Background: Orforglipron is a novel once‐daily oral non‐peptide glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist with several recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating its role in diabetes and obesity. No meta‐analysis has analyzed the efficacy and safety of orforglipron; this meta‐analysis aimed to address this knowledge gap.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases to identify RCTs that included individuals with obesity who were administered orforglipron and compared to either a placebo or an active comparator. The primary outcome of interest was the percent change in body weight.Results: From 12 initially screened articles, data from three RCTs involving 774 people were analyzed with a follow‐up duration of up to 36 weeks. Compared to placebo, patients receiving orforglipron 12 mg/day (mean difference (MD), MD −5.48%, 95% CI [−7.64, −3.33], p < 0.01), 24 mg/day (MD −8.51%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−9.88, −7.14], p < 0.01), 36 mg/day (MD −8.84%, 95% CI [−11.68, −6.00], p < 0.01) and 45 mg/day (MD −8.24%, 95% CI [−12.84, −3.63], p < 0.01) had a significantly greater percent reduction in body weight. The percentage of patients being able to achieve >15% weight loss from baseline was significantly higher with orforglipron 24 mg/day [Odds ratio (OR) 21.90 (95% CI [4.06, 118.15], p = 0.0003), 36 mg/day (OR 17.43, 95% CI [3.18, 95.66], p = 0.001) and 45 mg/day (OR 23.17, 95% CI [4.37, 123.03], p = 0.0002). Total but not severe adverse events were significantly higher with all the doses of orforglipron compared to placebo, with the hazard ratios being higher with higher doses. Gastrointestinal side‐effects were predominant side effects, being dose‐dependent, with nausea, vomiting, constipation, and gastroesophageal reflux being the predominant ones.Conclusion: Orforglipron at 24–45 mg/day doses is an effective weight loss medication. The efficacy versus side effect profile suggests that 24–36 mg/day is the most optimal dose for orforglipron as an anti‐obesity medicine.

Preexisting diabetes mellitus (DM) should be ruled out early in pregnancy in those at risk. During screening, a significant proportion of women do not reach the threshold for overt DM but fulfill the criteria used for diagnosing conventional gestational DM (cGDM). There is no consensus on the management of pregnancies with intermediate levels of hyperglycemia thus diagnosed. We have used the term early gestational DM (eGDM) for this condition and reviewed the currently available literature. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), oral glucose tolerance test, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) are the commonly employed screening tools in early pregnancy. Observational studies suggest that early pregnancy FPG and Hba1c correlate with the risk of cGDM and adverse perinatal outcomes. However, specific cut-offs, including those proposed by the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group, do not reliably predict the development of cGDM. Emerging data, though indicate that FPG ≥ 92 mg/dL (5.1 mmol/L), even in the absence of cGDM, signals the risk for perinatal complication. Elevated HbA1c, especially a level ≥ 5.9%, also correlates with the risk of cGDM and worsened outcome. HbA1c as a diagnostic test is however besieged with the usual caveats that occur in pregnancy. The studies that explored the effects of intervention present conflicting results, including a possibility of fetal malnutrition and small-for-date baby in the early treatment group. Diagnostic thresholds and glycemic targets in eGDM may differ, and large multicenter randomized controlled trials are necessary to define the appropriate strategy.

Background: Data on the carcinogenic potential of tirzepatide from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are limited. Furthermore, no meta-analysis has included all relevant RCTs to assess the cancer risk associated with tirzepatide.Methods: RCTs involving patients receiving tirzepatide in the intervention arm and either a placebo or any active comparator in the control arm were searched through electronic databases. The primary outcome was the overall risk of any cancer, and secondary outcomes were the risks of specific types of cancer in the tirzepatide versus the control groups.Results: Thirteen RCTs with 13,761 participants were analyzed. Over 26 to 72 weeks, the tirzepatide and pooled control groups had identical risks of any cancer (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 1.16; P=0.22). The two groups had comparable cancer risks in patients with and without diabetes. In subgroup analyses, the risks were also similar in the tirzepatide versus placebo, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist groups. The overall cancer risk was also comparable for different doses of tirzepatide compared to the control groups; only a 10-mg tirzepatide dose had a lower risk of any cancer than placebo. Furthermore, compared to the control groups (pooled or separately), tirzepatide did not increase the risk of any specific cancer types. Despite greater increments in serum calcitonin with 10- and 15-mg tirzepatide doses than with placebo, the included RCTs reported no cases of papillary thyroid carcinoma.Conclusion: Tirzepatide use in RCTs over 26 to 72 weeks did not increase overall or specific cancer risk.