A systematic review reveals potential kidney benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists in non-diabetic chronic kidney disease, suggesting further research is needed.
Introduction: Glucagon- like peptide- 1 receptor agonists have demonstrated cardiovascular and kidney benefits in type 2 diabetes, but their role in non- diabetic chronic kidney disease remains uncertain. Methodology: A systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines was conducted, in which MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, TRIP and NICE databases were used. Search strategies combined MeSH terms and free- text strategies. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews, meta- analyses and clinical practice guidelines published in English, Portuguese or Spanish. A thorough examination of reference lists was conducted to identify additional studies. Evidence was graded using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy. Results: The final synthesis included two placebo-controlled randomized trials. In the SELECT trial, non- diabetic adults with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease who received semaglutide 2.4mg2.4mg once weekly showed a slower decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate and approximately 22%22% fewer composite kidney events compared with placebo, with a greater benefit in those with baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate below 60mL/60mL/ min/1.73m2min/1.73m2 . In the SMART trial, adults with non- diabetic chronic kidney disease and overweight or obesity experienced a 52%52% reduction in albuminuria at 24 weeks with semaglutide, while measured and estimated glomerular filtration rate remained stable. Conclusion: These findings suggest potential benefits of glucagon-like peptide- 1 receptor agonists on albuminuria and kidney function trajectories independent of diabetes, but effects on long- term kidney outcomes remain unknown. Use in this population should be individualized and further studies are required to validate this use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abreu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: