Diabetic macular edema and GLP-1 receptor agonist use: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are widely used for type II diabetes and obesity because of their cardiometabolic benefits. However, concerns regarding potential ocular adverse effects, particularly diabetic macular edema (DME), have prompted the need to clarify their retinal safety. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis study was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statements (PROSPERO registration: CRD420251176164). MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CENTRAL (Ovid), Web of Science, and PubMed were searched from inception to October 24, 2025. Randomized trials and observational cohort or case-control studies, including individuals with diabetes without baseline DME and exposed to GLP-1RAs were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Random-effects models were used to pool incidence proportions and hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Thirteen retrospective cohort studies (2021-2025) using large real-world databases were included. Across 6 studies, the pooled proportion of incident DME among GLP-1RA users was 0.14 (95% CI: 0.07-0.23; I² = 99.8%). Compared with mixed antihyperglycemic therapies, GLP-1RA use was not associated with increased DME risk (pooled HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.52-1.26). GLP-1RAs were associated with a higher relative risk of DME compared with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (HR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.17-1.94) but not compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.69-1.19). Evidence certainty was very low. CONCLUSION: Current low-certainty observational evidence does not support an overall increased risk of DME with GLP-1RA use. Prospective studies are needed to clarify comparative retinal safety.