentences
Summary
the hazards for treatment of DME or PDR (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.70-1.11), DME (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.69-1.14), and PDR (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.45-1.09) all found no difference between drugs.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes, moderate cardiovascular disease risk, no baseline advanced diabetic retinopathy, and minimum 1 year enrollment before GLP-1 RA treatment.
Report a problemFND-4077457118

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.

Versions 6 to 11Current
28 Oct 2026, 02:03 UTC
The same notice was added 6 times, first on 22 Oct 2026, 02:26 UTC. The status did not change between them.
Study results updated
Versions 4 to 5
21 Oct 2026, 18:59 UTC
The same notice was added 2 times, first on 21 Oct 2026, 18:59 UTC. The status did not change between them.
Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC
Version 3
12 Oct 2026, 11:11 UTC
Study results updated
Version 2
9 Oct 2026, 03:06 UTC
Study data updated · source update from Europe PMC
Version 1
9 Oct 2026, 03:04 UTC
First added · source update from Europe PMC