Skip to content

Study · Systematic review · 2026

8 results

Assessing the risk of diabetic retinopathy progression with GLP-1 receptor agonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yang Q, Hassan W, Ahmed H, Zheng H

BMC ophthalmology30 Jun 2026

PMID42380920 (opens in a new tab)PMCIDPMC13591686 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.1186/s12886-026-05036-9 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-42380920
Read at sourcePubMedAsk about this study
Jump to 8 results

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: CC BY-NC-ND. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study8

2 results from studies that gave the peptide. 2 results from people.

  1. 01HumanSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In one reviewed study of people with diabetes, semaglutide was associated with increased DR progression (RR 1.76, reported interval 1.11-2.79); its comparator was unspecified.

    In plain wordsIn one study of people with diabetes, semaglutide was linked to more retinopathy progression; the comparator was unspecified.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    IncreaseDiabetic retinopathy progression
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Outcome group
    Vision and retina · Eye
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated

    Measurements

    Relative risk
    1.76
    one study; interval 1.11-2.79

    Source sentences

    Summary
    However, semaglutide demonstrated the highest RR for DR progression in two studies (RR = 1.76 [1.11-2.79] and RR = 6.41 [0.67-61.46]), a unique finding contrasting with the overall results.
    5 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a significant cause of vision impairment in patients with diabetes.
    Summary · context
    A comprehensive search of electronic databases identified 161 records, of which 11 studies met the inclusion criteria.
    Summary · context
    Included studies comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies conducted in North America, Europe, and East Asia, with sample sizes ranging from 137 to 9,463 participants.
    Summary · context
    The primary GLP-1RAs analyzed were albiglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, and dulaglutide, compared to either placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors.
    Summary · context
    The primary outcome was DR progression, assessed through pooled relative risk (RR) estimates using a random-effects model.
  2. 02HumanSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In one reviewed study of people with diabetes, semaglutide had DR-progression RR 6.41, with reported interval 0.67-61.46 crossing 1; an increase was not established.

    In plain wordsIn one study of people with diabetes, semaglutide showed an uncertain association with retinopathy progression; its interval crossed the null.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    No significant changeDiabetic retinopathy progression
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Outcome group
    Vision and retina · Eye
    Studied dose
    Dose not stated

    Measurements

    Relative risk
    6.41
    one study; interval 0.67-61.46

    Source sentences

    Summary
    However, semaglutide demonstrated the highest RR for DR progression in two studies (RR = 1.76 [1.11-2.79] and RR = 6.41 [0.67-61.46]), a unique finding contrasting with the overall results.
    5 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a significant cause of vision impairment in patients with diabetes.
    Summary · context
    A comprehensive search of electronic databases identified 161 records, of which 11 studies met the inclusion criteria.
    Summary · context
    Included studies comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies conducted in North America, Europe, and East Asia, with sample sizes ranging from 137 to 9,463 participants.
    Summary · context
    The primary GLP-1RAs analyzed were albiglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, and dulaglutide, compared to either placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors.
    Summary · context
    The primary outcome was DR progression, assessed through pooled relative risk (RR) estimates using a random-effects model.

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. 03HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In reviewed studies of people with diabetes, pooled GLP-1 drugs including liraglutide were not significantly associated with DR progression versus placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28).

    In plain wordsIn people with diabetes, pooled GLP-1 drugs including liraglutide showed no significant retinopathy-progression difference versus placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    No significant changeDiabetic retinopathy progression
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors (pooled comparison)
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Vision and retina · Eye

    Measurements

    Relative risk
    1.07
    pooled; 95% CI 0.90-1.28

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant association between GLP-1RA use and DR progression (pooled RR = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.28).
    5 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a significant cause of vision impairment in patients with diabetes.
    Summary · context
    A comprehensive search of electronic databases identified 161 records, of which 11 studies met the inclusion criteria.
    Summary · context
    Included studies comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies conducted in North America, Europe, and East Asia, with sample sizes ranging from 137 to 9,463 participants.
    Summary · context
    The primary GLP-1RAs analyzed were albiglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, and dulaglutide, compared to either placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors.
    Summary · context
    The primary outcome was DR progression, assessed through pooled relative risk (RR) estimates using a random-effects model.

    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. 04HumanNot a test of Semaglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In reviewed studies of people with diabetes, pooled GLP-1 drugs including semaglutide were not significantly associated with DR progression versus placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28).

    In plain wordsIn people with diabetes, pooled GLP-1 drugs including semaglutide showed no significant retinopathy-progression difference versus placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    No significant changeDiabetic retinopathy progression
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors (pooled comparison)
    Analysis
    Primary
    Outcome group
    Vision and retina · Eye

    Measurements

    Relative risk
    1.07
    pooled; 95% CI 0.90-1.28

    Source sentences

    Summary
    The meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant association between GLP-1RA use and DR progression (pooled RR = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.28).
    5 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a significant cause of vision impairment in patients with diabetes.
    Summary · context
    A comprehensive search of electronic databases identified 161 records, of which 11 studies met the inclusion criteria.
    Summary · context
    Included studies comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies conducted in North America, Europe, and East Asia, with sample sizes ranging from 137 to 9,463 participants.
    Summary · context
    The primary GLP-1RAs analyzed were albiglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, and dulaglutide, compared to either placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors.
    Summary · context
    The primary outcome was DR progression, assessed through pooled relative risk (RR) estimates using a random-effects model.

    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. 05HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In reviewed studies of people with diabetes, subgroup comparisons across GLP-1 drug types including liraglutide showed no significant difference in DR progression.

    In plain wordsIn people with diabetes, retinopathy progression did not differ significantly across GLP-1 drug types including liraglutide.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    No significant changeDiabetic retinopathy progression by GLP-1 receptor agonist type
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    GLP-1 receptor agonist types
    Outcome group
    Vision and retina · Eye

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Subgroup analyses by GLP-1RA type and geographical location also showed no significant differences.
    6 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a significant cause of vision impairment in patients with diabetes.
    Summary · context
    A comprehensive search of electronic databases identified 161 records, of which 11 studies met the inclusion criteria.
    Summary · context
    Included studies comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies conducted in North America, Europe, and East Asia, with sample sizes ranging from 137 to 9,463 participants.
    Summary · context
    The primary GLP-1RAs analyzed were albiglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, and dulaglutide, compared to either placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors.
    Summary · context
    The primary outcome was DR progression, assessed through pooled relative risk (RR) estimates using a random-effects model.
    Summary · context
    Subgroup analyses were conducted by GLP-1RA type and geographical location.

    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. 06HumanNot a test of Semaglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In reviewed studies of people with diabetes, subgroup comparisons across GLP-1 drug types including semaglutide showed no significant difference in DR progression.

    In plain wordsIn people with diabetes, retinopathy progression did not differ significantly across GLP-1 drug types including semaglutide.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    No significant changeDiabetic retinopathy progression by GLP-1 receptor agonist type
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    GLP-1 receptor agonist types
    Outcome group
    Vision and retina · Eye

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Subgroup analyses by GLP-1RA type and geographical location also showed no significant differences.
    6 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a significant cause of vision impairment in patients with diabetes.
    Summary · context
    A comprehensive search of electronic databases identified 161 records, of which 11 studies met the inclusion criteria.
    Summary · context
    Included studies comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies conducted in North America, Europe, and East Asia, with sample sizes ranging from 137 to 9,463 participants.
    Summary · context
    The primary GLP-1RAs analyzed were albiglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, and dulaglutide, compared to either placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors.
    Summary · context
    The primary outcome was DR progression, assessed through pooled relative risk (RR) estimates using a random-effects model.
    Summary · context
    Subgroup analyses were conducted by GLP-1RA type and geographical location.

    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. 07HumanNot a test of Liraglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In reviewed studies of people with diabetes receiving GLP-1 drugs including liraglutide, geographical subgroup comparisons showed no significant difference in DR progression.

    In plain wordsIn people with diabetes in GLP-1 studies including liraglutide, retinopathy progression did not differ significantly across regions.

    Peptide
    Liraglutide
    Outcome
    No significant changeDiabetic retinopathy progression by geographical location
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Geographical locations
    Outcome group
    Vision and retina · Eye

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Subgroup analyses by GLP-1RA type and geographical location also showed no significant differences.
    6 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a significant cause of vision impairment in patients with diabetes.
    Summary · context
    A comprehensive search of electronic databases identified 161 records, of which 11 studies met the inclusion criteria.
    Summary · context
    Included studies comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies conducted in North America, Europe, and East Asia, with sample sizes ranging from 137 to 9,463 participants.
    Summary · context
    The primary GLP-1RAs analyzed were albiglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, and dulaglutide, compared to either placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors.
    Summary · context
    The primary outcome was DR progression, assessed through pooled relative risk (RR) estimates using a random-effects model.
    Summary · context
    Subgroup analyses were conducted by GLP-1RA type and geographical location.

    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. 08HumanNot a test of Semaglutide aloneSystematic reviewSafety outcome

    In reviewed studies of people with diabetes receiving GLP-1 drugs including semaglutide, geographical subgroup comparisons showed no significant difference in DR progression.

    In plain wordsIn people with diabetes in GLP-1 studies including semaglutide, retinopathy progression did not differ significantly across regions.

    Peptide
    Semaglutide
    Outcome
    No significant changeDiabetic retinopathy progression by geographical location
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Geographical locations
    Outcome group
    Vision and retina · Eye

    Source sentences

    Summary
    Subgroup analyses by GLP-1RA type and geographical location also showed no significant differences.
    6 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a significant cause of vision impairment in patients with diabetes.
    Summary · context
    A comprehensive search of electronic databases identified 161 records, of which 11 studies met the inclusion criteria.
    Summary · context
    Included studies comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies conducted in North America, Europe, and East Asia, with sample sizes ranging from 137 to 9,463 participants.
    Summary · context
    The primary GLP-1RAs analyzed were albiglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, and dulaglutide, compared to either placebo or SGLT-2 inhibitors.
    Summary · context
    The primary outcome was DR progression, assessed through pooled relative risk (RR) estimates using a random-effects model.
    Summary · context
    Subgroup analyses were conducted by GLP-1RA type and geographical location.

    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.