Meta-analysis of the efficacy of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes accompanied by incipient nephropathy
- Design
- Meta-analysis · Biomarker outcome
- Match to healthy normal-weight adults aged 55–75
- Different population[Auto] Synthesis of studies conducted predominantly in people with type 2 diabetes.
- Could weight loss explain it?
- UnknownReported effects favour liraglutide (kidney lab markers, inflammatory markers, lipids); the abstract does not test whether they depend on weight loss, and liraglutide also lowered BMI.
- Study tier
- Study tier 2[Auto] Systematic review/meta-analysis of randomized trials (auto-provisional; heterogeneity and included-study quality not assessed).
- Assessment
- Version 5 · Checked against the source by AI · Oct 19, 2026
Study facts come from the paper. Population match, weight-loss explanation and study tier are our judgments, made against the reference group of healthy normal-weight adults aged 55–75.
Across 13 randomized trials in type 2 diabetes with early kidney disease, liraglutide improved lab markers (urine albumin, serum creatinine, inflammatory markers, lipids); the abstract reports no kidney failure or other clinical events. The main side effects were gastrointestinal upset and low blood sugar.
What the study reported
- Drugs
- Liraglutide
- Primary outcome
- Not extracted
- Effect
- Not extracted
- 95% confidence interval
- Not extracted
- Follow-up
- Not stated
- Adverse events
- Not extracted
- Limitations
- Not extracted
Who was studied
- Diabetes status
- type 2 diabetes present (all or most)
- Ckd status
- early diabetic nephropathy required (stage I-III)
- Baseline condition
- type 2 diabetes with early-stage (stage I-III) diabetic nephropathy
Study quality details
- Study design
- Meta-analysis
- Sample size
- not extracted
- Randomization
- n/a
- Blinding
- not stated
- Comparator
- not stated
- Follow up duration
- not stated
- Outcome type
- biomarker
- Replication
- not assessed (auto)
- Consistency with other evidence
- not assessed (auto)
- Population applicability
- INDIRECT
- Statistical precision
- CI reported: 95% confidence interval (CI
- Risk of bias
- not assessed (auto)
- Peer review status
- yes
How far the review's own results can be trusted
This record is a systematic review, so it is appraised with AMSTAR 2, which rates how far the review's own pooled results can be trusted. It does not grade the trials inside the review; those are appraised one by one.
On this scale High is the best rating. The levels run High, Moderate, Low, Critically low: Critically low confidence in the review is the worst rating a review can receive, and means it should not be relied on for an accurate summary. That is the opposite direction to the risk-of-bias scale used for single trials, where High is the worst.
Critically low confidence in the review · AMSTAR 2 · AI: two passes agreed (item splits settled by owner ruling)
Why: 5 critical items fail: review methods set out in a protocol before the review began; comprehensive literature search; list of excluded studies, with reasons; appropriate methods for combining results; risk of bias taken into account when interpreting the results.
What it is used for here: Used only to find trials. A review at this level does not supply a pooled result to any outcome in this collection; the trials it lists are appraised on their own.
| Item | Answer |
|---|---|
| 1 Research question and inclusion criteria include the PICO components | Yes |
| 2 · critical Review methods set out in a protocol before the review began | No — a critical flaw |
| 3 Choice of included study designs explained | No |
| 4 · critical Comprehensive literature search | No — a critical flaw |
| 5 Study selection done by two reviewers independently | No |
| 6 Data extraction done by two reviewers independently | Yes |
| 7 · critical List of excluded studies, with reasons | No — a critical flaw |
| 8 Included studies described in adequate detail | Partial Yes |
| 9 · critical Satisfactory technique for assessing risk of bias in the included studies | Yes |
| 10 Funding of the included studies reported | No |
| 11 · critical Appropriate methods for combining results | No — a critical flaw |
| 12 Effect of risk of bias on the pooled results assessed | No |
| 13 · critical Risk of bias taken into account when interpreting the results | No — a critical flaw |
| 14 Differences between study results explained and discussed | Yes |
| 15 · critical Publication bias investigated and its likely impact discussed | Yes |
| 16 Review authors' conflicts of interest and funding reported | Yes |
Where the two reviewers differed: item 3 (choice of included study designs explained): one read Yes, the other No; settled at No by a recorded ruling; item 13 (risk of bias taken into account when interpreting the results): one read Yes, the other No; settled at No by a recorded ruling; item 14 (differences between study results explained and discussed): one read Yes, the other No; settled at Yes by a recorded ruling.
Two reviewers assessed the review independently against a written guide (AMSTAR 2 guide, version 1.2), from the full text and retrieved supplements, 2026-10-05.
Funding and conflicts
- Funding
- Jiangsu Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine grant (per full text)
- Industry funded
- Unclear
- Manufacturer
- None identified
- Sponsor role
- not reported in abstract
- Author conflicts
- The authors declare no competing interests (per full text).
- Independent replication
- unknown
Funding is shown on every study and never used to score it.
The source, as retrieved
Abstract
The efficacy of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes accompanied by early-stage nephropathy has remained to be fully elucidated. The present meta-analysis was performed to determine the clinical outcomes associated with liraglutide treatment. The PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang databases were searched in October 2018 to identify randomized controlled trials of liraglutide for diabetes patients with early-stage nephropathy. The treatment effect was estimated by calculating the mean difference (MD). Heterogeneity was assessed using χ2 and I2 tests. In addition, risk of bias graphs and summaries were used to assess the quality of the trials included. A total of 13 randomized controlled trials were included in the present meta-analysis. In subjects with stage I-II diabetic nephropathy (DN), liraglutide had obvious advantages in lowering the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio [UACR; MD=-90.96, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-94.12 to -87.80, P<0.00001], urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER; MD=-64.86, 95% CI=-66.63 to -63.08, P<0.00001), serum creatinine (Scr; MD=-13.67, 95% CI=-17.88 to -9.46, P<0.00001). In subjects with stage-III DN, liraglutide had favorable effects on renal function (UACR: MD=-11.23, 95% CI=-13.14 to -9.32, P<0.00001; UAER: MD=-14.06; 95% CI=-6.93 to -11.18; P<0.00001; Scr: MD=-9.17, 95% CI=-14.61 to -3.72, P=0.0010) and exhibited anti-inflammatory effects (transforming growth factor-β1: P<0.00001; tumor necrosis factor-α: P=0.006; interleukin-6: P<0.00001). Furthermore, liraglutide also reduced the blood lipid levels, body mass index and post-prandial blood glucose. The most common adverse effects of liraglutide were gastrointestinal tract reactions and hypoglycemia, but these symptoms resolved quickly. Liraglutide appears to be effective in reducing proteinuria, improving renal function, producing an anti-inflammatory effect and ameliorating glucose and lipid metabolism in diabetic patients with early-stage nephropathy.