Evidence Hub

Semaglutide, central retinal thickness and continuous glucose monitoring in persons with type 2 diabetes: A post-hoc analysis from a randomised trial

Gullaksen S, Vernstrøm L, Sørensen SS, Funck KL, Petersen L, Bek T, Poulsen PL, Laugesen E

Journal of diabetes and its complications, 2025

120 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Aims: Glycemic control is important for preventing diabetic retinopathy (DR), but rapid improvements could deteriorate the disease. In some, but not all studies, semaglutide is speculated to worsen DR, but the mechanism is unknown. Central retinal thickness (CRT) is an early marker of DR. Therefore, the objective was to investigate whether increased Time in Range (TIR (3.9-10.0 mmol/L)), was associated with reduced CRT in persons treated with semaglutide.

Methods: Forty participants with type 2 diabetes were included in this post-hoc analysis of a 32-week randomised, placebo-controlled, partly open-label trial investigating the separate and combined effects of semaglutide and empagliflozin on target organ damage in 120 participants with type 2 diabetes. Individuals were randomised into four groups: i) semaglutide, ii) empagliflozin, iii) the combination or iv) placebo, n = 30 for each group). In the present study, 10 participants from each of the 4 arms participated. TIR was assessed using Continuous Glucose Measurement for 7-8 days and CRT was assessed using ocular coherence tomography.

Results: In the 10 individuals treated with semaglutide, CRT increased ~1 % (3.76 μm, 95%CI [-0.32; 7.85], p = 0.065) compared to placebo. This was attenuated with adjustment for TIR (p = 0.21). Independently of the four interventions, increased TIR remained associated with increased CRT (0.07 μm, 95%CI[0.03; 0.12]μm, p = 0.002).

Conclusion: Semaglutide treatment did not impact CRT beyond…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 120 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