Evidence Hub

Ocular disorders during treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Anatriello A, Liguori V, Cagnotta C, Pentella C, Scavone C, Capuano A, Rinaldi B

Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026

Abstract

Introduction: Different observational studies have analyzed the effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) on the risk of ocular adverse events (AEs). The present meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of GLP-1 RAs on the risk of ocular AEs, including retinopathy, glaucoma, and non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from 2006 to 2025. Studies involving individuals diagnosed with diabetes and/or obesity and overweight, receiving GLP-1 RAs, and evaluating outcomes related to ocular AEs were included. A random-effect meta-analysis approach was used. This study followed the PRISMA statement.

Results: A total of 28 observational studies (6 for semaglutide and 22 for all GLP-1 RAs) involving T2DM patients were included. When compared to other antidiabetic treatments, GLP-1 RAs did not increase the risk of developing ocular disorders such as NAION (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.64; I2, 89%), glaucoma (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; I2, 91%), and retinopathy (new onset or progression) [(HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.85-1.08; I2, 91%) (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.83-1.14; I2, 65%)].

Conclusion: Even if no difference was observed between GLP-1 RAs and other antidiabetic medications for all safety outcomes evaluated, it is optimal to monitor the administration of these molecules.

Systematic review registration:…

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.

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