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
Evidence synthesis · §4

Amylin analogues as monotherapy and in combination — summary of findings

Outcome-by-outcome summary with effect, certainty and the reason for each downgrade.

Document identifier
CEI-ES-022/4
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
3.2
Published
10 Aug 2026
Last reviewed
10 Aug 2026
Next review
10 Feb 2028
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.22
Certainty
Moderate
Cycle
2026 Q3
Review type
Intervention review
Search executed
10 Jun 2026

§4Summary of findings

§4.1Summary of findings

Table 7. Summary of findings for Amylin analogues as monotherapy and in combination.

OutcomeParticipants (studies)Effect as reportedCertaintyReason for downgrade
Percentage change in body weight from baselineThe outcome the Institute designates as anchor for this indication.5,832 (8)Moderate certainty evidence indicates that a long-acting amylin analogue produces a weight reduction of roughly 8 to 11 % as monotherapy and that the…Moderateinconsistency
Discontinuation for adverse eventsReported as a summary-of-findings row rather than in a tolerability annex, following a public submission.4,271 (6)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableModerateimprecision
Serious adverse eventsEvent counts are low; the estimate is imprecise by construction.4,928 (7)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableLowindirectness, imprecision
Any adverse eventAscertained by spontaneous report in the contributing trials.5,012 (8)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableLowindirectness, imprecision
Proportion achieving ≥5 %, ≥10 %, ≥15 % and ≥20 % weight reductionA secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it.4,558 (7)Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trialsLowindirectness
Change in waist circumferenceA secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it.3,296 (7)Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trialsLowinconsistency, imprecision
Certainty ratings describe confidence in the effect estimate for the stated outcome. They are not recommendations and do not transfer between outcomes.

§4.2Forest plot

Contributing estimatesPoint estimates with confidence intervals for each contributing study, plotted against the line of no effect.0.50.751Ratio measure, log scale (1 = no effect)Contributing studyEstimate (95 % CI)REDEFINE-12025 · n=3,4170.70 (0.60 to 0.79)REDEFINE-22025 · n=1,2060.68 (0.52 to 0.83)PETRE-PH1B2024 · n=not held0.88 (0.70 to 1.05)CAGRI-SEMA-PH2-T2D2023 · n=921.02 (0.90 to 1.14)CAGRI-PH2-DOSEFIND2021 · n=7060.61 (0.54 to 0.69)PRAM-OBESITY-PH22007 · n=4110.71 (0.61 to 0.81)PETRE-PH2-OBESITY · n=not held0.94 (0.78 to 1.11)REDEFINE-4 · n=not held0.94 (0.77 to 1.11)Pooled estimate0.80 (0.71 to 0.91)
Study estimatePooled estimate
Figure 1. Illustrative. Contributing estimates plotted against the line of no effect. The point estimates and intervals are the Institute's standardised representation of the contributing evidence on a common ratio scale, generated deterministically from the record identifiers; they are not the published estimates, which appear in their own units in the included-studies table and on each trial abstract. The figure is published to convey the dispersion of the evidence base, not to supply a number.

§4.3Certainty assessment for the anchor outcome

Certainty assessment by domainDowngrading decision recorded for each certainty domain.Certainty domainNo concernSeriousVery seriousEffect on ratingRisk of biasno downgradeInconsistencydowngrade one levelIndirectnessno downgradeImprecisionno downgradePublication biasno downgradeTotal downgrading: 1 levelModerate certainty
Figure 2. Domain-by-domain certainty assessment for the anchor outcome of this review.

Table 8. Reasoning recorded against each certainty domain for the anchor outcome.

DomainRatingReasoning
Risk of biasNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
InconsistencySeriousDirection is consistent; magnitude varies with the intensity of the background intervention.
IndirectnessNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
ImprecisionNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
Publication biasNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
Overall: Moderate certainty. The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Further research is likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate.
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.