SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Efficacy and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Neurol Sci · 2026-05-09

DOI: 10.1007/s10072-026-09084-3PMID: 42105060

Open accessMeta-Analysis; Systematic Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundParkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder with no proven disease-modifying therapies to date. Because changes in cerebral glucose metabolism and insulin resistance have been linked to PD pathophysiology, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), widely used for diabetes, have been investigated as potential neuroprotective treatments.MethodsThis study systematically assessed the efficacy and safety of GLP-1RAs in PD through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials identified in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were motor function improvements measured by the MDS-UPDRS Part III in both on- and off-medication states at study endpoints and at intermediate timepoints of interest. Secondary outcomes included MDS-UPDRS Parts I, II, and IV, quality of life assessed by the PDQ-39, levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), and the occurrence of adverse events.ResultsThe meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in favor of GLP-1RAs over placebo for motors and non-motors outcomes, except for PDQ-39 (MD: - 0.75; 95% CI: [- 1.34, - 0.17], P = 0.01). Regarding safety, GLP-1RAs were associated with a higher incidence of adverse events, especially gastrointestinal effects such as nausea, vomiting, and constipation.ConclusionsOverall, current evidence does not demonstrate consistent clinical benefit of using GLP-1RAs for treating motor or non-motor symptoms in PD nor support GLP-1RAs as disease-modifying therapy, underscoring the need for further research.

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.