Scholarlink

Background <p>Type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s disease (PD) share underlying pathways, including insulin resistance and neuroinflammation. While glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) show neuroprotective promise in preclinical models, clinical trials have produced conflicting results. This meta-analysis systematically evaluates the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs in PD, specifically distinguishing between symptomatic relief and potential disease modification.</p> Methods <p>We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase through November 2025 for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of GLP-1 RAs in idiopathic PD. The primary motor outcome, the Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III (motor examination), was analyzed using a random-effects model and strictly stratified by “ON” versus “OFF” medication states.</p> Results <p>We included four high-quality trials comprising 667 patients. GLP-1 RAs failed to significantly improve motor function in either the OFF-medication state (mean difference [MD] − 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] − 2.81 to 1.43; <i>p</i> = 0.52) or ON-medication state (MD − 0.86; 95% CI − 3.35 to 1.63; <i>p</i> = 0.50). Furthermore, no meaningful benefits emerged for non-motor symptoms, cognition, or quality of life. Conversely, treatment significantly increased gastrointestinal adverse events, including nausea (risk ratio [RR] = 2.48), vomiting (RR = 4.53), and clinically concerning weight loss (RR = 3.32).</p> Conclusions <p>Synthesizing the latest phase 3 data, current GLP-1 RAs offer neither disease-modifying nor symptomatic motor benefits for the broader PD population. Given the pronounced risk of weight loss, their routine use is unwarranted. Future trials must shift focus toward biologically enriched subgroups or newer-generation incretin analogs.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists in Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月11日

查看全文
  • Amr Khalid Abdallah,
  • Ahmed Harb,
  • Anas Mansour,
  • Asmaa Nasreldin,
  • Rofida Hamdy,
  • Nourhan Hatem,
  • Nada Mosad,
  • Mohamed Hamouda,
  • Abdelrahman Hamouda,
  • Kogulavadanan Arumaithurai

摘要

Background

Type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s disease (PD) share underlying pathways, including insulin resistance and neuroinflammation. While glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) show neuroprotective promise in preclinical models, clinical trials have produced conflicting results. This meta-analysis systematically evaluates the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs in PD, specifically distinguishing between symptomatic relief and potential disease modification.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase through November 2025 for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of GLP-1 RAs in idiopathic PD. The primary motor outcome, the Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III (motor examination), was analyzed using a random-effects model and strictly stratified by “ON” versus “OFF” medication states.

Results

We included four high-quality trials comprising 667 patients. GLP-1 RAs failed to significantly improve motor function in either the OFF-medication state (mean difference [MD] − 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] − 2.81 to 1.43; p = 0.52) or ON-medication state (MD − 0.86; 95% CI − 3.35 to 1.63; p = 0.50). Furthermore, no meaningful benefits emerged for non-motor symptoms, cognition, or quality of life. Conversely, treatment significantly increased gastrointestinal adverse events, including nausea (risk ratio [RR] = 2.48), vomiting (RR = 4.53), and clinically concerning weight loss (RR = 3.32).

Conclusions

Synthesizing the latest phase 3 data, current GLP-1 RAs offer neither disease-modifying nor symptomatic motor benefits for the broader PD population. Given the pronounced risk of weight loss, their routine use is unwarranted. Future trials must shift focus toward biologically enriched subgroups or newer-generation incretin analogs.