Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Author reply to: Exploring the impact of short-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists on GERD risk
  1. Benjamin Douglas Liu1,
  2. Gengqing Song2
  1. 1Internal Medicine, MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  2. 2Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Gengqing Song, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA; songgavin2010{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We appreciate the constructive dialogue from Cheng on our study’s findings.1 We agree that any clinical database study has limitations that necessitate careful interpretation of results. Manual medical records review is a logical next step to mitigate these shortcomings and allow a more thorough examination of each patient’s course. Nevertheless, we re-analysed our data in response to points raised.

The analyses in our original paper suggest an elevated risk of undergoing an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) compared with control. As mentioned in our prior reply,2 we recognise that there is a potential diagnostic bias from this observation. We re-ran our cohorts and found that the rate of undergoing an EGD in the propensity-score matched cohort receiving short-acting GLP-1 RA was …

View Full Text


  • Contributors BDL: conceptualisation, drafting, editing manuscript. GS: conceptualisation, project supervision, writing, editing manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.