ArticleBiomedical reports2026
Semaglutide and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with and without DM: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Semaglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), has been associated with cardiovascular benefits, whereas the consistency of its effect across various clinical settings, as well as its safety-economic profile, remains uncertain. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched up to January 2025 and identified 11 randomized controlled trials (12 comparisons; 25,067 participants) comparing semaglutide with placebo or active control. Using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model, semaglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 32% [pooled odds ratio (OR)=0.68; 95%; confidence interval 0.52-0.91; 95% prediction interval 0.44-1.04]. Point estimates remained unchanged after censoring all STEP obesity trials (OR=0.70) or both heart-failure trials (OR=0.66), indicating a negligible institution-level effect. Mixed-effects meta-regression analysis revealed greater benefit with lower body weight, LDL- and total cholesterol levels, and lesser benefit with higher age, HbA1c and blood pressure (all P<0.01). Safety pooling found higher risks of any gastrointestinal (GI) disorder [relative risk (RR)=1.47], gallbladder events (RR=2.37), and discontinuation due to GI intolerance (RR 2.32). A total of seven out of 11 trials enrolled ≥75% White patients, none of whom were from low-income countries, limiting generalizability. Besides, U.S. cost-utility models published in the literature report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$ 180,000-260,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, above conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Overall, semaglutide demonstrated marked cardiovascular risk reduction at all doses and across all populations, with low statistical heterogeneity. However, this benefit must be weighed against GI intolerance, limited racial and geographic representation and uncertain cost-effectiveness outside high-income regions. Future trials must oversample underrepresented minorities, extend to low- and middle-income regions, and include formal economic evaluations to further refine population-specific benefit-risk profiles and value estimates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.