Evidence mapPaperPMID 41596262Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2026

Agent- and Dose-Specific Intestinal Obstruction Safety of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and SGLT2 Inhibitors: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Jiann-Jy Chen, Chih-Wei Hsu, Chao-Ming Hung, Mein-Woei Suen, Hung-Yu Wang, Wei-Chieh Yang, Brendon Stubbs, Yen-Wen Chen, Tien-Yu Chen, Wei-Te Lei and 9 more

Abstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Jiann-Jy ChenProspect Clinic for Otorhinolaryngology & Neurology, Kaohsiung 81166, Taiwan.
Chih-Wei HsuDepartment of Psychiatry, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833401, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-8650-4060
Chao-Ming HungDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, E-Da Cancer Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung 82445, Taiwan.
Mein-Woei SuenDepartment of Psychology, College of Medical and Health Science, Asia University, Taichung 41354, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-3991-0322
Hung-Yu WangKaohsiung Municipal Kai-Syuan Psychiatric Hospital, Kaohsiung 80276, Taiwan.
Wei-Chieh YangDepartment of Pediatrics, Ping An Medical Clinic, Tainan 708, Taiwan.
Brendon StubbsDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK.
Yen-Wen ChenProspect Clinic for Otorhinolaryngology & Neurology, Kaohsiung 81166, Taiwan.
Tien-Yu ChenDepartment of Psychiatry, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei 114202, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-8462-1311
Wei-Te LeiDivision of Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, Hsinchu Municipal MacKay Children's Hospital, Hsinchu 30068, Taiwan.
Andre F CarvalhoInnovation in Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Treatment (IMPACT) Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine, Barwon Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia.
Shih-Pin HsuSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung 82445, Taiwan.
Yow-Ling ShiueInstitute of Precision Medicine, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-0798-5028
Bing-Yan ZengInstitute of Biomedical Sciences, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan.
Cheng-Ta LiDepartment of Psychiatry, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112201, Taiwan.
Kuan-Pin SuMind-Body Interface Research Center (MBI Lab & Care), China Medical University Hospital, Taichung 40447, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-4501-2502
Chih-Sung LiangDepartment of Psychiatry, Beitou Branch, Tri-Service General Hospital, School of Medicine, National Defense Medical University, Taipei 114202, Taiwan.
Bing-Syuan ZengDepartment of Internal Medicine, E-Da Cancer Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung 82445, Taiwan.
Ping-Tao TsengProspect Clinic for Otorhinolaryngology & Neurology, Kaohsiung 81166, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-5761-7800

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have reshaped pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes, but emerging safety signals suggest a possible association with intestinal obstruction. Because many candidates for these agents already harbor risk factors for ileus and bowel obstruction, clarifying agent- and dose-specific gastrointestinal safety is clinically important. We aimed to re-evaluate the risk of intestinal obstruction across individual GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, with particular attention to dose stratification. We systematically searched eight databases through 21 January 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors with placebo or active comparators in adults. The primary outcome was incident intestinal obstruction (small or large bowel). A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across drugs and dose tiers; Bayesian models and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) metrics were used for sensitivity analyses and treatment ranking. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed with standard Cochrane and GRADE-adapted tools. Fifty RCTs (47 publications; 192,359 participants) met inclusion criteria. Overall, canagliflozin use was associated with a higher incidence of intestinal obstruction than control therapies (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.01-6.49), corresponding to an absolute risk difference of 0.15% and a number needed to harm of 658. High-dose canagliflozin (300 mg/day) showed the clearest signal (OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.08-10.76). In contrast, liraglutide was associated with a lower risk of intestinal obstruction (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24-0.81), with an absolute risk reduction of 0.34% and a number needed to treat of 295. No other GLP-1 receptor agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor demonstrated a statistically significant increase in obstruction risk. Frequentist and Bayesian analyses yielded concordant estimates and rankings. From a randomized-trial perspective, intestinal obstruction risk is not elevated for most GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. A dose-dependent safety signal was observed only for high-dose canagliflozin, whereas liraglutide may confer a protective effect. These findings refine gastrointestinal safety profiles for modern antidiabetic agents and may inform perioperative bowel management, drug selection, and dose optimization in patients at risk for ileus or adhesive obstruction.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor AgonistsHypoglycemic AgentsIntestinal ObstructionSodium-Glucose Transporter 2 InhibitorsDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicGlucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor AgonistsHypoglycemic AgentsSodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitorsadverse effectGLP-1 receptor agonistileusintestine obstructionnetwork meta-analysisSGLT2 inhibitor

Identifiers

PMID41596262
PMCPMC12841245

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.