Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Recent trends suggest exploring the repurposing of different drugs for Parkinson's disease patients (PD). One of these drugs is Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a medication used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different forms of GLP-1 agonists on motor and non-motor functions of PD patients during ON-medication and OFF-medication states. A literature search was conducted through PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, OVID, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar using relevant keywords. Quality assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias-2 (RoB-2) domains. Statistical analysis included calculating the mean difference (MD) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager 5.4.1. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing three different forms of GLP-1 agonists with a total of 514 patients were included in the study. GLP-1 agonists significantly improved motor function during the OFF-medication state (MD = - 3.29, 95% CI [- 5.17 to - 1.42], P = 0.0006). It does not show improvement in quality of life assessed by PDQ-39 (MD = - 0.54, 95% CI [- 2.07 to 0.99], P = 0.49). None of the adverse effects stated in the RCTs were higher in the GLP-1 agonists group except for nausea (RR = 1.98, P = 0.0008), vomiting (RR = 6.65, P = 0.0008), constipation (RR = 1.45, P = 0.01), and weight loss (RR = 2.11, P = 0.03). This systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence that GLP-1 agonists could improve the motor function of PD patients. However, safety is still of concern. Further high-quality studies with standardized protocols and larger sample sizes are needed to confirm our findings.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.