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

Oral compared with injectable presentations of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonism — 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-007/3
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
3.0
Published
16 Dec 2024
Last reviewed
16 Jul 2025
Next review
16 Jan 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.7
Certainty
Moderate
Cycle
2024 Q4
Review type
Network meta-analysis
Search executed
25 Oct 2024

§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
ACHIEVE-1OrforglipronRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled40 weeksno result held2025
ACHIEVE-2OrforglipronRandomised, double-blind, active-controlled52 weeksno result held2025
ATTAIN-1OrforglipronRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled72 weeksThe Institute holds a headline result indicating a weight effect intermediate between the injectable single agonists and placebo, and awaits the full…2025
ATTAIN-2OrforglipronRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled72 weeksno result held2025
SOULSemaglutide, oralEvent-driven cardiovascular outcome trial9,650Median 47.5 monthsHazard ratio 0.86 (95 % CI 0.77 to 0.96)2025
STRIDESemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled79252 weeksEstimated treatment ratio 1.13 (95 % CI 1.06 to 1.21)2025
FLOWSemaglutideEvent-driven kidney outcome trial3,533Median 3.4 yearsHazard ratio 0.76 (95 % CI 0.66 to 0.88); annual eGFR slope difference 1.16 mL/min/1.73 m² per year2024
STEP-HFpEF-DMSemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled61652 weeksDirectionally consistent with STEP-HFpEF with a smaller weight effect, as expected in a population with diabetes2024
DANU-PH2B-OBESITYDanuglipronRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled60532 weeksDose-dependent weight reduction accompanied by discontinuation rates above 50 % in some arms; development in obesity was subsequently discontinued2023
DANU-PH2B-T2DDanuglipronRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled41116 weeksGlycaemic effect demonstrated; the programme was discontinued for tolerability and hepatic-safety reasons2023
OASIS-1Semaglutide, oralRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled66768 weeksMean change −15.1 % versus −2.4 % with placebo2023
ORFO-PH2-OBESITYOrforglipronRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled27236 weeksMean change up to −14.7 % versus −2.3 % with placebo2023
ORFO-PH2-T2DOrforglipronRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled38326 weeksReduction of up to 2.1 percentage points versus 0.4 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
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
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
PIONEER-1Semaglutide, oralRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled70326 weeksDose-dependent reduction of 0.6 to 1.1 percentage points versus placebo2019
PIONEER-6Semaglutide, oralEvent-driven cardiovascular outcome trial3,183Median 15.9 monthsHazard ratio 0.79 (95 % CI 0.57 to 1.11); the trial was designed and powered to exclude harm, not to establish benefit, and the Institute reports it as such2019
SUSTAIN-7SemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, active-controlled1,20140 weeksDifference −0.41 percentage points (95 % CI −0.57 to −0.25) for semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg2018
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: 45,376. 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 comparison5
Population outside the review question8
Intervention outside the review question7
Comparator not eligible5
No eligible outcome reported4
Duplicate report of an included study3
Conference abstract without extractable data11
Retracted or subject to an expression of concern12
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
ACHIEVE-1LowLowSomeSomeLow
ACHIEVE-2SomeLowSomeLowLow
ATTAIN-1LowLowLowLowSome
ATTAIN-2LowLowSomeSomeLow
SOULLowLowSomeLowLow
STRIDESomeLowLowLowLow
FLOWLowLowLowLowLow
STEP-HFpEF-DMLowLowLowLowSome
DANU-PH2B-OBESITYLowLowLowSomeSome
DANU-PH2B-T2DLowLowLowSomeSome
OASIS-1LowSomeLowLowLow
ORFO-PH2-OBESITYLowLowSomeLowLow
ORFO-PH2-T2DLowSomeLowLowLow
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.
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.