Dose Titration, Gastrointestinal Tolerability and Deprescribing of GLP-1 and Dual Incretin Agonists

Key Takeaways

• The central clinical dilemma in incretin therapy is no longer whether to prescribe, but how to manage dose escalation: The fixed 4-week intervals outlined in the package insert were designed for clinical trial populations; yet real-world cohorts exhibit high rates of early discontinuation and patients frequently plateau at submaximal doses—a phenomenon driven substantially by outright cessation of therapy rather than proactive dose-interval adjustment to manage gastrointestinal intolerance. The appropriate clinical response to nausea emerging at any titration step is not escalation to the subsequent tier, but prolongation of the interval spent at the current dose.
• Delayed gastric emptying is not an incidental adverse effect, but an intrinsic mechanism driving postprandial glycemic control and satiety; it is mediated through vagal afferent and central GLP-1 receptor signaling and extends to small intestinal and colonic motility, thereby explaining the entire constellation of clinical symptoms including nausea, early satiety, dyspepsia, reflux, and altered bowel habits.
• While substantial divergence persists between anesthesiology and gastroenterology society guidelines regarding perioperative management, emerging regional consensus statements—such as Australian and New Zealand guidelines—advocate continuing therapy alongside modified protocols incorporating a 24-hour clear liquid diet and standard 6-hour preoperative fasting.
• Clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic interactions are mechanism-based rather than enzyme-mediated. Oral semaglutide absorption remains strictly dependent on fasting status, water volume, and post-dose waiting duration; furthermore, altered drug exposure has been demonstrated for both levothyroxine and oral contraceptives, each warranting active therapeutic drug monitoring or contraceptive bridging strategies.
• Discontinuation of therapy precipitates weight regain proportional to the amount lost, with this rebound being markedly greater following treatment with more potent agents. Obesity must be framed and consented to as a chronic, relapsing disease requiring maintenance therapy; structured dose reduction should not serve as a default exit strategy and must be reserved strictly for well-defined clinical scenarios.

Introduction and Clinical Background

Within a decade, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/GLP-1 co-agonist tirzepatide have transformed from third-line glucose-lowering agents into the pharmacological backbone of obesity and cardiometabolic medicine. The clinical reality of this paradigm shift is that non-endocrinologists now routinely navigate titration schedules, gastrointestinal symptom burdens, perioperative management decisions, and the far more vexing question of when—and if—therapy should ever be discontinued.

A substantial portion of everyday clinical practice now addresses the gap between clinical trial efficacy and real-world implementation. Real-world cohorts reveal discontinuation rates ranging from 20% to 50% within the first year and widespread utilization of doses substantially below those tested in pivotal registrational trials; in routine practice, weight loss lags behind randomized controlled trial benchmarks except among highly adherent patients^[1]. Early treatment discontinuation is rarely the culmination of structured clinical troubleshooting; it is far more frequently the consequence of unmitigated nausea, an unmanaged bout of constipation, financial strain, or an aborted procedural intervention attributed by the patient to the medication.

Virtually all preventable incretin-related morbidity stems from three fundamental domains. The first is titration: advancing doses according to calendar milestones rather than symptomatic trajectory. The second is the motility phenotype itself, which constitutes both the therapeutic driver and the predominant adverse-effect profile—and has spilled into procedural medicine through concerns over residual gastric contents under anesthesia. The third is deprescribing, as an intervention of unequivocal on-treatment efficacy confronts the entrenched biology of weight regain alongside healthcare system pressures that seek to truncate treatment duration.

Historically, delayed gastric emptying induced by GLP-1 agonism was viewed as a tolerable nuisance that attenuated over time. However, the introduction of long-acting weekly agents deployed at higher doses in non-diabetic populations with intact baseline motility has rewritten this equation, while a flurry of conflicting society statements has left clinicians without a single definitive reference standard. This review synthesizes what the available evidence supports—and precisely delineates what it does not.

Molecular and Pathophysiological Mechanisms

Receptor Distribution and Motility Phenotype

The GLP-1 receptor is a class B G-protein-coupled receptor that signals predominantly via Gs and adenylyl cyclase to increase intracellular cyclic AMP levels. In pancreatic beta cells, this potentiates glucose-dependent insulin secretion, whereas in the intestine and brainstem, it produces the motility and appetite effects that dominate the clinical presentation. Receptor agonism alters motility at every level of the gastrointestinal tract; delayed gastric emptying is the best-characterized alteration, and this same mechanism accounts for nausea, vomiting, early satiety, dyspepsia, and changes in bowel habits, as well as periprocedural aspiration concerns and drug tolerability challenges^[2].

Mechanistically, the deceleration of gastric motility reflects inhibition of antral contractility, increased pyloric tone, and proximal gastric relaxation accompanied by vagal afferent activation and central processing at the level of the area postrema and the nucleus tractus solitarius. This same deceleration provides a substantial mechanistic contribution to mitigating postprandial glycemic excursions; however, pronounced slowing prolongs intragastric retention of solid food, laying the groundwork for procedural risk debates^[3]. Deceleration in the small intestine additionally limits chylomicron formation and triglyceride absorption^[4], whereas reduced lower gastrointestinal motility may contribute to the development of constipation in the clinical course.

Tachyphylaxis and Baseline Gastric Emptying Rate

There are two clinically decisive and underappreciated pharmacodynamic features. First, the effect of long-acting agonists on gastric emptying undergoes tachyphylaxis with sustained exposure; this explains why nausea typically resolves after several weeks at a fixed dose, even while appetite suppression persists. Second, in individuals whose gastric emptying is already delayed prior to treatment—a scenario frequently encountered in longstanding type 2 diabetes accompanied by autonomic neuropathy—further pharmacological delay remains limited, as this effect is partly dependent on the baseline rate^[4]. The practical clinical implication is that pronounced pharmacodynamic delay is not confined to diabetic individuals with underlying dysmotility, but can also lead to marked symptomatic retention in non-diabetic patients with normal baseline motility who are receiving high-dose weight management regimens.

Dual Incretin Pharmacology

Tirzepatide is a single 39-amino-acid peptide engineered from the native GIP sequence via C20 fatty diacid conjugation that activates both GIP and GLP-1 receptors with an imbalance favoring GIP. In rodent models, chronic administration reduced body weight and food intake significantly more than a selective GLP-1 receptor agonist^[5]. A proposed benefit of GIP co-agonism is the attenuation of nausea via central GIP receptor signaling in the area postrema; however, in early human studies in individuals with type 2 diabetes (while achieving significant reductions versus placebo in fasting glucose of −49.12 mg/dL and −43.15 mg/dL, and in body weight of −2.62 kg and −2.07 kg at the 10 mg and 15 mg doses, respectively), gastrointestinal events comprising vomiting, nausea, decreased appetite, diarrhea, and abdominal distension were the most frequently reported adverse effects and exhibited a dose-dependent pattern^[5]; this constitutes the primary rationale for gradual dose escalation.

Pharmacokinetic Architecture and Interaction Consequences

Native GLP-1 has a half-life of approximately two minutes; all commercially available agents overcome this through amino acid substitution, fatty acid conjugation to a linker, or fusion to albumin or an IgG Fc domain, yielding molecules with minimal metabolic turnover and minimal renal excretion^[6]. These are large, highly protein-bound peptides degraded by ubiquitous endopeptidases rather than cytochrome P450 enzymes, which explains the absence of classic enzyme- and transporter-mediated interactions. Exenatide is the primary exception within this class: as an unconjugated exendin-4 analogue, it undergoes renal elimination; its short-acting formulation is not recommended in patients with a creatinine clearance below 30 mL/min, and its extended-release formulation carries usage restrictions in settings with an eGFR below 45 mL/min/1.73 m².

Semaglutide exhibits a predictable, dose-proportional profile with dose-related increases in area under the curve and maximum concentration for both subcutaneous and oral formulations, alongside a half-life that permits once-weekly subcutaneous dosing; for the oral formulation, however, food intake, the volume of co-ingested water, and dosing schedules substantially alter exposure^[7]. Beyond direct peptide pharmacokinetics, it has been posited that substantial loss of fat mass could theoretically alter the volume of distribution and clearance of concomitant lipophilic drugs, and that changes in glomerular filtration rate during treatment might influence the kinetics of renally excreted agents; however, the clinical significance of these mechanisms remains incompletely elucidated^[6].

Clinical Evidence and Guideline Comparison

Quantification of Gastrointestinal Risk

The most rigorous synthesis of serious gastrointestinal adverse events to date pooled 55 placebo-controlled randomized trials encompassing 106,395 participants with type 2 diabetes, overweight or obesity, or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. GLP-1 receptor agonists increased the risk of cholelithiasis (risk ratio 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.97, corresponding to 2 additional cases per 1,000 individuals) and probably increased the risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease (risk ratio 2.19, 95% CI 1.48 to 3.25, corresponding to 4 additional cases per 1,000 individuals); in contrast, they demonstrated little to no effect on pancreatitis, gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, paralytic ileus, gastrointestinal bleeding, ulceration, or perforation^[8]. Although subgroup analyses suggested that the risks of cholelithiasis and reflux were more pronounced with weight-loss agents and higher-dose formulations, these subgroup effects did not reach statistical significance—serving as an important evidence-level caveat that dose should not be overinterpreted as a determinant of biliary risk.

These data represent a reassuring body of evidence that can be shared with anxious patients with confidence: frequently publicized headline risks, notably gastroparesis and pancreatitis, are not supported by randomized trial evidence. Observational data align with these findings; while pointing to common gastrointestinal disturbances, they show no clear increase in pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, thyroid disorders, or depression and self-harm, whereas signals regarding ocular disease and other rare outcomes remain unresolved^[1].

Residual Gastric Content and the Aspiration Concern

The primary objective dataset on this issue comes from a cross-sectional gastric ultrasonography study of 124 patients presenting for elective procedures following standard preoperative fasting. Increased residual gastric content—defined as solids, thick liquids, or more than 1.5 mL/kg of clear liquids—was present in 56% of patients on once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with 19% of non-users; following propensity score adjustment, agonist use was associated with a 30.5 percentage point higher prevalence (95% CI 9.9 to 51.2) and an adjusted prevalence ratio of 2.48 (95% CI 1.23 to 4.97)^[9]. Critically, exploratory analysis revealed no association between the duration of drug discontinuation and residual content (adjusted odds ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14). This negative exploratory finding suggests that an empirical strategy of withholding the medication for merely one or two half-lives may not alone provide adequate reassurance in reducing residual content.

Endoscopic series likewise converge on the observation that retained gastric contents are more frequently seen in treated patients, but that this is rarely linked to actual pulmonary aspiration, and that the evidence base supporting any specific discontinuation interval is weak^[4]. In synthesis, while a surrogate marker of risk is markedly elevated, the hard clinical endpoint remains infrequent, and evidence specific to long-acting agents remains limited^[3].

Points of Consensus and Divergence Across Guidelines

A United Kingdom multidisciplinary consensus spanning anesthesiology, diabetology, bariatric surgery, and clinical pharmacy concluded, following a three-round modified Delphi process, that patients receiving GLP-1 receptor agonists and dual GIP/GLP-1 agonists should continue these medications preoperatively, undergo comprehensive risk assessment and stratification, and benefit from techniques that mitigate aspiration risk before, during, and after anesthesia—a stance in marked contrast to sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which must be withheld the day before and the day of the procedure^[10].

The 2025 Australian and New Zealand recommendations provide the most operationally detailed framework. These recommendations mandate screening all patients for agonist use, continuing the medications throughout the periprocedural period, and placing all users on a 24-hour clear liquid diet prior to standard six-hour fasting; when a clear liquid diet cannot be completed, risk stratification via gastric ultrasonography or minimally sedated gastroscopy, alongside intravenous erythromycin, is recommended. The panel explicitly rejected using the absence of gastrointestinal symptoms as a stratification tool and refrained from defining any withholding interval sufficient to normalize gastric emptying^[11].

Not all societies are in agreement. The Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement, conducting a registered systematic review and modified Delphi process, highlighted that recommendations across published multispecialty society statements diverge substantially regarding both medication management and preoperative fasting protocols for solids and liquids^[12]. Clinicians must therefore anticipate inter-institutional variability and must ascertain which protocol governs their own operating rooms.

What Happens After Treatment Discontinuation?

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 8 randomized trials encompassing 2,372 participants, all with a body mass index of 27 kg/m² or higher, quantified the trajectory following drug cessation:in pooled analysis, participants treated with liraglutide regained a pooled 2.20 kg (95% CI, 1.69 to 2.70; P < 0.001), whereas those treated with semaglutide or tirzepatide regained 9.69 kg (95% CI, 5.78 to 13.60; P < 0.001). This weight regain was directly proportional to the weight initially lost and occurred independently of concomitant lifestyle intervention^[13]. The authors’ conclusion—that these agents must be regarded as chronic therapy—stands as the single most definitive and critical statement for both the informed consent process and healthcare systems planning.

Practical Implications and Safety Profile

Patient Selection and Phenotypic Characterization

Prior to the first injection, three distinct phenotypes must be stratified. The standard candidate—patients with obesity or type 2 diabetes without underlying upper gastrointestinal disease—proceeds with standard titration in accordance with package insert recommendations. The high symptom risk candidate group comprises patients with pre-existing gastroesophageal reflux, functional dyspepsia, a history of cholecystitis without cholecystectomy, or those receiving concurrent opioid or anticholinergic therapy; in these patients, dose escalation should be performed in half-steps alongside proactive symptom counseling. The relative avoidance phenotype encompasses proven gastroparesis, a history of bowel obstruction or extensive adhesive disease, and active eating disorders accompanied by purging behavior; a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 represents a primary contraindication listed in the product labeling of the respective agents, particularly for long-acting compounds.

Titration: Calendar Architecture and Symptom-Guided Rate Adjustment

For subcutaneous semaglutide in weight management, the standard label schedule is 0.25 mg weekly for four weeks, followed at four-week intervals by 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, 1.7 mg, and 2.4 mg weekly, respectively; in type 2 diabetes, this sequence progresses as 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg weekly. Tirzepatide therapy is initiated at 2.5 mg weekly for four weeks, increased to 5 mg, and then escalated in 2.5 mg increments at intervals of at least four weeks up to a maximum weekly dose of 15 mg. In obesity management, liraglutide is initiated at 0.6 mg daily and titrated in weekly 0.6 mg increments to 3.0 mg daily. Dulaglutide is escalated from 0.75 mg weekly to 1.5, 3.0, and 4.5 mg. Oral semaglutide is administered at 3 mg daily for 30 days, followed by 7 mg, and subsequently 14 mg.

This calendar is not a binding mandate, but a ceiling limit. Because gastrointestinal adverse events exhibit a distinctly dose-dependent pattern^[5], the optimal clinical approach when moderate nausea develops is to maintain the current dose for an additional four to eight weeks until tachyphylaxis is established, proceeding with escalation only after clinical tolerance has been achieved. In selected cases where tolerability remains borderline, off-label intermediate dose titration may be utilized clinically if the technical design of the device permits (such as multi-dose dial-a-dose pens); however, dose manipulation must not be attempted with fixed-dose autoinjectors, and close attention must be paid to the risk of dosing errors. In patients who achieve a satisfactory clinical response below the labeled target maintenance doses for the obesity indication (for example, weekly 1.0 mg semaglutide or 7.5 mg tirzepatide), further escalation may not be mandated; nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that this approach constitutes an off-label maintenance strategy.

Prevention and Management of Gastrointestinal Adverse Effects

Non-pharmacological measures must be prescribed as explicitly and clearly as the drug itself: reducing portion size, decreasing fat and fiber load during the first two weeks following each dose escalation, terminating food intake at the first sensation of satiety, avoiding alcohol and carbonated beverages, and maintaining adequate fluid intake. For mild to moderate nausea, dietary modification is primarily essential; when pharmacotherapy is required, 4 to 8 mg of ondansetron may be prescribed for short-term use, though it must be considered that this agent may exacerbate incretin-related constipation and prolong the QT interval in patients with electrolyte disturbances. Due to the risks of tardive dyskinesia and extrapyramidal side effects, metoclopramide use should be cautiously restricted, regional regulatory guidelines must be observed, and its long-term, uncontrolled use in GLP-1-induced dysmotility should be avoided. For the maintenance treatment of constipation, osmotic laxation with daily 17 g of polyethylene glycol, typically titrated to response, is preferred over stimulant laxatives. In the setting of reflux, which along with cholelithiasis yielded the most pronounced signal in randomized trials^[8], advancing the timing of the evening meal in conjunction with a standard-dose proton pump inhibitor is appropriate; if symptoms are refractory, reducing the agonist dose should be considered.

Right upper quadrant pain arising during rapid weight loss warrants evaluation with biliary ultrasonography rather than symptomatic therapy. In the presence of persistent vomiting accompanied by abdominal distension, imaging should be performed to exclude obstruction, lipase levels should be measured, and drug therapy should be temporarily held until results are obtained.

Oral Drug Absorption and Interaction Management

No clinically meaningful enzyme- or transporter-mediated interactions have been demonstrated for this drug class, and most mechanism-based interactions secondary to delayed gastric emptying have proven clinically insignificant; the documented exceptions in the literature are marked exposure alterations observed with oral contraceptives following tirzepatide and with levothyroxine following oral semaglutide, both of which necessitate close monitoring^[6]. In practical terms, this dictates three rules: Patients using any oral hormonal contraceptive (combined or progestin-only) must switch to a non-oral contraceptive method or use an additional barrier method for four weeks after initiating tirzepatide and following each dose escalation. In patients receiving thyroxine replacement, thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels should be rechecked approximately six to eight weeks after initiating therapy or escalating the dose. For oral agents with a narrow therapeutic index—warfarin, digoxin, certain anticonvulsants, and immunosuppressants—drug levels or therapeutic effects should be monitored during dose escalation steps rather than performing routine dose adjustments.

Oral semaglutide demands its own strict administration discipline: co-ingested food, water volume, and the dosing schedule critically alter peptide exposure^[7]. In accordance with the product insert, it must be taken in the morning in a fasting state with no more than 120 mL of plain water; patients must wait at least 30 minutes before consuming food, beverages, or other oral medications. For the semaglutide molecule itself, no dose adjustment is required in renal or hepatic impairment or in upper gastrointestinal disorders. To avoid hypoglycemia, insulin and sulfonylurea doses should be proactively reduced at treatment initiation—typically, a 50% reduction in the sulfonylurea dose and a 20% reduction in basal insulin are preferred in patients close to target values.

Perioperative and Pre-Endoscopic Management by Urgency Level

Elective procedures scheduled for sedation or general anesthesia: Agonist therapy should be continued, drug use must be clarified during the pre-anesthesia evaluation, and a standard 6-hour preoperative fasting protocol following a 24-hour clear liquid diet should be implemented in alignment with local anesthesia protocols^[11]. The patient’s asymptomatic status should not be relied upon. In situations where liquid preparation cannot be fully completed, point-of-care gastric ultrasound (POCUS) should be performed; if solid gastric content or more than 1.5 mL/kg of clear liquid is detected, the procedure should be delayed, the fasting period extended, or the procedure continued with rapid sequence induction and tracheal intubation following a shared decision-making process. In this clinical scenario, intravenous erythromycin, a motilin agonist, is an accepted prokinetic adjunct.

Urgent and unprepared cases: The patient must be considered to have a full stomach, rapid sequence induction with cricoid pressure should be applied at the anesthesiologist’s discretion, and pre-induction nasogastric aspiration should be evaluated. Emergent surgery: No modification of the fasting duration is possible; aspiration prophylaxis and secure airway management supersede all other considerations. Discontinuation of the drug for a fixed duration is not supported across any level of urgency; indeed, available cross-sectional data have failed to demonstrate a significant correlation between the duration of drug withholding and residual gastric content^[9], and parallel instructions to discontinue sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors one day prior to surgery and on the day of surgery should not be generalized to incretin-based agents^[10].

Drug Discontinuation Versus Maintenance Therapy

In patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes with established cardiometabolic risk, long-term maintenance therapy should be adopted as the primary principle to prevent the risk of relapse, and patient education must be conducted through the framework of this chronic disease model. Justifications for planned or urgent drug discontinuation include pregnancy or pregnancy planning (product labeling recommends discontinuing semaglutide at least two months prior to planned conception), a confirmed or suspected episode of pancreatitis, intractable acute gastrointestinal intolerance, and cost pressures; in cases of proliferative diabetic retinopathy with a risk of exacerbation due to rapid HbA1c reduction, multidisciplinary ophthalmologic surveillance and close monitoring are essential rather than treatment cessation. Therapy must be discontinued immediately in the presence of suspected pancreatitis, pregnancy, or intolerable acute toxicity. When drug discontinuation is planned electively or for reasons other than intolerance, a structured dose reduction over 8 to 12 weeks, close weight monitoring, and intensified dietary and resistance exercise support may be considered as a clinical option compared to abrupt cessation; however, it must be kept in mind that randomized controlled trial data proving the superiority of gradual tapering over abrupt discontinuation are not yet available. Patients must be clearly informed that weight regain is expected, that this regain proceeds proportionally to the amount of weight lost, and that it is significantly greater following semaglutide or tirzepatide compared to liraglutide^[13].

Future Perspectives and Open Questions

The most pressing question awaiting an answer in perioperative medicine is whether the marked increase in the prevalence of residual gastric content leads to a measurable increase in clinically meaningful pulmonary aspiration, and if so, to what magnitude. Current guideline recommendations adopt an explicitly pragmatic approach, conceding that no drug withholding period can be considered adequate to restore baseline gastric emptying^[11]. Resolving this uncertainty will require prospective registry studies incorporating aspiration events adjudicated by independent committees and ideally stratified by agent, dose, treatment duration, and baseline motility; indeed, the margin for further delay is limited in a patient with pre-existing slow emptying^[4].

A second priority is the pharmacology of treatment discontinuation itself. Whether a maintenance dose below the weight-loss-inducing threshold can preserve the majority of metabolic benefits, whether intermittent or seasonal dosing is feasible, and whether specific nutritional or exercise protocols mitigate weight regain have not yet been tested in randomized trials. Priorities identified for real-world research include: precise triggers of early discontinuation and suboptimal dosing, the consequences of treatment cessation, and clinical and cost-effectiveness across hard endpoints extending beyond cardio-renal outcomes to neuropsychiatric diseases, cancer, musculoskeletal disorders, and infections^[1].

Mechanistically, the hypothesis that GIP receptor co-agonism mitigates nausea via central pathways warrants a dedicated, head-to-head tolerability study designed at equivalent weight-loss efficacy rather than equivalent milligram dosing; the dose-dependent nature of gastrointestinal events constitutes a confounding factor in all existing comparisons. Triple agonists adding glucagon receptor activity, oral small-molecule GLP-1 agonists exempt from the absorption constraints of peptide formulations, and amylin co-agonists will each need to be characterized independently regarding motility and interactions; class-level generalizations would be inaccurate.

Finally, the drug interaction literature continues to remain inadequate precisely in the domain where it is most critical. Interactions mediated by altered fat mass, modified cytochrome P450 activity, and shifting glomerular filtration during the course of marked weight loss have not been sufficiently defined and require dedicated investigation before confident co-prescribing recommendations can be developed for patients with polypharmacy^[6]. Until then, clinicians must regard every dose escalation as a pharmacokinetic event not only for the incretin agent itself, but for all other medications used by the patient. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling offers a plausible route to bridge this gap far more rapidly than conventional interaction studies.

References

1. Thomsen RW, Mailhac A, Løhde JB, Pottegård A. Real-world evidence on the utilization, clinical and comparative effectiveness, and adverse effects of newer GLP-1RA-based weight-loss therapies. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2025;27 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):66-88. doi:10.1111/dom.16364. PubMed
2. Bellavance D, Chua S, Mashimo H. Gastrointestinal Motility Effects of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2025;27(1):49. doi:10.1007/s11894-025-00995-3. PubMed
3. Jalleh RJ, Rayner CK, Hausken T, Jones KL, Camilleri M, Horowitz M. Gastrointestinal effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists: mechanisms, management, and future directions. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024;9(10):957-964. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(24)00188-2. PubMed
4. Jalleh RJ, Plummer MP, Marathe CS, Umapathysivam MM, Quast DR, Rayner CK, et al. Clinical Consequences of Delayed Gastric Emptying With GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Tirzepatide. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2024;110(1):1-15. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgae719. PubMed
5. Coskun T, Sloop KW, Loghin C, Alsina-Fernandez J, Urva S, Bokvist KB, et al. LY3298176, a novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: From discovery to clinical proof of concept. Mol Metab. 2018;18:3-14. doi:10.1016/j.molmet.2018.09.009. PubMed
6. Min JS, Jo SJ, Lee S, Kim DY, Kim DH, Lee CB, et al. A Comprehensive Review on the Pharmacokinetics and Drug-Drug Interactions of Approved GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and a Dual GLP-1/GIP Receptor Agonist. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2025;19:3509-3537. doi:10.2147/DDDT.S506957. PubMed
7. Yang XD, Yang YY. Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Semaglutide: A Systematic Review. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2024;18:2555-2570. doi:10.2147/DDDT.S470826. PubMed
8. Chiang CH, Jaroenlapnopparat A, Colak SC, Yu CC, Xanthavanij N, Wang TH, et al. Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Gastrointestinal Adverse Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology. 2025;169(6):1268-1281. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.06.003. PubMed
9. Sen S, Potnuru PP, Hernandez N, Goehl C, Praestholm C, Sridhar S, et al. Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Use and Residual Gastric Content Before Anesthesia. JAMA Surg. 2024;159(6):660-667. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0111. PubMed
10. El-Boghdadly K, Dhesi J, Fabb P, Levy N, Lobo DN, McKechnie A, et al. Elective peri-operative management of adults taking glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors: a multidisciplinary consensus statement: A consensus statement from the Association of Anaesthetists, Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society, Centre for Perioperative Care, Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care, Royal College of Anaesthetists, Society for Obesity and Bariatric Anaesthesia and UK Clinical Pharmacy Association. Anaesthesia. 2025;80(4):412-424. doi:10.1111/anae.16541. PubMed
11. Hocking SL, Scott DA, Remedios ML, Horowitz M, Story DA, Greenfield JR, et al. 2025 ADS/ANZCA/GESA/NACOS clinical practice recommendations on the peri-procedural use of GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2025;53(5):300-306. doi:10.1177/0310057X251355288. PubMed
12. Oprea AD, Ostapenko LJ, Sweitzer B, Selzer A, Irizarry-Alvarado JM, Hurtado Andrade MD, et al. Perioperative management of patients taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists: Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement (SPAQI) multidisciplinary consensus statement. Br J Anaesth. 2025;135(1):48-78. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2025.04.001. PubMed
13. Berg S, Stickle H, Rose SJ, Nemec EC. Discontinuing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and body habitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2025;26(8):e13929. doi:10.1111/obr.13929. PubMed

Share this article

LinkedIn X Facebook WhatsApp Copy Link