Loading
Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment / Diabetes Treatment and Management · Journal article
Journal of Advances in Internal Medicine · August 8, 2026
Well-designed and adequately powered for the question it asks.
This scoping review found dual GIP/GLP-1 agonists superior to GLP-1 agonists for weight loss and metabolic improvement in obese patients, but identified distinct adverse event profiles: GLP-1 agonists more associated with gastrointestinal side effects, dual agonists with psychiatric adverse effects including depression and self-harm. Poor adherence and treatment discontinuation occurred in both groups due to cost and supply constraints.
Scoping review. Obese patients treated with dual GIP/GLP-1 agonists or GLP-1 receptor agonists. Intervention: Dual GIP/GLP-1 agonists (including tirzepatide). Compared with: GLP-1 receptor agonists (including semaglutide, liraglutide).
Dual agonists produced greater decrease in body weight compared to GLP-1 agonists Dual agonists improved metabolic profile and general health of patients more than GLP-1 agonists GLP-1 agonists more frequently associated with gastrointestinal side effects
Specific psychiatric adverse event rates and frequencies not quantified GLP-1 agonists more frequently associated with gastrointestinal side effects
Clinicians should recognize dual agonists as more effective for weight loss but should counsel patients on increased psychiatric monitoring and discuss cost and supply barriers to adherence. The psychiatric safety profile of dual agonists warrants careful patient selection and follow-up.
Scoping review synthesizing comparative efficacy and safety data across multiple studies of dual GIP/GLP-1 versus GLP-1 agonists, demonstrating dual agonists superiority for weight loss with identified safety trade-offs.
As stated by the source record.
Clinicians should recognize dual agonists as more effective for weight loss but should counsel patients on increased psychiatric monitoring and discuss cost and supply barriers to adherence. The psychiatric safety profile of dual agonists warrants careful patient selection and follow-up.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
What is missing. This record has no reported figures. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
BACKGROUND The management of obesity is complex and has evolved considerably in recent years owing to the addition of incretin homologues like semaglutide, liraglutide and tirzepatide. Despite studies suggesting their potential use for weight loss, there is a dearth of accessible knowledge regarding their comparative benefits and effectiveness, limiting their use in the management of obesity. OBJECTIVE The present study aims to provide a scoping review of available literature on the effectiveness, adverse events, cost efficiency and future prospects of glucagon-like peptide 1(GLP-1) receptor agonists and dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists in promoting weight loss among obese individuals. METHODS This review was conducted according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A thorough database search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar to identify relevant articles assessing the use of dual GIP/GLP-1 agonists versus GLP-1 agonists in obese patients. RESULTS Dual agonists were found to be more effective, producing a greater decrease in body weight and improving the metabolic profile and general health of patients. GLP-1 agonists were more frequently associated with gastrointestinal side effects, while the dual agonists reported greater psychiatric adverse effects, including depression and self-harm. Poor adherence and discontinuation of therapy were problems faced during treatment with both groups, owing to their high cost and supply shortage. CONCLUSION Current research provides sufficient evidence suggesting superior efficacy of dual agonists for weight loss, although future studies focusing on alternative dosing schedules and cost-friendly options for incretin mimetics are needed.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.