ReviewDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2026
Comparative effects of glucagon-like peptide-1-based regimens on peripheral arterial and limb events in type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Review in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripheral artery disease (PAD) is a disabling condition in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), yet lower-extremity outcomes are rarely prespecified in trials of GLP-1-based therapies. We compared individual GLP-1-based regimens for PAD-related vascular and limb events.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ProQuest, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP from inception through June 3, 2025, and updated the search on July 16, 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with T2DM were eligible. Events from trial reports and registries were harmonized using MedDRA v26.0. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses were the primary analyses, frequentist models assessed robustness, and confidence was evaluated with CINeMA. Treatment effects were reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs).
resultsForty-five RCTs involving 110,333 participants were included. For PAOD (33 RCTs; 90,742 participants; 572 events), subcutaneous semaglutide was associated with a lower risk than placebo (RR: 0.37; 95% CrI: 0.14-0.86), with low confidence; the finding was supported by frequentist and sensitivity analyses. In direct placebo-controlled trials, PAOD occurred in 18/4,088 participants receiving subcutaneous semaglutide (4.4 per 1,000) and 33/3,650 receiving placebo (9.0 per 1,000). For PVD (18 RCTs; 69,809 participants; 111 events), albiglutide (RR: 0.11; 95% CrI: 0.01-0.50) and efpeglenatide (RR: 0.09; 95% CrI: 0.01-0.57) were associated with lower risks than placebo, with high confidence for both comparisons. Insulin also showed a favorable Bayesian estimate versus placebo (RR: 0.06; 95% CrI: <0.01-0.49; moderate confidence). No credible Bayesian differences were identified for amputation, necrosis, or peripheral embolism and thrombosis; confidence was predominantly low or very low.
conclusionsThe findings suggest agent- and outcome-specific signals rather than a class-wide limb benefit. Because events were rare and usually derived from adverse-event reporting, the results do not establish clinical superiority or support treatment selection based on limb protection alone. Dedicated PAD-focused trials with standardized adjudicated outcomes are needed.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420251244166.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.