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
Compound monograph · §3

Dulaglutide — clinical evidence

Assessed outcomes with certainty ratings, contributing trials and the reasoning for each rating.

Document identifier
CEI-MN-008/3
Series
Compound monograph
Version
3.1
Published
23 Jul 2024
Last reviewed
23 Sep 2025
Next review
23 Sep 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.mono.8
Certainty
High
Cycle
2024 Q3

§3Clinical evidence

Assessed outcomes for DulaglutidePoint 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 magnitude of the recorded effectIndicationEffect as recordedCardiovascular1 trial · HighMACE hazard ratio 0.88 in a population…Type 2 diabetes5 trials · High−1.1 to −1.9 % HbA1c across the AWARD…Obesity1 trial · Moderate−4.6 kg at 4.5 mg over 52 weeks in type…Chronic kidney disease1 trial · LowSlower eGFR decline versus insulin…
Moderate or high certaintyLow or very low certainty
Figure 3. Illustrative. Assessed outcomes 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, not the published confidence intervals. Published intervals appear in the per-indication extracts and in the text below.

§3.1Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk reduction

Anchor outcome. Three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke).

Effect as recorded. MACE hazard ratio 0.88 in a population with a majority without established cardiovascular disease; HR 0.88 (95 % CI 0.79 to 0.99); 12.0 % versus 13.4 % over median 5.4 years.[1,2]

Certainty. High certainty The only large GLP-1 outcome trial enrolling a majority in primary prevention, which the Institute regards as an important distinguishing feature of this evidence base.

Contributing trials. REWIND. Full structured abstracts are published for each.

Full evidence extract for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk reduction · Indication assessment

§3.2Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Anchor outcome. Change in HbA1c (%, mmol/mol).

Effect as recorded. −1.1 to −1.9 % HbA1c across the AWARD programme; 4.5 mg gave −1.9 % in AWARD-11; AWARD-11 difference of 4.5 mg versus 1.5 mg −0.24 % (95 % CI −0.36 to −0.11).[2,3]

Certainty. High certainty Eleven-trial programme with active comparators.

Contributing trials. AWARD-1 · AWARD-5 · AWARD-6 · AWARD-11 · SUSTAIN-7. Full structured abstracts are published for each.

Full evidence extract for type 2 diabetes mellitus · Indication assessment

§3.3Obesity and overweight in adults

Anchor outcome. Percentage change in body weight from baseline.

Effect as recorded. −4.6 kg at 4.5 mg over 52 weeks in type 2 diabetes; difference versus 1.5 mg −1.9 kg (95 % CI −2.4 to −1.4).[3,4]

Certainty. Moderate certainty No dedicated obesity programme; weight effect is modest relative to the acylated analogues.

Contributing trials. AWARD-11. Full structured abstracts are published for each.

Full evidence extract for obesity and overweight in adults · Indication assessment

§3.4Chronic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes

Anchor outcome. Composite kidney outcome (kidney failure, sustained ≥50 % eGFR decline, kidney or cardiovascular death).

Effect as recorded. Slower eGFR decline versus insulin glargine in moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease; eGFR difference at 52 weeks approximately 1.9 mL/min/1.73 m².[4,5]

Certainty. Low certainty Renal endpoints were secondary and the trial was not event-driven.

Contributing trials. AWARD-7. Full structured abstracts are published for each.

Full evidence extract for chronic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes · Indication assessment

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
  3. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Q6B Specifications: Test Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Biotechnological/Biological Products. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline 1999;Step 4 version. identifier not held by the Institute
  4. Drucker DJ. Mechanisms of action and therapeutic application of glucagon-like peptide-1. Cell Metabolism 2018;27(4):740–756. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2018.03.001 · PMID 29617641
  5. Nauck MA, Quast DR, Wefers J, Meier JJ. GLP-1 receptor agonists in the treatment of type 2 diabetes — state-of-the-art. Molecular Metabolism 2021;46:101102. doi:10.1016/j.molmet.2020.101102 · PMID 33068776

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.