Nezam El-Tayebat Fact CheckA scientific assessment of the “نظام الطيبات” nutrition system
Choose country
Choose language: English

Unclear / insufficient evidence Not supported by high-quality evidence Certainty of evidence: low provisional C-ODD-04

Injectable diabetes and weight-loss drugs (GLP-1 receptor agonists) can trigger pancreatitis and cysts.

In short: This claim is unclear for pancreatitis and unsupported for cysts: large trials with adjudicated events show no clear pancreatitis increase, while pooled smaller trials suggest at most a small rise in a rare event; no evidence links these drugs to pancreatic cysts.
Conclusion: Unclear: large trials with adjudicated events show no clear pancreatitis increase, pooled smaller trials suggest at most a small rise in a rare event, and there is no evidence for cysts.
  1. Original statement
  2. Scientific assessment
  3. Scientific evidence in detail
  4. In plain language
  5. Studies on this claim
  6. Regional context
  7. What applies in my country?
  8. References

Original statement

وأدوية السكري والتخسيس المحقونة قد تُحدث التهاب البنكرياس والأكياس.

not verbatim – paraphrase. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

Injectable diabetes and weight-loss drugs (GLP-1 receptor agonists) can trigger pancreatitis and cysts.

Origin

Source status
Archive quote (no location given)
Attribution
Elawady (archive paraphrase; source video not given)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/rule/oral-diabetes-drugs/
Attribution uncertainty
The archive attributes this text to Dr. Diaa in its 'د. ضياء يقول' box but gives no video reference. Transcript check (the project's research files, keyword search of 307 archive transcripts): found_close_paraphrase. GLP-1-based injectables ('gliptins', Mounjaro, Victoza) causing pancreatitis and a cyst 'stuck to the pancreas' are found in 0pG3-_Gr3eA.
Claimed health effect

Acute pancreatitis; cysts

Population concerned

Users of GLP-1 receptor agonists

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Diverging source versions

يعمل السودو سيست اللي يعمل كيس لازق في البنكريس ده التهاب مزمن وبيعملوا ادويه السكر زي الجليبتس والمونجارو والفيكتوزا والحاجات الحقن دي كل دول يعملوا التهاب بنك كرياس اسمع ركز مع ودانك اسمع الكلمتين

Injectable diabetes drugs such as gliptins, Mounjaro and Victoza all cause pancreatitis; pancreatic pseudocysts are a form of chronic inflammation.

Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! (Open source)
Published
10 August 2025
Timestamp
0:43:16 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
Attribution uncertainty
Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; 'published' is the date listed by the archive and may be the upload date. Live-stream transcripts can contain viewer comments read aloud; the quoted passage was checked in context to be spoken by Elawady.

Scientific assessment

Unclear / insufficient evidence – The data do not allow an assessment either way.

Certainty of evidence: low – Further research is likely to change the assessment considerably.

1. What was claimed?

GLP-1 injections cause pancreatitis and cysts.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

An administrative US case-control study found adjusted OR 2.24 for current GLP-1-based therapy use (A-ODD-14). Product labels warn about pancreatitis; ADA 2026 notes that 'acute pancreatitis has been reported, but causality has not been established' (I-ODD-16). GLP-1 receptor agonists frequently cause gastrointestinal adverse effects (A-ODD-15, I-ODD-07).

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

A meta-analysis of three long-term blinded RCTs with adjudicated pancreatitis (9,347 vs 9,353 patients) found no increased risk (Peto OR 0.745) (I-ODD-11); in LEADER acute pancreatitis was not increased with liraglutide (18 vs 23 cases) (I-ODD-06); in SAVOR-TIMI (DPP-4 inhibitor) pancreatitis rates were similar (A-ODD-08). The case-control study had strong confounding: cases had far more gallstones, alcohol use, hypertriglyceridaemia and obesity (A-ODD-14). No evidence was found for 'cysts'; LEADER did not assess pancreatic cysts.

4. What remains unclear?

Whether a very small absolute increase in pancreatitis exists; trial sequential analysis suggested more evidence is needed (I-ODD-11). LEADER recorded more pancreatic carcinomas with liraglutide (13 vs 5; p=0.06) and more acute gallstone disease (3.1% vs 1.9%; p<0.001), a known cause of pancreatitis; the trial neither confirms nor excludes pancreatic neoplasia (I-ODD-06).

5. Which studies support it?

A-ODD-14 (case-control OR 2.24, confounded); I-ODD-113 (meta-analysis of 62 mostly short RCTs: RR 1.44, 1.09-1.89, not significant within strata); label warnings and ADA 2026 (I-ODD-16).

6. Which studies contradict it?

I-ODD-11 (adjudicated outcome trials: Peto OR 0.745), I-ODD-112 (8 outcome trials, 60,080 patients: no increase in pancreatic adverse effects), I-ODD-06 (LEADER 18 vs 23 cases), A-ODD-08. No study links GLP-1 RAs to pancreatic cysts.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Same EU labelling.

8. What is known about Egypt?

GLP-1 RAs for weight loss are increasingly used, partly obtained without prescription; supervision is advisable.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Severe persistent abdominal pain on GLP-1 RA therapy needs medical evaluation; current evidence does not show a clear causal pancreatitis risk.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

Observational studies show associations (OR about 2 in a US claims case-control study), labels carry warnings, but meta-analysis of large blinded RCTs found no increase (Peto OR 0.745, 95% CI 0.47-1.17). 'Cysts' is not specified; no evidence was found linking GLP-1 RAs to pancreatic cysts. The word 'can' makes the claim weak; a rare effect cannot be ruled out.

Source quality

Archive paraphrase without video reference.

Regional transferability

Universal.

Individual exceptions

History of pancreatitis or gallstone disease increases baseline risk; rapid weight loss raises gallstone risk.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

Not supported by high-quality evidence – There is no good evidence for the claim; this alone does not prove it wrong.

Research question: Do GLP-1 receptor agonists increase the risk of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cysts?

Research question in detail (PICO)
Population
People with type 2 diabetes or obesity
Intervention or exposure
GLP-1 receptor agonists (and tirzepatide)
Comparison
Placebo or other drugs
Geographic scope
universal biology
Outcomes
  • Acute pancreatitis
  • Pancreatic cysts / cystic neoplasms

Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.

What speaks for the claim?

What speaks against the claim?

What does the overall evidence say?

Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.

Which position is better supported?

Large blinded outcome trials with adjudicated events show no clear increase in pancreatitis; a pooled analysis of many smaller trials suggests a small relative increase of a rare event. A rare effect cannot be excluded, which is why labels advise stopping the drug if pancreatitis is suspected. No evidence was found that GLP-1 RAs cause pancreatic cysts; only two case reports and expert reviews on use in people who already have cystic neoplasms were found.

Why some studies weigh more

Adjudicated outcome trials weigh more than investigator-reported events in short trials and confounded claims data.

Is a causal relationship established? Not established ADA 2026: pancreatitis reported but causality not established.

Remaining uncertainty

Whether a very small absolute increase exists; effects in people with gallstones.

Justified conclusion

Pancreatitis is a possible rare effect that is not proven; the 'cysts' part is unsupported.

Why do studies seem to disagree?

Wen 2025 (RR 1.44) and outcome-trial meta-analyses (no increase) differ in trial selection (short trials with variable pancreatitis definitions and fixed-effect pooling vs large adjudicated trials). They are compatible with, at most, a small relative increase in a rare event.

Does this depend on the country?
General biological effects
Drug pharmacology and physiology are universal.
Eating habits
Prolonged fasting, Ramadan fasting and very-low-carbohydrate eating change the risk of hypoglycaemia and ketoacidosis with some drugs; relevant in Egypt and among Muslims in Europe.
Origin of the food
Not applicable.
Contaminants
Not applicable.
National production conditions
Not applicable (same active substances; generics widely used in Egypt).
Legal rules
Drug labels and warnings are set by FDA/EMA and national regulators; Egyptian labelling not reviewed.
Actual monitoring data
No Egypt-specific pharmacovigilance data were found for this outcome.

A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.

Statistical re-check
  • CI symmetry; pooled vs subgroup significance – All CIs symmetric; significant pooled estimate with non-significant strata reflects reduced power. recalculated
  • LEADER absolute difference in pancreatitis – 0.39% vs 0.49%: -0.11 percentage points (CI -0.37 to 0.16). recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
Main outcome
Acute pancreatitis with GLP-1 RAs vs placebo
Starting level
high (randomised trials)
Reasons for downgrading
  • inconsistency (outcome trials vs pooled smaller trials)
  • imprecision (rare events)
Result
low

Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.

Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
  • ADA: 9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026 (Diabetes Care 2026;49 Suppl 1) (2026) · Original publication
    Pancreatitis: acute pancreatitis has been reported, but causality has not been established; do not initiate if at high risk; discontinue if suspected. Avoid incretin drugs in people with a history of pancreatitis.
Search strategy

Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).

DatabaseDateSearchLooking forHitsIncluded
PubMed26 October 2026("GLP-1 receptor agonist*"[tiab] OR semaglutide[tiab] OR liraglutide[tiab] OR tirzepatide[tiab] OR incretin*[tiab]) AND pancreatitis[ti] AND (meta-analysis[pt] OR systematic review[pt]) AND 2021:2026[dp]both directions5
PubMed26 October 2026("GLP-1"[tiab] OR incretin[tiab] OR semaglutide[tiab] OR liraglutide[tiab] OR exenatide[tiab]) AND ("pancreatic cyst*"[tiab] OR "intraductal papillary"[tiab] OR IPMN[tiab])supporting evidence9
PubMed26 October 2026Sattar N[au] AND "GLP-1 receptor agonists"[tiab] AND meta-analysis[ti] AND 2021[dp]contradicting evidence2
ADA Standards of Care 2026, Section 9 (PubMed Central)26 October 2026Fetched https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12690185/; Table 9.2 safety statements. The diabetesjournals.org DOI landing pages returned HTTP 403; the identical article was read in PubMed Central.guidelines1

Open questions

Long-term pancreatic safety with high-dose obesity treatment; effect in people with existing cystic lesions.

How deeply was this checked?

8 linked studies: 3 checked in full text (1 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 5 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.

Last scientific review: 26 October 2026

History of the verdict
  1. 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Unclear / insufficient evidence (low)
  2. 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Unclear / insufficient evidence (low)
    A new RCT meta-analysis (I-ODD-113) adds modest support for a small pancreatitis increase, while the outcome-trial meta-analysis (I-ODD-112) supports no increase; the balance remains uncertain. No evidence for cysts was found.
    New sources: I-ODD-112 I-ODD-113

In plain language

Some database studies suggested that GLP-1 injections might cause pancreas inflammation, but large randomised trials did not find more cases than with placebo. Doctors still warn patients to report severe stomach pain. There is no evidence that these drugs cause cysts.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (2)

  • GLP-1 drugs and pancreatitis in US claims

    Singh S et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2013 · PMID 23440284 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2720
    Case-control studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked

    Users had about twice the odds of pancreatitis, but they also had more risk factors.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    GLP-1-based therapies and acute pancreatitis

    How was the study done?

    Population-based matched case-control (US claims)

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    1,269 cases, 1,269 controls; Adults 18-64 with type 2 diabetes

    What was actually found?

    aOR 2.24.

    How large was the observed effect?

    aOR 2.24 (1.36-3.68)

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Signal not confirmed in trials.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Strong confounding; Claims data

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports C-ODD-04.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    US data.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Causation.

    Scientific details →

  • Pooled trials hint at slightly more pancreatitis with GLP-1 drugs

    Wen J et al.. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab 2025 · PMID 40988099 · DOI 10.1002/edm2.70113
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study

    RR 1.44 overall, but not significant in subgroups; events rare.

    RR 1.44 for pancreatitis; no data on cysts.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Assess pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in GLP-1 RA trials.

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis of 62 RCTs.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    66,232 patients.

    What was actually found?

    Small overall increase in pancreatitis; no overall increase in pancreatic cancer.

    How large was the observed effect?

    RR 1.44 (1.09-1.89).

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    If there is an extra risk, it is small; severe abdominal pain should be checked.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Fixed-effect model, mixed definitions, short trials.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Partly supports 'can trigger pancreatitis'; no support for cysts.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    That GLP-1 RAs cause pancreatic cysts.

    Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (3)

  • GLP-1 drugs and pancreatitis in trials

    Storgaard H et al.. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017 · PMID 28105738 · DOI 10.1111/dom.12885
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    In large blinded trials, pancreatitis was not more frequent with GLP-1 drugs than placebo.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    GLP-1 RAs and acute pancreatitis

    How was the study done?

    Systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term placebo-controlled RCTs with adjudicated pancreatitis

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    3 RCTs; 9,347 vs 9,353; Type 2 diabetes

    What was actually found?

    OR 0.745 (n.s.).

    How large was the observed effect?

    Peto OR 0.745 (0.47-1.17)

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    No clear pancreatitis risk.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Only 3 trials; Rare outcome

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts C-ODD-04.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Multinational trial including European sites or directly applicable to EU practice.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Exclude very small risk.

    Scientific details →

  • Saxagliptin heart safety trial

    Scirica BM et al.. N Engl J Med 2013 · PMID 23992601 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1307684
    Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked

    No effect on heart attacks or strokes, but more heart failure hospitalisations (3.5% vs 2.8%, i.e. 0.7 percentage points).

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    CV safety/efficacy of saxagliptin

    How was the study done?

    Double-blind placebo-controlled CV outcome RCT (SAVOR-TIMI 53)

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    16,492; Type 2 diabetes with or at risk for CV events

    What was actually found?

    HR 1.00 primary; HF HR 1.27.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 1.27 HF

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Avoid saxagliptin in heart failure risk.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Short follow-up; Industry funded

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports C-ODD-05; limits C-ODD-04.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Multinational/US/UK data; transferable to EU practice.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Class-wide harm.

    Scientific details →

  • GLP-1 injections in 60,080 people: fewer deaths, no more pancreas problems

    Sattar N et al.. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2021 · PMID 34425083 · DOI 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00203-5
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Death HR 0.88; MACE HR 0.86; no increase in pancreatic adverse effects.

    No increase in pancreatic adverse effects in 8 outcome trials.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Pool GLP-1 RA outcome trials.

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis of 8 RCTs.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    60,080 patients.

    What was actually found?

    Benefits on heart, kidney and survival; no pancreatic safety signal.

    How large was the observed effect?

    MACE -14%, death -12%.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    In large trials these drugs prolonged life and did not cause more pancreatitis.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Exact pancreatitis numbers not in abstract.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts a clear pancreatitis risk and net harm.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Very rare effects.

    Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (3)

  • Stomach and bowel side effects of weight-loss injections

    Sodhi M et al.. JAMA 2023 · PMID 37796527 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2023.19574
    Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked

    Not verified (no abstract).

    Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    GI adverse events with GLP-1 RAs used for weight loss (per title)

    How was the study done?

    Research letter; retrospective cohort (no abstract in PubMed; full text could not be retrieved)

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    not verifiable; not verifiable

    What was actually found?

    Not verified.

    How large was the observed effect?

    not verified

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    GI side effects are common with GLP-1 RAs (RCTs).

    What are the study's limitations?

    Not read

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Background for C-ODD-04.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    unknown

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Anything quantitative.

    Scientific details →

  • ADA guideline 2026: diabetes medicines

    American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee for Diabetes*. Diabetes Care 2026 · PMID 41358900 · DOI 10.2337/dc26-S009
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study

    Insulin is essential in type 1 diabetes; SGLT2/GLP-1 drugs are recommended for heart and kidney protection; side effects listed.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Pharmacologic glycaemic treatment

    How was the study done?

    Clinical practice guideline (ADA Standards of Care 2026, Section 9)

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    not applicable; People with type 1 and type 2 diabetes

    What was actually found?

    See results.

    How large was the observed effect?

    not applicable

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Medicines chosen by benefit-risk.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Partially read

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts C-INS-07, C-INS-10, C-ODD-06; supports C-ODD-07, C-INS-11.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Consistent with ADA/EASD consensus.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Not applicable.

    Scientific details →

  • Liraglutide heart trial

    Marso SP et al.. N Engl J Med 2016 · PMID 27295427 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1603827
    Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    Fewer heart deaths and deaths overall; pancreatitis not increased, but more gallstone disease and a small, non-significant excess of pancreatic cancer.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    CV outcomes of liraglutide

    How was the study done?

    Double-blind placebo-controlled RCT (LEADER)

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    9,340; Type 2 diabetes with high CV risk

    What was actually found?

    Heart attack, stroke or heart death 13.0% vs 14.9%; deaths 8.2% vs 9.6%; acute pancreatitis 18 vs 23 patients; pancreatic cancer 13 vs 5 (not significant); gallstone disease 3.1% vs 1.9%.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 0.87; death HR 0.85

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    This drug class protects heart and/or kidneys in the studied patients.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Industry funded with sponsor co-analysis; high-risk population; safety outcomes not powered and not adjusted for multiple testing; 3.5-5 years follow-up.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts C-ODD-06; limits C-ODD-04.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Multinational trial including European sites or directly applicable to EU practice.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Benefit in low-risk people; that pancreatic cancer risk is absent or present (too few cases); anything about pancreatic cysts.

    Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

Same EU labelling.

Egypt

GLP-1 RAs for weight loss are increasingly used, partly obtained without prescription; supervision is advisable.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Unclear / insufficient evidence Unclear: large trials with adjudicated events show no clear pancreatitis increase, pooled smaller trials suggest at most a small rise in a rare event, and there is no evidence for cysts.

This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.

References

  1. Glucagonlike peptide 1-based therapies and risk of hospitalization for acute pancreatitis in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a population-based matched case-control study.. Singh S et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2013 · PMID 23440284 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2720
  2. Evaluating the Rates of Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer Among GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.. Wen J et al.. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab 2025 · PMID 40988099 · DOI 10.1002/edm2.70113
  3. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and risk of acute pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes.. Storgaard H et al.. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017 · PMID 28105738 · DOI 10.1111/dom.12885
  4. Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.. Scirica BM et al.. N Engl J Med 2013 · PMID 23992601 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1307684
  5. Cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.. Sattar N et al.. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2021 · PMID 34425083 · DOI 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00203-5
  6. Risk of Gastrointestinal Adverse Events Associated With Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for Weight Loss.. Sodhi M et al.. JAMA 2023 · PMID 37796527 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2023.19574
  7. 9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026.. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee for Diabetes*. Diabetes Care 2026 · PMID 41358900 · DOI 10.2337/dc26-S009
  8. Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.. Marso SP et al.. N Engl J Med 2016 · PMID 27295427 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1603827

← Back to overview