Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40385819›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Versus Subcutaneous Semaglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jithin Karedath, Scott Nall, Mandeep Kaur, Adnan Lokhandwala, Yousef H Aqel, Abdelaziz Maali Abusal, Calvin R Wei, Danish Allahwala

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. 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

8 authors.

Jithin KaredathInternal Medicine, King's College Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, GBR.
Scott NallMedicine, Central Michigan University (CMU) School of Medicine, Saginaw, USA.
Mandeep KaurHospital Medicine, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) Capital Regional Medical Center, Tallahassee, USA.
Adnan LokhandwalaMedicine, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, ARE.
Yousef H AqelMedicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QAT.
Abdelaziz Maali AbusalInternal Medicine, Hamad General Hospital, Doha, QAT.
Calvin R WeiResearch and Development, Shing Huei Group, Taipei, TWN.
Danish AllahwalaNephrology, Fatima Memorial Hospital, Karachi, PAK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has emerged as an important therapeutic option for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), available in both oral and subcutaneous formulations. While subcutaneous semaglutide has been available since 2017, oral semaglutide (approved in 2019) represents the first oral GLP-1 receptor agonist. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of oral versus subcutaneous semaglutide in patients with T2DM. We conducted a systematic literature search across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to March 15, 2025. Four studies (one randomized controlled trial and three retrospective studies) with a total of 559 patients (257 receiving oral and 302 receiving subcutaneous semaglutide) met our inclusion criteria. The included studies were published from 2017 to 2024. All studies had a six-month follow-up duration. Outcomes included changes in HbA1c, body weight, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects. Pooled analysis indicated that subcutaneous semaglutide achieved significantly greater reductions in HbA1c compared to oral semaglutide (SMD: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.38) with low heterogeneity (I-square: 22%). For body weight reduction, subcutaneous semaglutide showed greater effectiveness, though the difference was not statistically significant (SMD: 0.12, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.52) with high heterogeneity (I-square: 81%). Notably, patients receiving oral semaglutide had a significantly higher risk of treatment discontinuation due to side effects (RR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.83) with no heterogeneity (I-square: 0%). While both formulations demonstrated clinical benefits, subcutaneous semaglutide appears to offer superior glycemic control with fewer treatment-limiting adverse effects. These findings likely reflect the differences in bioavailability and pharmacokinetics between the two formulations. However, the choice between formulations should consider individual patient factors, including treatment adherence, preference for injection versus oral administration, and specific comorbidities. Future studies should investigate whether modified dosing protocols could improve the tolerability of oral semaglutide while maintaining efficacy.

Indexed as

glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonistglycemic controlmeta-analysissemaglutidetype 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID40385819
PMCPMC12085783

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.