Cited by 10Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDrug-Induced Ocular Toxicity

Association between glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and risk of diabetic retinopathy: a disproportionality analysis using FDA adverse event reporting system data

Singh, Harmanjit, Natt, Navreet Kaur, Nim, Dwividendra Kumar·2025·Expert Review of Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists are commonly prescribed for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Concerns have emerged regarding their potential link to diabetic retinopathy (DR). METHODS: To evaluate the association between GLP-1 agonists and DR, a disproportionality analysis was conducted using FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data from Q4/2003 to Q2/2024 via OpenVigil 2.1 software. We focused on GLP-1 agonists and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist: Semaglutide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, lixisenatide, and tirzepatide, as primary suspect drugs. 'Diabetic retinopathy' was the key search term mapped to Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Lower-Level Terms (LLTs). We calculated Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) and Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the Evans' criteria were applied to check the significant associations. RESULTS: Semaglutide (PRR: 19.43, 95% CI: 15.17-24.88; ROR: 19.48, 95% CI: 15.20-24.96; Chi-square: 1078.08) and dulaglutide (PRR: 9.01, 95% CI: 7.11-11.42; ROR: 9.02, 95% CI: 7.11-11.44; Chi-square: 478.31) showed a strong association with DR. Tirzepatide and liraglutide showed a weaker but significant association while lixisenatide showed no significant association. CONCLUSION: GLP-1 agonists (except lixisenatide) were found to be associated with DR. These findings emphasize the need for close monitoring and further research to clarify these associations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17446651.2025.2459720

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singh, H., Natt, N. K., & Nim, D. K.
Affiliations
  • Government Medical College and Hospital (IN)
  • CHC Manawala
  • Motilal Nehru Medical College (IN)
Corresponding author
Singh, Harmanjit
Venue
Expert Review of Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2025-01-28
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
147-152
ISSN
  • 1744-6651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-8417
OpenAlex
W4406825069
Cited by
10
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4
FWCI
5.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Expert Review of Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Drug-Induced Ocular Toxicity
Keywords
GLP-1 receptor agonists, diabetic retinopathy, type 2 diabetes, semaglutide, dulaglutide, tirzepatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, adverse drug reactions, drug safety, disproportionality analysis
MeSH terms
Glucagon-Like Peptide-2 Receptor, Liraglutide, Tirzepatide, Semaglutide, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diabetic Retinopathy, Glucagon-Like Peptides, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Immunoglobulin Fc Fragments, Peptides, Recombinant Fusion Proteins, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems, Glucagon-Like Peptide 1

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review