Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are increasingly being used to treat diabetes and obesity. However, their effectiveness and risks have not yet been systematically evaluated in a comprehensive set of possible health outcomes. Here, we used the US Department of Veterans Affairs databases to build a cohort of people with diabetes who initiated GLP-1RA (n = 215,970) and compared them to those who initiated sulfonylureas (n = 159,465), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors (n = 117,989) or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (n = 258,614), a control group composed of an equal proportion of individuals initiating sulfonylureas, DPP4 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 536,068), and a control group of 1,203,097 individuals who continued use of non-GLP-1RA antihyperglycemics (usual care). We used a discovery approach to systematically map an atlas of the associations of GLP-1RA use versus each comparator with 175 health outcomes. Compared to usual care, GLP-1RA use was associated with a reduced risk of substance use and psychotic disorders, seizures, neurocognitive disorders (including Alzheimer's disease and dementia), coagulation disorders, cardiometabolic disorders, infectious illnesses and several respiratory conditions. There was an increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders, hypotension, syncope, arthritic disorders, nephrolithiasis, interstitial nephritis and drug-induced pancreatitis associated with GLP-1RA use compared to usual care. The results provide insights into the benefits and risks of GLP-1RAs and may be useful for informing clinical care and guiding research agendas.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 62/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 10 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 4 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 36 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 62 of 100. Total 62 of 100.36 of the 58 points we could judge = 62 of 100

Published in a top-tier journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 10 / 10 Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (Nature medicine)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 4 / 5 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 4 / 4 215,970 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39833406)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 36 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100.
Total 62 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Xie, Y., Choi, T., & Al-Aly, Z. (2025). Mapping the effectiveness and risks of GLP-1 receptor agonists. Nature medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03412-w

Vancouver

Xie Y, Choi T, Al-Aly Z. Mapping the effectiveness and risks of GLP-1 receptor agonists. Nature medicine. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03412-w. PMID: 39833406.

BibTeX

@article{xie2025-39833406,
  author  = {Xie, Y. and Choi, T. and Al-Aly, Z.},
  title   = {{Mapping the effectiveness and risks of GLP-1 receptor agonists}},
  journal = {Nature medicine},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1038/s41591-024-03412-w},
  pmid    = {39833406},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03412-w}
}

Related studies in Risk factors

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →