GLP-1s & incretins
Liraglutide
The older once-daily GLP-1 agonist, with long real-world follow-up and modest effect sizes.
- How settled this rating is:
- high confidence in the current evidence rating
- Routes studied:
- Subcutaneous injection
- Also known as:
- Victoza, Saxenda
- Last reviewed:
- 2026-09-06
Jump to section
Evidence passport
Liraglutide
A one-screen evidence identity for this compound. These fields describe research maturity, confidence and legal status. They are not a safety guarantee, efficacy percentage or recommendation.
- Evidence level
- L5Repeated human trials
- Confidence
- High confidence in rating
- Regulatory status
- Approved medicine (jurisdiction-specific) · See jurisdiction details
- Development status
- Approved
Evidence strength
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.
The 0-100 values rate the strength and maturity of evidence, not how effective or safe the compound is.
- Evidence base
- Includes human studies
- Furthest established stage
- Approved
- Human research maturity
- Approved, long post-marketing history
- Source curation
- Sources fully curated
Routes recorded
Overview
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.
How to read these scores
Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.
- Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
- Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
- Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
- Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
- Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.
None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.
How far human research has progressed: Approved, long post-marketing history
Routes & formulations
Studied / approved routes
Approved products (Victoza, Saxenda) are once-daily subcutaneous injections.
Route availability is not evidence of efficacy, and evidence from one route does not transfer to another. The Registry never provides dosing or sourcing information.
Peptide lifecycle
Discovery
Preclinical
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Approved
What it is
A once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist, the earlier generation of this drug class.
What people claim
- Weight loss
- Glycaemic control
- Cardiovascular benefit in defined populations
What the evidence actually says
Well evidenced, but generally less effective for weight than newer weekly agents. Its main present-day value is the depth of long-term safety experience.
Related evidence
Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.
- Related compound
Semaglutide evidence profile
A GLP-1 receptor agonist with one of the largest clinical trial programmes in modern metabolic medicine.
- Compare
Compare Liraglutide vs Semaglutide evidence
Same questions, same fields, side by side — including how much human evidence exists.
- Checked claim
Claim review: “If my GLP-1 stops suppressing appetite, it has stopped working.”
A closely related claim we have graded, from GLP-1s.
- Context
GLP-1 Centre
How the incretin medicines compare on trial evidence and where they are actually licensed.
Human evidence
- Multiple randomised trials in diabetes and obesity.
- Cardiovascular outcome trial data in higher-risk type 2 diabetes.
- Years of post-marketing surveillance.
Preclinical evidence
- Foundational incretin pharmacology in rodent models.
Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.
Mechanism and pathways
- GLP-1 receptor agonism with a shorter duration of action than weekly analogues.
Safety and unknowns
- Common gastrointestinal effects.
- Injection-site reactions more frequently reported than with some weekly agents.
- The longest safety track record in the class.
Cancer relevance
This section covers questions raised by how the compound works in the body, plus anything regulators and trial teams keep an eye on. It is not a statement that this compound causes cancer — for most compounds here, no human data exist in either direction.
Monitored in trials; not demonstrated in humans
Regulatory status
Regulatory decisions apply to specific jurisdictions, products, formulations and indications. An approval elsewhere is not automatically an approval in your country.
Check the regulatory note and linked primary sources for jurisdiction-specific details.
Approved for type 2 diabetes and, in a separate formulation, weight management.
Evidence grade
Substantial, consistent controlled human evidence supporting a specified outcome, preferably independently replicated. Approval is reported separately.
What would change our rating?
- Pooled long-term registry analyses across the class.
References and sources
Source transparency
A provenance snapshot of this profile. Counts show what kinds of sources are cited, not how much scientific weight each source deserves.
- Last editorial review
- 2026-09-06
- Recently reviewed · 40 days ago
- Linked curated sources
- 1
- Sources still pending
- 0
- External specialist reviews
- 0
- None recorded for this profile
Review provenance
Registry editorial review: Colin Jackson-White, creator and editor, who is not a doctor or clinician. External specialist review is credited only when a named reviewer has completed a review of this exact profile.
Literature-discovery and AI tools may help locate or challenge candidate evidence, but they are not counted as evidence sources here. Registry judgements are tied to the underlying papers, trial records, regulator documents and official study records.
- Regulatory / labelFDA press announcement — proposal to exclude semaglutide, tirzepatide and liraglutide from the 503B bulks list (30 April 2026)
Source hierarchy: regulatory documents and trial registries first, peer-reviewed work next, sponsor material flagged as non-independent. We never use supplier or clinic marketing as evidence, and where a verified source has not yet been curated we say so rather than inventing one.
Evidence change history
These entries record changes to our assessment of the published evidence — not changes to the compound itself.
No recorded changes yet. Baseline position set on 2026-09-06.