SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Use of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Risk of Parkinson's Disease: Scandinavian Cohort Study.

Diabetes Obes Metab · 2026-04-17

DOI: 10.1111/dom.70760PMID: 41994910

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

AimsTo investigate the association between use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and incident Parkinson's disease.Material and methodsCohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway and Sweden and an active-comparator, new-user design. We included 158 961 new users of GLP-1 receptor agonists and 188 065 new users of sulfonylureas, aged 45 years or older. Liraglutide accounted for 72.9% of GLP-1 receptor agonist follow-up time, followed by semaglutide (13.4%), exenatide (7.3%), dulaglutide (5.1%) and lixisenatide (1.3%). The primary outcome was incident Parkinson's disease, defined as a first-ever diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (ICD-10 G20) or Parkinson's disease dementia (ICD-10 F02.3) in national patient registers. Cox regression with propensity score weighting was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and control for confounding.ResultsMean age was 65 years and 43% were female. Incidence rates for Parkinson's disease were 5.2 and 8.0 per 10 000 person-years among GLP-1 receptor agonist and sulfonylurea users, respectively (adjusted HR 0.81 [95% CI 0.68-0.96]). Results were consistent in a 2-year lag-time analysis (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.70-1.02]) after excluding or censoring users of DPP-4 inhibitors at cohort entry or during follow-up (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.60-0.93]) and in subgroup analyses by sex and age.ConclusionIn this large observational cohort study, use of GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with sulfonylureas was associated with a lower risk of incident Parkinson's disease. These findings support a potential neuroprotective role of GLP-1 receptor agonists, though replication in additional studies is needed.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.