Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Our study sought to evaluate the association between Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist use and the development of hypersomnolence at 1 and 5-year timepoints. A retrospective cohort study was done using TriNetX's research network. Patients aged 18-50 with type-2 diabetes mellitus or obesity who underwent polysomnography were included. Patients were excluded if they had any prior use of antidepressants. Patients who used Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists were 1:1 propensity matched to patients without Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist exposure. The primary outcome was new onset hypersomnolence with secondary outcomes including parasomnia, narcolepsy/cataplexy, disturbed sleep, restless legs syndrome, iron deficiency, and Parkinsonism. Hazard ratios and risk ratios were calculated at 1- and 5-years. Kaplan-Meier analyses and log-rank tests were performed for time to event comparisons. After matching, there were two equal cohorts of 118,993 patients. The Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist cohort was associated with increased hypersomnolence at 1-year (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10-1.32; p p p p = 0.012), although event counts were low. Time to event analyses did not demonstrate statistically significant associations for parasomnia, disturbed sleep, restless legs syndrome, or narcolepsy/cataplexy. These findings highlight the need for further studies to evaluate the effects of Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on sleep regulation and the neurophysiological consequences of these agents.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-026-01929-0.
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.