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

Semaglutide, oral in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk reduction: effect… — summary of findings

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

Document identifier
CEI-ES-067/4
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
2.2
Published
01 May 2025
Last reviewed
01 Nov 2025
Next review
01 May 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.67
Certainty
Moderate
Cycle
2025 Q2
Review type
Intervention review
Search executed
22 Jan 2025

Templated review frame. This review question was generated by crossing an indication with a compound for which contributing trials exist. Its prose frame is templated and is shared with other questions of the same shape. Its included studies, its summary of findings and its certainty rating are computed from the underlying records and are not templated. The Institute publishes these questions because the alternative is to leave a question the document set can answer unanswered, and it labels them because the alternative is to present a templated frame as an authored one.

§4Summary of findings

§4.1Summary of findings

Table 7. Summary of findings for Semaglutide, oral in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk….

OutcomeParticipants (studies)Effect as reportedCertaintyReason for downgrade
Three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke)The outcome the Institute designates as anchor for this indication.12,833 (2)Hazard ratio 0.86 (95 % CI 0.77 to 0.96)Moderatepublication bias
Discontinuation for adverse eventsReported as a summary-of-findings row rather than in a tolerability annex, following a public submission.12,352 (1)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableModerateimprecision
Serious adverse eventsEvent counts are low; the estimate is imprecise by construction.12,474 (1)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableLowpublication bias
Any adverse eventAscertained by spontaneous report in the contributing trials.9,447 (1)Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies tableLowimprecision, publication bias
Cardiovascular deathA secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it.8,730 (1)Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trialsLowrisk of bias, imprecision
All-cause deathA secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it.8,181 (1)Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trialsLowrisk of bias, indirectness
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.0.751Ratio measure, log scale (1 = no effect)Contributing studyEstimate (95 % CI)SOUL2025 · n=9,6500.72 (0.62 to 0.81)PIONEER-62019 · n=3,1830.94 (0.82 to 1.07)Pooled estimate0.89 (0.78 to 1.00)
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 downgradeInconsistencyno downgradeIndirectnessno downgradeImprecisionno downgradePublication biasdowngrade one levelTotal 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.
InconsistencyNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
IndirectnessNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
ImprecisionNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
Publication biasSeriousToo few contributing studies for a formal assessment; the risk cannot be excluded.
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.

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. Husain M, Birkenfeld AL, Donsmark M, Dungan K, Eliaschewitz FG, Franco DR, Jeppesen OK, Lingvay I, Mosenzon O, Pedersen SD, Tack CJ, Thomsen M, Vilsbøll T, Warren ML, Bain SC. Oral semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2019;381(9):841–851. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1901118 · PMID 31185157
  2. Aroda VR, Rosenstock J, Terauchi Y, Altuntas Y, Lalic NM, Morales Villegas EC, Jeppesen OK, Christiansen E, Hertz CL, Haluzík M. PIONEER 1: randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy in comparison with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2019;42(9):1724–1732. doi:10.2337/dc19-0749 · PMID 31186300

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.