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 · Intervention review

Cardiovascular outcomes with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

In adults at elevated cardiovascular risk, what is the effect of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist compared with placebo on major adverse cardiovascular events?

Document identifier
CEI-ES-003
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
3.0
Published
24 Nov 2024
Last reviewed
24 Oct 2025
Next review
24 Apr 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.3
Certainty
High
Cycle
2024 Q4
Review type
Intervention review
Search executed
07 Sep 2024

§1Abstract

§1.1Review question

In adults at elevated cardiovascular risk, what is the effect of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist compared with placebo on major adverse cardiovascular events?

§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 type 2 diabetes at elevated cardiovascular risk, or adults with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease without diabetes.
InterventionAny glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist in an event-driven outcome trial.
ComparatorPlacebo added to standard care.
OutcomesPrimary: time to first three-point major adverse cardiovascular event. Secondary: cardiovascular death, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hospitalisation for heart failure.

§1.3Method in brief

A review of the effects of an intervention on pre-specified outcomes, with a quantitative synthesis where the contributing studies are sufficiently similar. The protocol was registered with the Institute's secretariat before the search was executed. The search was run on 7 September 2024 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

High certainty evidence indicates that the class as a whole reduces major adverse cardiovascular events relative to placebo in the enrolled populations. The Institute nonetheless declines to describe the effect as a class effect: the neutral result of the lixisenatide trial and the borderline result of the extended-release exenatide trial are inconsistent with a uniform class mechanism, and the human-albumin-bound and structurally exendin-derived agents behave differently from one another. The effect is established in secondary prevention and is supported by one trial with a substantial primary-prevention population.

The conclusion rests on 11 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: Cardiovascular outcomes with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists received 13 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. Lincoff AM, Brown-Frandsen K, Colhoun HM, Deanfield J, Emerson SS, Esbjerg S, Hardt-Lindberg S, Hovingh GK, Kahn SE, Kushner RF, Lingvay I, Oral TK, Michelsen MM, Plutzky J, Tornøe CW, Ryan DH. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity without diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2023;389(24):2221–2232. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2307563 · PMID 37952131
  2. Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, Eliaschewitz FG, Jódar E, Leiter LA, Lingvay I, Rosenstock J, Seufert J, Warren ML, Woo V, Hansen O, Holst AG, Pettersson J, Vilsbøll T. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2016;375(19):1834–1844. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1607141 · PMID 27633186

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.