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 · §3

Dual and triple incretin receptor agonists compared with single glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor… — included and excluded studies

The included-studies table with extracted data, the exclusions with reasons, and the risk-of-bias judgements.

Document identifier
CEI-ES-002/3
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

§3Included and excluded studies

Every study contributing to this review is listed below with the data extracted from it. The extraction table is published at the level of the individual outcome and study so that the synthesis can be checked without the reader having to retrieve each source.

§3.1Included studies

Table 4. Included studies with the characteristics extracted from each.

StudyDesignRandomisedDurationAnchor outcome as reportedYear
GLORY-1MazdutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled61048 weeksMean change −14.0 % at 6 mg versus +0.3 % with placebo2025
REDEFINE-1CagriSema (cagrilintide with semaglutide)Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled3,41768 weeksMean change −22.7 % versus −2.3 % with placebo2025
REDEFINE-2CagriSema (cagrilintide with semaglutide)Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled1,20668 weeksMean change −15.7 % versus −3.1 % with placebo2025
SURMOUNT-5TirzepatideRandomised, open-label, active-controlled75172 weeksMean change −20.2 % with tirzepatide versus −13.7 % with semaglutide2025
SURMOUNT-KOATirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled68 weeksImprovement relative to placebo. The Institute records that pain improvement in a weight-loss trial cannot be attributed to a direct joint effect2025
SUMMITTirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled731Median 104 weeksHazard ratio 0.62 (95 % CI 0.41 to 0.95) for the composite; clinical summary score difference 6.9 points (95 % CI 3.3 to 10.6)2024
SURMOUNT-4TirzepatideRandomised withdrawal67052 weeks after a 36-week open-label lead-inContinued treatment −5.5 % versus +14.0 % after switching to placebo2024
SURMOUNT-OSA-1TirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled52 weeksSubstantial reduction in the apnoea–hypopnoea index relative to placebo; the Institute reproduces the pooled programme estimate rather than a per-trial figure2024
SURMOUNT-OSA-2TirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled52 weeksDirectionally consistent with the companion trial2024
SURVO-PH2-OBESITYSurvodutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled38746 weeksMean change −18.7 % at the highest dose versus −1.8 % with placebo2024
CAGRI-SEMA-PH2-T2DCagriSema (cagrilintide with semaglutide)Randomised, double-blind, active-controlled9232 weeksWeight change of approximately −15.6 % in the combination arm; the small sample is the reason the Institute treats the phase 2 estimate as hypothesis-generating2023
MAZ-PH2-OBESITYMazdutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled24824 weeksMean change up to −15.4 % at the highest dose in a Chinese population2023
RETA-PH2-OBESITYRetatrutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled33848 weeksMean change −24.2 % at 12 mg versus −2.1 % with placebo2023
SELECTSemaglutideEvent-driven cardiovascular outcome trial17,604Mean 39.8 monthsHazard ratio 0.80 (95 % CI 0.72 to 0.90); 6.5 % versus 8.0 %2023
STEP-HFpEFSemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled52952 weeksClinical summary score improved 16.6 points versus 8.7 points with placebo; estimated difference 7.8 points (95 % CI 4.8 to 10.9)2023
SURMOUNT-2TirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled93872 weeksMean change −14.7 % at 15 mg versus −3.2 % with placebo2023
SURMOUNT-3TirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled80672 weeks after a 12-week lead-inAdditional mean change −18.4 % versus +2.5 % with placebo after the lead-in2023
STEP-5SemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled304104 weeksMean change −15.2 % versus −2.6 % with placebo; the longest randomised exposure in the programme2022
STEP-8SemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, active-controlled33868 weeksMean change −15.8 % with semaglutide versus −6.4 % with liraglutide; difference −9.4 percentage points (95 % CI −12.0 to −6.8)2022
SURMOUNT-1TirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled2,53972 weeksMean change −20.9 % at 15 mg versus −3.1 % with placebo2022
STEP-1SemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled1,96168 weeksMean change −14.9 % with semaglutide 2.4 mg versus −2.4 % with placebo; treatment difference −12.4 percentage points (95 % CI −13.4 to −11.5)2021
STEP-2SemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled1,21068 weeksMean change −9.6 % with semaglutide 2.4 mg versus −3.4 % with placebo; the effect is attenuated relative to STEP 1, which the Institute records as a consistent…2021
STEP-3SemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled61168 weeksMean change −16.0 % with semaglutide 2.4 mg versus −5.7 % with placebo2021
STEP-4SemaglutideRandomised withdrawal80348 weeks after a 20-week run-inContinued treatment −7.9 % versus +6.9 % after switching to placebo; the Institute reads this as evidence that the effect is maintained by continued exposure…2021
24 included studies. Each links to its structured abstract, which carries a field-by-field provenance table distinguishing extracted figures from Institute reconstructions.

Contributing participants across studies reporting a randomised total: 36,093. Studies for which the Institute does not hold a randomised total contribute to the qualitative synthesis and not to any pooled figure.

§3.2Excluded at full text, with reasons

Table 5. Reports excluded at full text, by reason. A review that reports an exclusion count without reasons cannot be checked against its own protocol.

Reason for exclusionReports
Not a randomised comparison7
Population outside the review question7
Intervention outside the review question4
Comparator not eligible3
No eligible outcome reported10
Duplicate report of an included study12
Conference abstract without extractable data9
Retracted or subject to an expression of concern9
46 reports excluded at full text in total.

§3.3Risk of bias across included studies

Table 6. Risk-of-bias judgement recorded for each included study on the review's anchor outcome.

StudyRisk of biasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionPublication bias
GLORY-1LowLowLowLowSome
REDEFINE-1LowLowSomeLowLow
REDEFINE-2SomeLowLowLowLow
SURMOUNT-5LowLowLowLowLow
SURMOUNT-KOALowSomeLowLowSome
SUMMITLowSomeLowLowLow
SURMOUNT-4LowLowLowLowLow
SURMOUNT-OSA-1LowLowLowLowLow
SURMOUNT-OSA-2LowLowLowLowLow
SURVO-PH2-OBESITYLowLowSomeLowLow
CAGRI-SEMA-PH2-T2DSomeLowSomeLowLow
MAZ-PH2-OBESITYSomeLowLowLowLow
RETA-PH2-OBESITYLowLowLowLowSome
SELECTLowLowLowLowLow
Judgements are the Institute's own and are recorded per outcome. A study may carry a different judgement in a different review that assesses a different outcome from it.

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

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.