Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Indication assessment · §2

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk reduction — evidence across compounds

Every compound the Institute assesses in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk reduction, with its certainty rating.

Document identifier
CEI-IN-03/2
Series
Indication assessment
Version
2.0
Published
23 Feb 2025
Last reviewed
23 Feb 2025
Next review
23 Feb 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.ind.3
Certainty
Not rated
Cycle
2025 Q1
ICD-11
BA00–BA8Z
Category
Cardiovascular

§2Evidence across compounds

Every compound the Institute assesses in this indication, with the effect as recorded, the certainty rating and the contributing trials. Effects are reported on the anchor outcome where the contributing trials measured it and on the outcome the trial actually reported where they did not.

Table 1. Compounds assessed in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk reduction, ordered by certainty.

CompoundEffect as recordedInterval as reportedCertaintyTrials
DulaglutideGLP-1 receptor agonist, Fc-fusion proteinMACE hazard ratio 0.88 in a population with a majority without established cardiovascular diseaseHR 0.88 (95 % CI 0.79 to 0.99); 12.0 % versus 13.4 % over median 5.4 yearsHigh1
ExenatideGLP-1 receptor agonist (exendin-based, short- and…MACE hazard ratio 0.91 — non-inferior to placebo but not superiorHR 0.91 (95 % CI 0.83 to 1.00); p = 0.06 for superiorityHigh1
LiraglutideGLP-1 receptor agonist (acylated, once-daily)MACE hazard ratio 0.87 in type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular riskHR 0.87 (95 % CI 0.78 to 0.97); 13.0 % versus 14.9 % over median 3.8 yearsHigh1
LixisenatideGLP-1 receptor agonist (exendin-based, short-acting)MACE hazard ratio 1.02 — neutralHR 1.02 (95 % CI 0.89 to 1.17)High1
SemaglutideGLP-1 receptor agonist (acylated, long-acting)Three-point MACE hazard ratio 0.80 in adults with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease without diabetesHR 0.80 (95 % CI 0.72 to 0.90); 6.5 % versus 8.0 % over a mean 39.8 monthsHigh2
Semaglutide, oralGLP-1 receptor agonist, oral formulation with absorption…MACE hazard ratio 0.79 (non-inferiority design) in PIONEER 6; 0.86 in the event-driven SOUL trialPIONEER 6 HR 0.79 (95 % CI 0.57 to 1.11); SOUL HR 0.86 (95 % CI 0.77 to 0.96)Moderate2
SS-31 (elamipretide)Mitochondria-targeted cardiolipin-binding tetrapeptideA phase 2 trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction did not reduce infarct sizenegative resultModerate1
TirzepatideDual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist (acylated)MACE hazard ratio 0.92 versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg in an active-controlled non-inferiority designHR 0.92 (95 % CI 0.83 to 1.01)Moderate1
HexarelinGrowth-hormone secretagogue, non-selective ghrelin receptor…No randomised human evidence identifiedVery low0
TB-500Acetylated heptapeptide fragment of thymosin beta-4No randomised controlled human trial identifiedVery low0
Thymosin beta-443-residue actin-sequestering polypeptidePhase 1 safety study completed; no efficacy conclusionVery low1
Estimates in this table are not on a common scale and must not be subtracted from one another. Where a comparison between two compounds has been made directly, it appears in a synthesis and not here.
Compounds assessed in CardiovascularPoint estimates with confidence intervals for each contributing study, plotted against the line of no effect.0.00.20.40.60.81.0Standardised direction and relative magnitudeCompoundEffect as recordedDulaglutideHigh certaintyMACE hazard ratio 0.88 in a…ExenatideHigh certaintyMACE hazard ratio 0.91 —…LiraglutideHigh certaintyMACE hazard ratio 0.87 in type 2…LixisenatideHigh certaintyMACE hazard ratio 1.02 — neutralSemaglutideHigh certaintyThree-point MACE hazard ratio…Semaglutide, oralModerate certaintyMACE hazard ratio 0.79…SS-31 (elamipretide)Moderate certaintyA phase 2 trial in ST-elevation…TirzepatideModerate certaintyMACE hazard ratio 0.92 versus…HexarelinVery low certaintyNo randomised human evidence…TB-500Very low certaintyNo randomised controlled human…Thymosin beta-4Very low certaintyPhase 1 safety study completed…
Moderate or high certaintyLow or very low certainty
Figure 1. Illustrative. Compounds assessed in this indication, plotted on a common standardised axis so that direction and relative magnitude can be compared at a glance. The estimates are not on a common natural scale and the intervals are the Institute's standardised representation of the reported precision rather than published confidence intervals.

§2.1Syntheses bearing on this indication

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

  1. Gerstein HC, Colhoun HM, Dagenais GR, Diaz R, Lakshmanan M, Pais P, Probstfield J, Riesmeyer JS, Riddle MC, Rydén L, Xavier D, Atisso CM, Dyal L, Hall S, Rao-Melacini P, Wong G, Avezum A, Basile J, Chung N, Conget I. Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet 2019;394(10193):121–130. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31149-3 · PMID 31189511
  2. Pratley RE, Aroda VR, Lingvay I, Lüdemann J, Andreassen C, Navarria A, Viljoen A. Semaglutide versus dulaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 7): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2018;6(4):275–286. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30024-X · PMID 29397376

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.