What clinical studies report adverse events of gluosense in type 2 diabetes patients?

1. The question as asked and the data gap: no sourced evidence for “gluosense”

A direct search of the supplied reporting finds no occurrence of the name “gluosense,” and none of the supplied snippets or article titles identify a molecule, trial, or safety dataset for a product by that name; therefore it is not possible from these sources to point to any clinical study that reports adverse events of gluosense in type 2 diabetes patients ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. What the available evidence actually addresses: GLP‑1 receptor agonists and similar agents

The materials provided instead summarize adverse‑event findings from the GLP‑1 receptor agonist (GLP‑1 RA) class and several investigational agents: reviews and meta‑analyses document gastrointestinal events (nausea, diarrhea, vomiting) as the class’s most frequent adverse effects, often occurring during dose escalation and typically mild to moderate in randomized trials ^{[4] [1] [6]}.

3. Specific trials and program results that report adverse events (examples from the sources)

Phase‑level reporting in the supplied sources illustrates the pattern: an oral GLP‑1 candidate, orforglipron (Lilly), showed a safety profile “similar to the established GLP‑1 class” with gastrointestinal‑related adverse events as the most frequently reported events in pooled Phase 3 results ^{[7] [3]}. Glyscend’s Phase I report for its oral polymer therapeutic GLY‑200 stated the molecule was well tolerated with no serious adverse events and only dose‑dependent, mild gastrointestinal symptoms as the common adverse events ^[2]. A later class example, ecnoglutide, had 10 participants discontinue due to adverse events in a phase 3 obesity trial, illustrating that tolerability can drive discontinuation in registrational programs even when overall profiles are described as favorable ^[8].

4. Serious or rare signals and syntheses: what reviews and meta‑analyses say

Systematic reviews and comprehensive articles in these sources note rare but serious adverse‑event signals have been discussed in the literature and pharmacovigilance reports—reviews such as Tobaiqy’s survey of serious adverse events linked with GLP‑1 agonists are cited repeatedly in the reporting as examining these concerns—while larger meta‑analyses and guideline summaries emphasize that most randomized trials have not shown increases in hypoglycemia and that GI effects predominate ^{[1] [5] [9] [4]}. The sources also show the literature debates heterogeneous safety signals across drug classes and trials and that definitive causal links for rare events often remain unresolved in randomized data ^{[5] [4]}.

5. Practical implication and next steps given the reporting limitation

From the supplied materials the responsible conclusion is twofold: first, there is no evidence in these sources that any clinical study has reported adverse events for a product called gluosense, so that specific question cannot be answered from this dataset ^{[1] [2] [3]}; second, for clinicians and researchers interested in adverse events of incretin‑based therapies in type 2 diabetes, the available randomized trials, phase‑program reports, systematic reviews and guideline updates consistently identify gastrointestinal adverse events as the dominant, typically dose‑related harm, with rare serious events reviewed but not conclusively established across trials ^{[4] [1] [5]}. To resolve the gluosense question requires direct citation of a trial or registry entry naming that product, which is not present in the supplied reporting.