Evidence Hub

Agent- and Dose-Specific Intestinal Obstruction Safety of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and SGLT2 Inhibitors: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Chen JJ, Hsu CW, Hung CM, Suen MW, Wang HY, Yang WC, Stubbs B, Chen YW et al.

International journal of molecular sciences, 2026

192,359 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have reshaped pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes, but emerging safety signals suggest a possible association with intestinal obstruction. Because many candidates for these agents already harbor risk factors for ileus and bowel obstruction, clarifying agent- and dose-specific gastrointestinal safety is clinically important. We aimed to re-evaluate the risk of intestinal obstruction across individual GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, with particular attention to dose stratification. We systematically searched eight databases through 21 January 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors with placebo or active comparators in adults. The primary outcome was incident intestinal obstruction (small or large bowel). A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across drugs and dose tiers; Bayesian models and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) metrics were used for sensitivity analyses and treatment ranking. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed with standard Cochrane and GRADE-adapted tools. Fifty RCTs (47 publications; 192,359 participants) met inclusion criteria. Overall, canagliflozin use was associated with a higher incidence of intestinal obstruction than control therapies (OR 2.56, 95% CI…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 192,359 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free