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 · Network meta-analysis

Dual and triple incretin receptor agonists compared with single glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for weight reduction

In adults with obesity, does a multi-receptor incretin agonist produce a larger reduction in body weight than a single glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist?

Document identifier
CEI-ES-002
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
3.1
Published
19 Aug 2026
Last reviewed
19 Aug 2026
Next review
19 Feb 2028
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.2
Certainty
Moderate
Cycle
2026 Q3
Review type
Network meta-analysis
Search executed
27 Apr 2026

§1Abstract

§1.1Review question

In adults with obesity, does a multi-receptor incretin agonist produce a larger reduction in body weight than a single glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist?

§1.2PICO frame

Table 1. The registered PICO frame. Any change made after protocol registration is recorded in the amendment log at §5 and is identified there as post hoc.

ElementAs registered
PopulationAdults with obesity, with and without type 2 diabetes, analysed separately.
InterventionDual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonists, GLP-1 and glucagon receptor dual agonists, and triple receptor agonists.
ComparatorA single glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist at its highest evaluated dose, directly or through placebo as a common comparator.
OutcomesPercentage change in body weight at the primary analysis timepoint; discontinuation for adverse events.

§1.3Method in brief

An indirect and mixed-treatment comparison across interventions connected by a common comparator. Transitivity is assessed explicitly and reported before any estimate is presented. The protocol was registered with the Institute's secretariat before the search was executed. The search was run on 27 April 2026 across 8 sources and is reproduced in full at §2. Screening, extraction and certainty assessment were performed independently by two members of the secretariat with disagreement resolved by a third.[1,2]

§1.4Conclusion

Moderate certainty evidence indicates that multi-receptor agonists produce a larger mean weight reduction than single glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. One head-to-head trial supports the comparison directly for tirzepatide against semaglutide; the remainder of the network is indirect. The Institute downgrades one level for indirectness arising from differences in titration schedule, trial duration and background lifestyle intervention across the network, and notes that the transitivity assumption is not fully satisfied.

The conclusion rests on 24 contributing studies, listed with their extracted data at §3 and summarised outcome by outcome at §4.

§1.5Limitations

§1.6Consultation

This review was released for public comment before ratification. Draft synthesis: Dual and triple incretin receptor agonists compared with single glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor… received 7 submissions. Amendments arising are recorded in the amendment log and are traceable to a numbered submission.

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. Jastreboff AM, Aronne LJ, Ahmad NN, Wharton S, Connery L, Alves B, Kiyosue A, Zhang S, Liu B, Bunck MC, Stefanski A. Tirzepatide once weekly for the treatment of obesity. New England Journal of Medicine 2022;387(3):205–216. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2206038 · PMID 35658024
  2. Jastreboff AM, Kaplan LM, Frías JP, Wu Q, Du Y, Gurbuz S, Coskun T, Haupt A, Milicevic Z, Hartman ML. Triple-hormone-receptor agonist retatrutide for obesity — a phase 2 trial. New England Journal of Medicine 2023;389(6):514–526. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2301972 · PMID 37366315

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.