Abstract
Background & Objective:
Although data on the effects of liraglutide and semaglutide in patients with diabetes have been reviewed, their therapeutic outcomes in obese/overweight individuals without diabetes have not been summarized. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate their effects on the latter population.
Methods:
We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. Studies regarding obese/overweight adults without diabetes treated with liraglutide/semaglutide compared with other active agents or placebos were accessed. The primary outcomes were the proportions of adults with at least 5% and 10% weight reduction. The secondary outcomes included metabolic indicators and adverse events.
Results:
Eighteen studies with 10,938 obese/overweight adults without diabetes were included. When stratified by the categories of at least 5% and 10% weight loss, the pooled data showed medians 27.7% and 10.3% of control groups versus 65.3% and 30.7% of liraglutide 3 mg once daily, respectively; whereas medians 47.6% and 20.4% of control groups vs 86.6% and 75.3% of semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly were found in the two categories, respectively. Both agents either improved or had no impact on lipid or glycemia. Liraglutide or semaglutide therapy had discontinuation rates of 2.4%–11.4% which overlapped with 0.7%–8.6% in control groups. The frequency of adverse events was comparable between the treatment groups and the control groups (66.5%–95.8% vs 46.9%–96.1%), which were mild to moderate graded by studies.
Conclusion:
Liraglutide and semaglutide therapy led to a clinically relevant (⩾5%) weight loss of 48.2%–88.7% among obese/overweight adults without diabetes. Both liraglutide and semaglutide are associated with weight loss and are well-tolerated.
Keywords: BMI ⩾ 27 kg/m2, GLP-1, GLP-1RAs, weight loss, weight reduction, without diabetes
Introduction
Obesity is the most common chronic, progressive disease: approximately at least 30% of men and 35% of women are obese worldwide. 1 Obese/overweight adults are usually accompanied by various metabolic diseases. 2 Being obese/overweight is associated with higher all-cause mortality, as adults with a BMI of 27.5–30 kg/m2 had all-cause mortality that was 1.20 times higher than adults with a BMI of 20–25 kg/m2. 3 Being obese/overweight is now the sixth-largest risk factor contributing to the global burden of disease, placing enormous pressure on healthcare systems and societies. 4 Obesity deserves attention given its high prevalence, multiple complications, and unique reversibility.
Effective long-term weight loss and maintenance require continuous lifestyle interventions, including adjusted diet and increased physical activity, which perhaps are tough to keep for obese/overweight adults. 4 Pharmacotherapy, 5 surgery therapy, 6 and ancillary therapy are necessary and effective for some adults who have gone through countless weight loss failures. It is hard to make bariatric surgery widely applicable and tolerant due to its invasive and postoperative complications. 7 Several anti-obesity drugs approved for clinical use have been discontinued due to disappointing side effects. However, the development of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) drugs holds promise for obesity management. The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) is a 36 amino acid peptide hormone with multifaceted actions such as glucose-dependent stimulation of insulin release, inhibition of glucagon secretion, and a decrease in gastric emptying. Several structurally refined GLP-1RAs with enhanced bioavailability have attracted extensive attention, including exenatide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide. 8 Among them, liraglutide and semaglutide are particularly noticeable.
Liraglutide is highly similar to the native GLP-1 sequence with only a few chemical modifications to improve bioavailability and extend the half-life, including replacing lysine at position 34 with arginine and adding a C16 fatty acid at the ɛ-amino group of lysine at position 26. 9 The once-daily 3.0 mg liraglutide has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of obesity. 10 However, the once-daily injection model can cause physical and financial stress for some adults, so the once-weekly injection model for the GLP-1RAs was implemented. Semaglutide is an analogue of liraglutide with a substitution of alanine with an aminoisobutyric acid (Aib) at the 2nd position in the N-terminal. The C16 fatty acid is also exchanged for C18 fatty acid and linked by a synthetic spacer. The half-life of semaglutide extends to 160 h, supporting once-weekly administration. 11 Semaglutide once-weekly 2.4 mg was approved by the FDA in June 2021 for the treatment of overweight/obese individuals. 12
Liraglutide and semaglutide have shown beneficial effects in weight loss for patients with diabetes. While few reviews focused on obese/overweight individuals without diabetes, we aimed to perform a systematic review of semaglutide and liraglutide in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs to provide information about their weight-loss effects and safety in obese/overweight individuals without diabetes.
Methods
Overview of the data search protocol
This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. The PROSPERO has been registered (ID: CRD42021272102). We included RCTs and observational studies if they studied liraglutide or semaglutide compared to either a placebo or other drugs in obese (BMI ⩾ 30 kg/m2) / overweight (BMI ⩾ 27 kg/m2) adults (age ⩾ 18 years) without diabetes, and reported either a proportion of adults achieving at least 5% weight loss or a change of weight outcome. Both English and Chinese language studies were included. We searched literature published before August 1, 2021, from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and two Chinese databases (CNKI and Wanfang). Details of the search strategies are shown in Sup. 2, and study selection procedures are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Data search and collection process. The flowchart presented the process of identifying articles in the systematic review. Among 4,902 articles found, 621 were removed as duplicates, and 4,106 did not meet the inclusion criteria. After screening the rest of the 175 articles, 157 were removed due to the exclusion criteria. The remaining 18 articles were included in the systematic review (12 RCTs and 6 non-RCTs).
Eligibility criteria
We defined studies as eligible for inclusion in this analysis if they met the following criteria: (1) Obese/overweight adults who use liraglutide or semaglutide; (2) RCTs, observational studies; (3) reporting clinical events data of efficacy and safety; and (4) published before 2021/8/1, English or Chinese language. We excluded these publications: (1) age less than 18 years old; (2) with diabetes; (3) animal studies; (4) case reports, case series, or the sample size was too small (N < 10); and (5) unpublished studies.
Outcomes of interest
The primary outcomes were the proportions of adults with at least 5%, 10%, and 15% (if available) weight loss after liraglutide and semaglutide treatment. The secondary outcomes included the changes in metabolic-related indicators including glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), glucose, insulin, total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). We were also concerned about adverse events, including the proportions leading to the discontinuation of drugs, any adverse events, and serious adverse events, such as the prevalence of dose-related gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting), gallbladder disorders, and acute pancreatitis.
Data search process
The literature search was performed by three authors (Y.D., A.P., and L.Z.). A list of eligible publications was generated by screening the titles, abstracts, and keywords of each record. Any record that met the inclusion criteria was obtained in full text. If any of the three authors had doubts based on the title and abstract, the full article was retrieved. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by the corresponding author (C.Q.P.). Selected studies were further reviewed by all authors for the final confirmation based on the criteria.
Data extraction and synthesis
Three review authors (Y.D., A.P., and L.Z.) independently extracted data concerning details of the study designs, population characteristics, co-interventions, and outcomes of interest using a standard data extraction form designed for this review. If necessary, we sought information from the authors of the primary studies. For dichotomous outcomes, the number of events and the total number in each group was extracted. For continuous outcomes, the mean, standard deviation, and sample size of each group were extracted.
Risk of bias assessment
Three reviewers (Y.D., A.P., and L.Z.) independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool (Table S1) for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) (Table S2) for observational studies. The Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) have become the standard approach to assessing the risk of bias in RCTs and observational studies, respectively. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Criteria used to evaluate the quality of evidence were risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision, inconsistency, and publication bias. Each study was assessed by the three reviewers independently (Y.D., A.P., and L.Z.). Disagreements were resolved, when necessary, by recourse to a fourth reviewer (C.Q.P.).
Statistic consideration
No meta-analysis was performed due to the methodologic and statistic heterogeneity of the included studies. The descriptive analyses were performed when we summarized the data. Outcome assessments were presented by using the frequency, a proportion of the study group, or mean ± SD for variables when appropriate.
Overall assessment of data selected
Data inclusion
Through the keywords search, we identified 4,902 studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and two Chinese databases (CNKI and Wanfang) for eligibility for review, of which 621 duplicates were removed. After this, 4,106 studies were excluded due to the title and abstract. Of 175 full-text records, 157 were excluded, leaving 18 eligible studies for inclusion in the review, of which 12 studies were RCTs and 6 studies were non-RCTs. The details of screening and selecting are shown in Figure 1.
Quality of included studies
Results of the risk-of-bias analysis are shown in the Sup 3. Among 12 RCTs, 9 had a low risk of bias,13–21 and 3 had an unclear risk of bias22–24 according to the criteria. No studies were classified as having a high risk of bias. Among 6 observational cohort studies, 2 had a high risk of bias with a score of 6,25,26 while 4 had a low risk of bias with a score ranging from 7 to 8.27–30
Characteristics of included studies
There were 10,938 obese/overweight adults without diabetes enrolled in these 18 studies, where a total of 8797 patients completed these studies. There were 8 studies conducted in multiple countries around the world. Most studies were performed in Europe and America (16 articles) and published in English (17 articles). The enrolled population of different studies with different metabolic comorbidities except diabetes includes dyslipidemia, hypertension, prediabetes, moderate, or severe obstructive sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease. The duration of these studies ranges from 12 weeks to 104 weeks. Among 10,938 obese/overweight adults, 4,146 were treated with liraglutide, 2,996 were treated with semaglutide, and 3,796 were treated with a placebo or other drugs as the control groups.
While the majority of studies (n = 9/18) compared the liraglutide-treated group with placebo or other drugs,13,16,19–23,29,30 four studies observed the efficacy and safety of liraglutide,25–28 four studies compared semaglutide to placebo or other drugs,14,17,18,24 and one study directly compared liraglutide with semaglutide. 15 The characteristics of these studies are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.
The characteristics of studies for investigating liraglutide and semaglutide.
Authors | Countries | Study design | Recruitment time | Patients populations | Control group (placebo or other drugs) |
Total enrolled/completer | Study duration, weeks |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liraglutide vs Control | |||||||
Pi-Sunyer et al. 13 | 27 countries in Europe, North America, South America, Asia, Africa, and Australia | RCT | 2011.6 - 2013.3 | Obesity or Overweight with treated or untreated dyslipidemia or hypertension | Placebo | 2487/1789 vs 1244/801 | 56 |
Astrup et al. 16 | 8 European countries | RCT | 2007.1 to 2007.9 | Obesity and fasting plasma glucose of less than 7 mmol/L |
Placebo and orlistat | 371/314 vs 98/79 vs 95/79 | 20 |
Blackman et al. 22 | USA and Canada | RCT | 2012.6 to 2013.6 | obesity with moderate or severe OSA | Placebo | 180/142 vs 179/134 | 32 |
Wadden et al. 19 | USA | RCT | 2016.9 to 2018.5 | obesity | Placebo | 50/45 vs 50/46 | 52 |
Astrup et al. 20 | 8 European countries | RCT | 2007.1 to 2009.4 | Obesity, and fasting plasma glucose of less than 7 mmol/L |
Placebo and orlistat | 371/289 vs 98/74 vs 95/67 | 104 |
Wadden et al. 21 | USA and Canada | RCT | 2008.10 to 2009.1 | Obesity or Overweight with treated or untreated dyslipidemia or hypertension | Placebo | 212/159 vs 210/146 | 56 |
Ariel et al. 23 | USA | RCT | NR | Overweight with prediabetes | Placebo | 23/23 vs 27/27 | 14 |
Ferrari et al. 27 | Italian | Non-RCT | 2016.10 to 2018.12 | Obesity or Overweight | NR | 93/72 vs NR | 14 |
Gillani and Singh 25 | UK | Non-RCT | NR | Obesity | NR | 34/14 vs NR | 52 |
Chou and Chuang 28 | China (Taiwan) | Non-RCT | 2017.7 to 2018.12 | Overweight with metabolic syndrome | NR | 46/46 vs NR | 12 |
Gorgojo-Martínez et al. 29 | Spain | Non-RCT | 1999.6 to 2018.1 | Obesity or Overweight with one or more weight-related coexisting conditions | Orlistat | 100/100 vs 400/400 | 30 |
Sauer et al. 30 | UK | Non-RCT | NR | Obesity | Exenatide | 36/36 vs 7/7 | 12 |
Zhou et al. 26 | China | Non-RCT | 2015.1 to 2016.1 | Obesity or Overweight | NR | 40/40 vs NR | 12 |
Semaglutide vs Control | |||||||
Wilding et al. 14 | 16 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America | RCT | 2018.6 to 2018.11 | Obesity or Overweight with treated or untreated
hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, or cardiovascular disease |
Placebo | 1306/1212 vs 655/577 | 68 |
O’Neil et al. 15 | 8 countries involving: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, Russia, the UK, and the USA | RCT | 2015.10 to 2016.02 | Obesity | Liraglutide and Placebo |
718/588 vs 103/86 vs 136/103 | 52 |
Wadden et al. 17 | USA | RCT | 2018.8 to 2020.4 | Obesity or Overweight with treated or untreated
hypertension, dyslipidemia, OSA, or cardiovascular disease |
Placebo | 407/339 vs 204/166 | 68 |
Rubino et al. 18 | 10 countries in Asia, Europe, and America | RCT | 2018.6 to 2020.3 | Obesity or Overweight with treated or untreated
hypertension, dyslipidemia, OSA, or cardiovascular disease |
Placebo | 535/504 vs 268/237 | 68 |
Blundell et al. 24 | UK | RCT | NR | Obesity with HbA1c < 6.5%, | Placebo | 30/28 vs 30/28 | 12 |
NR, not report; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea; RCT, Randomized Controlled Trial; UK, The United Kingdom; USA, United States of America.
Baseline characteristics of included studies population
The included studies’ populations had a baseline mean age ranging from 38.5 to 58.0 years, with the proportion of males ranging from 11.6% to 71.9%, and the baseline BMI (mean) ranging from 27.3 to 45.8 kg/m2. Among 18 studies, 16 provided lifestyle-based therapies including restricted caloric intake, forced exercise, and intervened behavior. The behavioral intervention was defined as offering participants an individualized behavioral consultation by a registered dietitian. The consultation provided patients with instructions on diet, physical activity, behavioral strategies, and other lifestyle modifications. Although lifestyle interventions were delivered together with GLP-1RAs therapy in most studies, the duration of the intervention was shorter than the duration of the treatment of GLP-1Ras in some studies. There were inconsistencies in providing details of the lifestyle intervention among studies. In addition, two studies did not mention the lifestyle cointervention and only presented GLP-1RAs therapy.25,26 The baseline characteristics of included studies’ populations are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Baseline characteristics of study population.
Authors | Cointerventions during the study | Baseline characteristics | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Diet | Exercise | Behavior intervention a | Age, years | Male, % | body weight, kg | BMI, kg/m2 | WC, cm | |
Liraglutide | ||||||||
Pi-Sunyer et al. 13 | 500-kcal/d deficit | Brisk walking ⩾ 150 min/wk | Yes | 45.1 ± 12.1 | 21.5 | 106.2 ± 21.4 | 38.3 ± 6.4 | 114.8 ± 14.4 |
Astrup et al.b,16, 20 | 500-kcal/d deficit | maintain or increase physical activity using pedometers | Yes | 45.9 ± 10.3 | 24.0 | 97.2 ± 12.8 | 34.8 ± 2.7 | M:115.7 ± 8.2 F:106.7 ± 9.1 |
Blackman et al. 22 | 500-kcal/d deficit | Brisk walking ⩾ 150 min/wk | Yes | 48.5 ± 9.7 | 71.9 | 117.6 ± 25.1 | 38.7 ± 6.9 | 122.5 ± 14.7 |
Wadden et al. 19 | 1000–1200 kcal/d meal-replacement diet | walking ⩾ 180 min/wk, increased to ⩾ 225 min/wk from weeks 25 to 52 | Yes | 47.4 ± 11.8 | 19 | 106.8 ± 16.3 | 38.3 ± 4.9 | 116.7 ± 11.0 |
Wadden et al. 21 | 500-kcal/d deficit | Brisk walking ⩾ 150 min/wk | Yes | 46.2 ± 11.5 | 18.5 | 99.6 ± 21.0 | 35.6 ± 5.9 | 108.6 ± 15.3 |
Ariel et al. 23 | modest caloric restriction | Brisk walking ⩾ 150 min/wk | Yes | 58.0 ± 7.5 | 21.6 | NR | 35.8 ± 4.8 | NR |
Ferrari et al. 27 | Yes | NR | Yes | 49.0 ± 12.5 | 23.6 | NR | 39.1 ± 5.8 | NR |
Gillani and Singh 25 | NR | NR | NR | 41.0 ± 12 | 14 | 127 ± 19 | 45.8 ± 6.9 | NR |
Chou and Chuang 28 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 38.5 (26.8, 47.0) |
52.2 | 93.1 (80.7, 117.2) |
35.2 (31.0,40.1) |
105.5 (100.0,130.0) |
Gorgojo-Martínez et al. 29 | moderate-fat, restricted-calorie Mediterranean diet | moderate-intensity aerobic exercise 30–45 min/d, 3–5 d/wk | Yes | 48.2 ± 12.2 | 25.4 | 107.3 ± 19.0 | 41.1 ± 6.5 | 114.9 ± 14.4 |
Sauer et al. 30 | 500–800kcal/d | Yes | Yes | 43.1 ± 11.2 | 11.6 | 107.0 ± 24.0 | 37.4 ± 7.3 | NR |
Zhou et al. 26 | NR | NR | NR | 45 ± 6.3 | 50 | 82.2 ± 12.5 | 27.3 ± 2.3 | 96.2 ± 12.2 |
O’Neil et al.c,15 | 500-kcal/d deficit | Brisk walking ⩾ 150 min/wk | Yes | 46.3 ± 12.6 | 35.2 | 111.4 ± 23.2 | 39.3 ± 7.1 | 117.7 ± 14.9 |
Semaglutide | ||||||||
Wilding et al. 14 | 500-kcal/d deficit | Brisk walking ⩾ 150 min/wk | Yes | 46.3 ± 12.7 | 25.9 | 105.3 ± 21.9 | 37.9 ± 6.6 | 114.7 ± 14.7 |
O’Neil et al.c,15 | 500-kcal/d deficit | Brisk walking ⩾ 150 min/wk | Yes | 46.3 ± 12.6 | 35.2 | 111.4 ± 23.2 | 39.3 ± 7.1 | 117.7 ± 14.9 |
Wadden et al. 17 | 1200–1800 kcal/d | physical activity ⩾ 200 min/wk | Yes | 46.0 ± 13.0 | 19.0 | 105.8 ± 22.9 | 38.0 ± 6.8 | 113.0 ± 15.5 |
Rubino et al. 18 | 500-kcal/d deficit | Brisk walking ⩾ 150 min/wk | Yes | 46 ± 12 | 21 | 107.2 ± 22.7 | 38.4 ± 6.9 | 115.38 ± 15.5 |
Blundell et al. 24 | 500-kcal/d deficit | Brisk walking ⩾ 150 min/wk | Yes | 42.0 (21.0,70.0) |
33.3 | 101.3 (81.5,121.2) |
33.8 (30.5,42.8) |
NR |
BMI, body mass index; NR, not report; WC, waist circumference.
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation or medians (interquartile ranges).
Behavior intervention: participants were provided with individual intensive behavioral therapy visits with a registered dietitian, who instructed them in diet, physical activity, and behavioral strategies and so on. Different study have different behavior intervention.
Astrup A’s two studies of 2009 and 2012 used the same population and had the same baseline characteristics.
The study of O’Neil P.M compared semaglutide and liraglutide.
The primary and secondary outcomes of liraglutide and semaglutide
The primary outcomes of liraglutide and semaglutide
All populations treated with liraglutide or semaglutide were associated with effective, sustained, clinically relevant weight loss regardless of the study design and duration. The doses of liraglutide used in these studies include 0.6 mg, 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, 2.4 mg, and 3.0 mg, where 3.0 mg once-daily was the most commonly treated dose. In the liraglutide 3.0 mg daily treated group, the ranges of patients who had more than 5% weight loss were 48.2% to 76.1% and 1.8% to 44.0% in control groups. The ranges of patients who lost ⩾ 10% and ⩾ 15% body weight were 20% to 46% and 8.4% to 28%, while the ranges were 1.8% to 26% and 1.8% to 12% in control groups, respectively. Semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly was the most commonly used dose in clinical applications. In semaglutide treated groups, the ranges of patients who had more than 5%, 10%, and 15% weight loss were 86.4% to 88.7%, 69.1% to 79.0, and 50.5% to 63.7%, while it was 31.5% to 47.6%, 12.0% to 27.0%, and 4.9% to 13.2% in control groups, respectively. The data are shown in Table 3. The studies of Astrup et al.16,20 evaluated the efficacy and safety of different doses of liraglutide (1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, 2.4 mg, 3.0 mg, and the matching placebo group), and concluded that treatment with liraglutide led to a dose-dependent weight loss. They also stated that liraglutide 3.0 mg once daily demonstrated superior weight loss compared to other lower doses and control groups regardless of a 20-week or 104-week duration. One study directly compared liraglutide and semaglutide. O’Neil 15 randomly assigned participants to seven groups (semaglutide [0.05 mg, 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg, 0.3 mg, or 0.4 mg], liraglutide [3·0 mg], and a matching placebo group) and demonstrated that semaglutide 0.05–0.4 mg once-daily led to a statistically significant, clinically relevant, dose-dependent reduction of weight over 52 weeks compared to the placebo group and that semaglutide 0.2 mg once-daily showed superior weight loss than liraglutide 3.0 mg once-daily.
Table 3.
The primary endpoints of liraglutide and semaglutide.
Authors | ⩾5% weight loss,% | ⩾10% weight loss,% | ⩾15% weight loss,% |
---|---|---|---|
Liraglutide, 3.0mg, QD | |||
Pi-Sunyer et al. 13 | 63.2 (1131/1789) vs
27.1 (217/801) |
33.1 (592/1789) vs
10.6 (85/801) |
14.4 (258/1789) vs
3.5 (28/801) |
Astrup et al. 16 | 76.1 (62/82) vs 29.6 (23/79) | 28.3 (23/82) vs 2.0 (2/79) | NR |
Blackman et al. 22 | 48.2 (68/142) vs
20.0 (27/134) |
24.7 (35/142) vs 1.8 (2/134) | 8.4 (12/142) vs 1.8 (2/134) |
Wadden et al. 19 | 70.0 (32/45) vs 44.0 (20/46) | 46.0 (21/45) vs 26.0 (12/46) | 28.0 (13/45) vs 12.0 (6/46) |
Astrup et al. 20 | 73.0 (55/75) vs 28.0 (21/74) | 37.0 (28/75) vs 10.0 (16/74) | NR |
Wadden et al. 21 | 50.5 (80/159) vs 1.8 (3/146) | NR | NR |
Ferrari et al. 27 | 68.3 (49/72) vs NR | 20.0 (14/72) vs NR | 10.0 (7/72) vs NR |
Gorgojo-Martínez et al. 29 | 64.7 (65/100) vs
27.4 (110/400) |
20.0 (20/100) vs
11.7 (47/400) |
NR |
O’Neil et al. 15 | 66.0 (57/86) vs 23.0 (24/103) | 34.0 (29/86) vs
10.0 (10/103) |
15.0 (13/86) vs 5.0 (5/103) |
Liraglutide 2.4, 1.8, 1.2, 0.6 mg, QD | |||
Astrup et al. 16 | 60.8 (52/73), 53.3 (45/74), 52.1 (44/85), NR vs 29.6 (23/79) | 22.8 (17/73), 18.9 (14/74), 7.4 (6/85), NR vs 2.0 (2/79) | NR |
Astrup et al. 20 | 53.0 (35/66), 51.0 (36/70), 43.0 (34/78), NR vs 28.0 (21/74) | 27.0 (18/66), 26.0 (18/70), 17.0 (13/78), NR vs 10.0 (7/74) | NR |
Chou and Chuang 28 | NR, NR, 44.4 (8/18), 32.1 (9/28) vs NR | NR, NR, 22.2 (4/18), 14.8 (4/28) vs NR | NR |
Semaglutide, 2.4mg, QW | |||
Wilding et al. 14 | 86.4 (1047/1212) vs
31.5 (182/577) |
69.1 (838/1212) vs
12.0 (69/577) |
50.5 (612/1212) vs
4.9 (28/577) |
Wadden et al. 17 | 86.6 (294/339) vs
47.6 (79/166) |
75.3 (255/339) vs
27.0 (45/166) |
55.8 (189/339) vs
13.2 (22/166) |
Rubino et al. 18 | 88.7 (447/504) vs
47.6 (113/237) |
79.0 (398/504) vs
20.4 (48/237) |
63.7 (321/504) vs
9.2 (22/237) |
NR, not report; QD, once a day; QW, once a week.
More than 5% weight loss patients included those with ⩾ 10% and ⩾ 15% weight loss.
The secondary outcomes of liraglutide and semaglutide
The metabolic-related outcomes
Glucose and lipid metabolic risk factors were less studied in the included literature. Eleven studies evaluated the improvement of metabolic-related factors after the treatment of liraglutide 3.0 mg once-daily (n = 8)13,15,19–23,29 and semaglutide 2.4 mg once-weekly (n = 3).14,17,18 Nine studies found that liraglutide or semaglutide could statistically significantly improve the metabolic condition compared to control groups,13,15,17,18,20–23,29 including the decrease of HbA1c, glucose, insulin, TC, TG, LDL-C, and HDL-C. Two studies found numerically improved or unchanged metabolic indicators.14,19 An overview of the trend is shown in Table 4. In addition, consistent dose-dependent improvement in metabolic risk factors was seen for semaglutide 0.05–0.4 mg once daily compared to the placebo in the study O’Neil et al. 15
Table 4.
The secondary endpoints of liraglutide and semaglutide.
Authors | Changes of glycemic control variables | Change of fasting lipid profile | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Glycated hemoglobin | Fasting glucose | Fasting insulin | TC | TG | LDL-C | HDL-C | |
Liraglutide, 3.0 mg, QD | |||||||
Pi-Sunyer et al. 13 | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | ↑* |
Blackman et al. 22 | ↓* | ↓* | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Wadden et al. 19 | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ |
Astrup et al. 20 | NR | NR | NR | NR | ↓* | ↓* | ↑* |
Wadden et al. 21 | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | – |
Ariel et al. 23 | NR | ↓* | NR | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | ↓ |
Gorgojo-Martínez et al. 29 | NR | ↓* | NR | NR | ↓* | ↓* | ↓ |
O’Neil et al. 15 | ↓* | ↓* | NR | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | –* |
Semaglutide, 2.4 mg, QW | |||||||
Wilding et al. 14 | ↓ | ↓ | NR | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ |
Wadden et al. 17 | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | ↑ |
Rubino et al. 18 | ↓* | ↓* | ↓* | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ |
HDL-C, high density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, Low density lipoprotein cholesterol; NR, not report; QD, once a day; QW, once a week; TC, Total cholesterol; TG, Triglyceride.
Liraglutide compared to control or semaglutide compared to control, P < 0.05.
Adverse events outcomes
Adverse events were reported in 10 studies of liraglutide (n = 7) and semaglutide (n = 3). The proportion range leading to discontinuation was 5.4%–11.4% in liraglutide 3.0 mg once-daily groups and 0.7%–8.6% in control groups. The incidences of any adverse events and serious adverse events were 66.5%–96.7% and 0%–7.5% in the liraglutide 3.0 mg once-daily groups, while they were 46.9%–88.6% and 1.0%–8.0% in control groups, respectively. In semaglutide 2.4 mg per week groups, the proportions leading to discontinuation, any adverse events, and serious adverse events were 2.4%–7.0%, 81.3%–95.8%, and 7.7%–9.8% compared to 2.2%–3.1%, 75.0%–96.1%, and 2.2%–9.8% in control groups, respectively. The detailed data are shown in Table 5. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related events, such as nausea and diarrhea. The incidences of common adverse events are summarized in Table S3. Serious adverse events were rarely reported and usually appeared to be mild to moderate in severity. It seems that liraglutide and semaglutide are well tolerated in real-world practice.
Table 5.
The tolerability and frequency of adverse events.
Authors | Leading to discontinuation, % | Adverse events,% | Serious adverse events, % |
---|---|---|---|
Liraglutide 3.0mg QD | |||
Pi-Sunyer et al. 13 | 6.4 (159/2481) vs
0.7 (9/1242) |
80.3 (1992/2481) vs
63.3 (786/1242) |
6.2 (154/2481) vs
5.0 (62/1242) |
Astrup et al. 16 | 5.4 (5/93) vs 3.1 (3/98) | 94.6 (88/93) vs 82.7 (81/98) | 1.0 (1/93) vs
1.0 (1/98) |
Blackman et al. 22 | 11.4 (20/176) vs 3.4 (6/179) | 66.5 (117/176) vs 46.9 (84/179) | 3.4 (6/176) vs
3.4 (6/179) |
Wadden et al. 19 | NR | 90.0 (45/50) vs 60.0 (30/50) | 0 vs 4.0 (2/50) |
Astrup et al. 20 | 7.5 (7/93) vs
3.1 (3/98) |
95.7 (89/93) vs
88.8 (87/98) |
7.5 (7/93) vs
3.1 (3/98) |
Wadden et al. 21 | 8.5 (18/212) vs
8.6 (18/210) |
91.5 (194/212) vs
88.6 (186/210) |
NR |
O’Neil et al. 15 | 9.0 (9/103) vs
3.0 (4/136) |
85.0 (88/103) vs
79.0 (107/136) |
4.0 (4/103) vs
8.0 (11/136) |
Liraglutide 2.4, 1.8, 1.2, 0.6 mg, QD | |||
Astrup et al. 16 | 9.7 (9/93), 5.6 (5/90), 4.2 (4/95), NR vs 3.1 (3/98) | 90.3 (84/93), 87.8 (79/90), 85.3 (81/95), NR vs 82.7 (81/98) | 2.2 (2/93), 4.4 (4/90), 1.0 (1/95), NR vs 1.0 (1/98) |
Astrup et al. 20 | 12.9 (12/93), 6.7 (6/90), 5.3 (5/95), NR vs 3.1 (3/98) | 94.6 (88/93), 93.3 (84/90), 92.6 (88/95), NR vs 88.8 (87/98) | 4.3 (4/93), 7.8 (7/90), 2.1 (2/95), NR vs 3.1 (3/98) |
Semaglutide, 2.4mg, QW | |||
Wilding et al. 14 | 7.0 (92/1306) vs 3.1 (20/655) | 89.7 (1171/1306) vs 86.4 (566/655) | 9.8 (128/1306) vs 6.4 (42/655) |
Wadden et al. 17 | 5.9 (24/407) vs 2.9 (6/204) | 95.8 (390/407) vs 96.1 (196/204) | 9.1 (37/407) vs
2.9 (6/204) |
Rubino et al. 18 | 2.4 (13/535) vs 2.2 (6/268) | 81.3 (435/535) vs 75.0 (201/268) | 7.7 (41/535) vs
\ 2.2 (15/268) |
NR, not report; QD, once a day; QW, once a week.
Serious adverse events defined grade 2/3/4 adverse events. A serious adverse event (SAE) is defined as any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: Results in death; is life-threatening; requires inpatient hospitalization or causes prolongation of existing hospitalization; results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity; may have caused a congenital anomaly/birth defect; requires intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage.
Discussion
The systematic review summarized the efficacy and safety of liraglutide and semaglutide from 12 RCTs and 6 non-RCTs in 10,938 obese/overweight adults without diabetes. Liraglutide and semaglutide were both significantly associated with weight loss in obese/overweight adults without diabetes regardless of different study designs, population characteristics, cointerventions, background therapies, and durations across studies. They were often associated with improvements in metabolic factors and were well-tolerated in clinical practice.
Currently, four effective pharmacologic agents including orlistat, naltrexone-bupropion, liraglutide, and semaglutide have been approved by both the FDA and the EMA for obesity management. In addition, the FDA also approved lorcaserin and phentermine-topiramate for the same indication.12,31 Several systemic reviews and meta-analyses have compared weight loss among these five drugs except semaglutide, and have demonstrated that liraglutide was associated with the highest odds of achieving at least 5% weight loss compared to the others.32,33 Some studies found that semaglutide was more effective in reducing body weight than liraglutide; however, the vast majority of these studies are studies based on patients with diabetes, with weight loss not being the main primary outcome.34–36 Compared to patients with diabetes, obese/overweight individuals without diabetes should be assessed for the therapeutic outcomes as a unique group because of the different metabolic risks for the disease progression.
Liraglutide and semaglutide produced continuous weight loss in a dose-dependent manner.15,16,20 The current study found that GLP-1RAs administered linearly decreased glucose and HbA1c across a broad dose range in patients with type 2 diabetes.37,38 Pharmacokinetics revealed that high circulating levels of GLP-1RA were highly associated with the degree of weight loss in most GLP1-RAs. 39 There is a possibility that it is due to a unique molecular-specific interaction on GLP-1R. However, the incidence of gastrointestinal AEs also appeared to be dose-related. Therefore, concerning the tolerability of AEs may help in optimizing drug development.
Although current pieces of evidence are insufficient to conclude, few studies with preliminary data implied the superiority of semaglutide over liraglutide in obese/overweight adults without diabetes. In a head-to-head study that compares liraglutide with semaglutide by O’Neil et al., 15 semaglutide 0.2 mg per day produced a better effect on weight loss than liraglutide 3.0 mg per day in patients without diabetes. Several studies also explored the mechanistic aspects of the preclinical setting of animal studies and provided a hypothesis.39–41 The investigators indicated that the brain function associated with the localization of liraglutide and semaglutide in the brain might be explained how they worked. They observed that semaglutide affected larger brain areas that controlled hunger than those involved with liraglutide. In the lateral septal nucleus, semaglutide, but not liraglutide, was detected after peripheral administration. Transcriptome analysis showed ribosomes (eukaryotic initiation factor 2 and 4 signal transduction) and mitochondria (oxidative phosphorylation) were regulated differently between animals treated with liraglutide and semaglutide. 40 In addition, weight loss seemed to continue during the whole 52-week duration at higher doses of semaglutide. 15 This does not support the view that most anti-obesity drugs induce weight loss in the first 3–4 months. 41 Semaglutide enhances metabolic activity and prevents compensated downregulation of energy expenditure, which aids in prolonged weight loss or maintenance. 40 Importantly, weekly injections are considered better than daily injections, but there are no comparisons of once-daily liraglutide and once-weekly semaglutide in obese/overweight individuals without diabetes in the current works of literature, which makes it worthy of further investigation.
The treatment of liraglutide and semaglutide was accompanied by a positive change in metabolic condition, which seems to be an inevitable conclusion as it can promote insulin secretion, reduce glucagon production, and delay gastric emptying of GLP-1RAs. 42 A Danish study confirmed that treatment with GLP-1RAs has beneficial effects on cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. 43 However, it is uncertain whether GLP-1RAs improve metabolism to the same extent in obese/overweight patients with and without diabetes.
An oral formulation of semaglutide is currently available and under investigation, which may increase the acceptability of this agent compared to the injectable form and has shown a significant ability to reduce HbA1c and body weight. 38 Given the results of semaglutide, researchers have shown great interest in whether binding one or more peptide epitopes together with GLP-1 can lead to greater weight loss. Several co-agonists including Glucagon-GLP-1R co-agonists, Amylin-GLP-1R co-agonists, and GIPR-GLP1R co-agonists have shown promising results in the management of obesity. 39 In preclinical studies, oxyntomodulin was shown to achieve significant weight loss by activating both the glucagon and GLP-1 receptors. Large clinical trials have been implemented to investigate the efficacy and safety of the AM833 (cagrilintide), a long-acting, non-selective amylin receptor agonist, together with semaglutide for the treatment of obesity. 44 In a recent study, tirzepatide, an effective GIPR-GLP1R co-agonist, was associated with greater weight loss than semaglutide 1 mg per week in T2DM patients. 45
Standard obesity management should be intensive, have multi-component interventions, and be step-by-step. The importance of combining lifestyle modifications such as dietary and physical activity should not be ignored in obesity treatment. Dietary modification is fundamental for the long-term management of obesity and exists in a variety of dietary interventions, including time adjustment (e.g. intermittent fasting), calorie restriction with different macronutrient compositions (e.g. low-fat diets, low-carbohydrates), avoidance of special foods, and following a certain dietary pattern (e.g. Mediterranean diet). Identifying dieters’ behavioral and metabolic phenotypes can optimize adherence and subsequent weight loss. 46 A new concept ‘instrumentalization of eating’ was recommended to be an effective predictor for sustained weight loss, which represents the extent to which participants have made their eating behavior an instrument for maintaining weight loss. The interplay between behavioral, emotional, and environmental changes is also noteworthy. 47 Physical activity is also crucial for successful weight loss, as it can induce energy deficit and preserve lean muscle mass. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) recommended that individuals need to exercise 150–250 min/week, > 150–250 min/week, and 200–300 min/week to prevent weight gain, achieve weight loss, and maintain weight loss, respectively. 48 Nevertheless, the individual’s response to exercise is heterogeneous. A randomized clinical trial demonstrated that the exercise combined with liraglutide was approximately twice as much as either treatment alone in reducing the body weight and body-fat percentage. It was also associated with the improvements in insulin sensitivity, cardiorespiratory fitness, and maintaining a good mood. 49 In the area of surgical intervention, bariatric surgery has been applied in the clinical setting to help patients achieve significant weight loss. Currently, common procedure options include laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). Bariatric surgery should be considered for patients who have failed to lose weight after undergoing various interventions. Bariatric devices are a growing field of intervention that can further support patients in achieving their weight loss goals based on their minimally invasive, reversible, and less expensive features. Recently, the FDA approved five devices, including 2 intragastric balloons, an aspiration device, superabsorbent hydrogel capsules, and the TransPyloric Shuttle. 50 These new options will add to the variety of options patients who fail pharmacological intervention and lifestyle modification can take to combat obesity.
Successful obesity management extends well beyond weight loss, as it is important to highlight the assessment of the life quality and the prevention of obesity-related comorbidities in outcome studies.51,52 The ideal treatment for obesity should be a highly individualized, personalized medicine. Treatment decisions will consider age, coexisting diseases, drug tolerance, and economic and local medical conditions. 53 For example, naltrexone/bupropion does not apply to uncontrolled hypertension patients and phentermine/topiramate treated patients should be monitored closely for depression. 41 However, there is no consensus or guidelines to help clinicians make decisions on which drugs to choose. Thus, more real-world studies, especially direct comparisons of different drugs that capture a broader range of outcomes, are needed.
There are some limitations to this review. First, several included studies were observational and did not design their control groups, which was unavoidable due to a limited number of large RCTs. Second, the methods, populations, study designs, and data collections vary considerably from one literature to the next, making it difficult to interpret data across studies. Third, the vast majority of studies for drug treatment are accompanied by lifestyle co-interventions which makes it difficult to evaluate the efficacy of drugs separately.
Conclusion
Liraglutide and semaglutide were both significantly associated with weight loss in obese/overweight adults without diabetes regardless of different trial designs, population characteristics, and durations. Few studies have directly compared the efficacy and safety profiles of liraglutide and semaglutide in obese/overweight individuals without diabetes, suggesting a need to develop trials directly comparing drugs for different obese/overweight subgroup populations.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-taj-10.1177_20406223221108064 for Effect of semaglutide and liraglutide in individuals with obesity or overweight without diabetes: a systematic review by You Deng, Andrew Park, Lin Zhu, Wen Xie and Calvin Q. Pan in Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease
Acknowledgments
We thank all participants in the study.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable.
Author contributions: You Deng: Conceptualization; Data curation; Investigation; Methodology; Software; Validation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.
Andrew Park: Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing – review & editing.
Lin Zhu: Data curation; Methodology; Writing – review & editing.
Wen Xie: Conceptualization; Data curation; Investigation; Methodology.
Calvin Q. Pan: Conceptualization; Methodology; Supervision; Writing – review & editing.
ORCID iDs: You Deng
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0393-1153
Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation Youth Fund Project (81600454), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81770577), Clinical Medicine Development Project of Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals (ZYLX201828).
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Availability of data and materials: All authors approve the manuscript and give the consent for submission and publication. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
PROSPERO had been registered: ID CRD42021272102.
Supplemental material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Contributor Information
You Deng, Center of Liver Diseases, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Andrew Park, Northern Valley Regional High School at Old Tappan, Old Tappan, NJ, USA.
Lin Zhu, Center of Liver Diseases, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Wen Xie, Center of Liver Diseases, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 8, Jingshun East Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100015, China.
Calvin Q. Pan, Center of Liver Diseases, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 8, Jingshun East Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100015, China Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY 10016, USA.
References
- 1. Neeland IJ, Poirier P, Despres JP. Cardiovascular and metabolic heterogeneity of obesity: clinical challenges and implications for management. Circulation 2018; 137: 1391–1406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Piche ME, Tchernof A, Despres JP. Obesity phenotypes, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. Circ Res 2020; 126: 1477–1500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Global BMI, Mortality Collaboration, Di Angelantonio E, Bhupathiraju SN, et al. Body-mass index and all-cause mortality: individual-participant-data meta-analysis of 239 prospective studies in four continents. Lancet 2016; 388: 776–786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Haslam DW, James WP. Obesity. Lancet 2005; 366: 1197–1209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Bhat SP, Sharma A. Current drug targets in obesity pharmacotherapy – a review. Curr Drug Targets 2017; 18: 983–993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Wolfe BM, Kvach E, Eckel RH. Treatment of obesity: weight loss and bariatric surgery. Circ Res 2016; 118: 1844–1855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Kassir R, Debs T, Blanc P, et al. Complications of bariatric surgery: presentation and emergency management. Int J Surg 2016; 27: 77–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Drucker DJ. Mechanisms of action and therapeutic application of glucagon-like peptide-1. Cell Metab 2018; 27: 740–756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Wajcberg E, Amarah A. Liraglutide in the management of type 2 diabetes. Drug Des Devel Ther 2010; 4: 279–290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Narayanaswami V, Dwoskin LP. Obesity: current and potential pharmacotherapeutics and targets. Pharmacol Ther 2017; 170: 116–147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Muller TD, Finan B, Bloom SR, et al. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). Mol Metab 2019; 30: 72–130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Chao AM, Tronieri JS, Amaro A, et al. Semaglutide for the treatment of obesity. Trends Cardiovasc Med. Epub ahead of print 21 December 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.tcm.2021.12.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Pi-Sunyer X, Astrup A, Fujioka K, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of 3.0 mg of liraglutide in weight management. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 11–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Wilding JPH, Batterham RL, Calanna S, et al. ,. Once-weekly semaglutide in adults with overweight or obesity. N Engl J Med 2021; 384: 989–1002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. O’Neil PM, Birkenfeld AL, McGowan B, et al. Efficacy and safety of semaglutide compared with liraglutide and placebo for weight loss in patients with obesity: a randomised, double-blind, placebo and active controlled, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2018; 392: 637–649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Astrup A, Rössner S, Van Gaal L, et al. Effects of liraglutide in the treatment of obesity: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Lancet 2009; 374: 1606–1616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Wadden TA, Bailey TS, Billings LK, et al. Effect of subcutaneous semaglutide vs placebo as an adjunct to intensive behavioral therapy on body weight in adults with overweight or obesity: the STEP 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2021; 325: 1403–1413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Rubino D, Abrahamsson N, Davies M, et al. Effect of continued weekly subcutaneous semaglutide vs placebo on weight loss maintenance in adults with overweight or obesity: the STEP 4 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2021; 325: 1414–1425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Wadden TA, Walsh OA, Berkowitz RI, et al. Intensive behavioral therapy for obesity combined with liraglutide 3.0 mg: a randomized controlled trial. Obesity 2019; 27: 75–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Astrup A, Carraro R, Finer N, et al. Safety, tolerability and sustained weight loss over 2 years with the once-daily human GLP-1 analog, liraglutide. Int J Obes 2012; 36: 843–854. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Wadden TA, Hollander P, Klein S, et al. Weight maintenance and additional weight loss with liraglutide after low-calorie-diet-induced weight loss: the SCALE Maintenance randomized study. Int J Obes 2013; 37: 1443–1451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Blackman A, Foster GD, Zammit G, et al. Effect of liraglutide 3.0 mg in individuals with obesity and moderate or severe obstructive sleep apnea: the SCALE Sleep Apnea randomized clinical trial. Int J Obes 2016; 40: 1310–1319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Ariel D, Kim SH, Abbasi F, et al. Effect of liraglutide administration and a calorie-restricted diet on lipoprotein profile in overweight/obese persons with prediabetes. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2014; 24: 1317–1322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Blundell J, Finlayson G, Axelsen M, et al. Effects of once-weekly semaglutide on appetite, energy intake, control of eating, food preference and body weight in subjects with obesity. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017; 19: 1242–1251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Gillani SM, Singh BM. The use of GLP-1 agonist therapy, liraglutide, is associated with significant weight loss in morbidly obese people without diabetes. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis 2015; 15: 61–64. [Google Scholar]
- 26. Zhou JL, Zhang JW. Effects of liraglutide on metabolism and inflammatory indices in patients with impaired glucose regulation in obesity. J Pract Diabetol 2018; 2018: 13–14. [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ferrari F, Fierabracci P, Salvetti G, et al. Weight loss effect of liraglutide in real-life: the experience of a single Italian obesity center. J Endocrinol Invest 2020; 43: 1779–1785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Chou CA, Chuang SF. Evaluation of the efficacy of low-dose liraglutide in weight control among Taiwanese non-diabetes patients. J Diabetes Investig 2020; 11: 1524–1531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Gorgojo-Martínez JJ, Basagoiti-Carreño B, Sanz-Velasco A, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of orlistat and liraglutide in patients with obesity in a real-world setting: the XENSOR study. Int J Clin Pract 2019; 73: e13399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Sauer N, Reining F, Schulze Zur Wiesch C, et al. Off-label antiobesity treatment in patients without diabetes with GLP-1 agonists in clinical practice. Horm Metab Res 2015; 47: 560–564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Williams DM, Nawaz A, Evans M. Drug therapy in obesity: a review of current and emerging treatments. Diabetes Ther 2020; 11: 1199–1216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Khera R, Murad MH, Chandar AK, et al. Association of pharmacological treatments for obesity with weight loss and adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2016; 315: 2424–2434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Ahmad NN, Robinson S, Kennedy-Martin T, et al. Clinical outcomes associated with anti-obesity medications in real-world practice: a systematic literature review. Obes Rev 2021; 22: e13326. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Tsapas A, Karagiannis T, Kakotrichi P, et al. Comparative efficacy of glucose-lowering medications on body weight and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 2021; 23: 2116–2124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Alsugair HA, Alshugair IF, Alharbi TJ, et al. Weekly semaglutide vs. liraglutide efficacy profile: a network meta-analysis. Healthcare 2021; 9: 1125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Pratley RE, Aroda VR, Lingvay I, et al. Semaglutide versus dulaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 7): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018; 6: 275–286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Torekov SS, Kipnes MS, Harley RE, et al. Dose response of subcutaneous GLP-1 infusion in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2011; 13: 639–643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Yamada Y, Katagiri H, Hamamoto Y, et al. Dose-response, efficacy, and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 9): a 52-week, phase 2/3a, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2020; 8: 377–391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Drucker DJ. GLP-1 physiology informs the pharmacotherapy of obesity. Mol Metab 2022; 57: 101351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Gabery S, Salinas CG, Paulsen SJ, et al. Semaglutide lowers body weight in rodents via distributed neural pathways. JCI Insight 2020; 5: e133429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Gadde KM, Martin CK, Berthoud HR, et al. Obesity: pathophysiology and management. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71: 69–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Christou GA, Katsiki N, Blundell J, et al. Semaglutide as a promising antiobesity drug. Obes Rev 2019; 20: 805–815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Kristensen SL, Rorth R, Jhund PS, et al. Cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019; 7: 776–785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Enebo LB, Berthelsen KK, Kankam M, et al. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of concomitant administration of multiple doses of cagrilintide with semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management: a randomised, controlled, phase 1b trial. Lancet 2021; 397: 1736–1748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Frias JP, Davies MJ, Rosenstock J, et al. Tirzepatide versus semaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 503–515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Chao AM, Quigley KM, Wadden TA. Dietary interventions for obesity: clinical and mechanistic findings. J Clin Invest 2021; 131: e140065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Christensen BJ, Iepsen EW, Lundgren J, et al. Instrumentalization of eating improves weight loss maintenance in obesity. Obes Facts 2017; 10: 633–647. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Donnelly JE, Blair SN, Jakicic JM, et al. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Appropriate physical activity intervention strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 459–471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Lundgren JR, Janus C, Jensen SBK, et al. ,. Healthy weight loss maintenance with exercise, liraglutide, or both combined. N Engl J Med 2021; 384: 1719–1730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Tchang BG, Saunders KH, Igel LI. Best practices in the management of overweight and obesity. Med Clin North Am 2021; 105: 149–174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Wharton S, Lau DCW, Vallis M, et al. Obesity in adults: a clinical practice guideline. CMAJ 2020; 192: E875–E891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for obesity in adults: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139: 930–932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Camilleri M, Acosta A. Gastrointestinal traits: individualizing therapy for obesity with drugs and devices. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 48–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-taj-10.1177_20406223221108064 for Effect of semaglutide and liraglutide in individuals with obesity or overweight without diabetes: a systematic review by You Deng, Andrew Park, Lin Zhu, Wen Xie and Calvin Q. Pan in Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease