Cardiovascular outcomes of semaglutide and tirzepatide for patients with type 2 diabetes in clinical practice

Cardiovascular outcome trials of the incretin-based medicines tirzepatide and semaglutide have shown benefits in populations with varying levels of cardiovascular risk. However, without direct head-to-head comparisons, treatment decisions rely on indirect evidence from heterogeneous trial populations, leaving optimal treatment choices uncertain. Here we conducted five cohort studies to assess the effectiveness of tirzepatide and semaglutide in patients with elevated cardiovascular risk, including obesity and type 2 diabetes, enrolled in insurance programs in the USA between 2018 and 2025. First, we emulated two cardiovascular outcome trials, SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide versus sitagliptin as placebo proxy) and SURPASS-CVOT (tirzepatide versus dulaglutide), to benchmark and critically evaluate our design, data and analytic framework. Second, we assessed each drug in expanded populations reflective of patients routinely seen in clinical practice. Third, we directly compared tirzepatide versus semaglutide. Baseline confounders were balanced using propensity score matching. For the primary composite endpoint of myocardial infarction, stroke or all-cause mortality, benchmarking identified high agreement between the reference trials and their emulations for all individual endpoints except for all-cause mortality in SUSTAIN-6, informing subsequent analyses. In expanded populations, comparing semaglutide versus sitagliptin for the composite outcome of myocardial infarction or stroke yielded a hazard ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.91), and comparing tirzepatide versus dulaglutide for the composite outcome including mortality yielded a hazard ratio of 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.01). In the head-to-head comparison of tirzepatide versus semaglutide, the hazard ratio was 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.18). These findings support a comparable cardiovascular benefit of tirzepatide and semaglutide in clinical practice and demonstrate how rigorously designed real-world evidence can complement randomized clinical trials. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT06659744 , NCT07088718 , NCT07096063 .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Medicine
Published
2025-11-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-04102-x
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Diabetes Treatment and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.77

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cardiovascular outcomes of semaglutide and tirzepatide for patients with type 2 diabetes in clinical practice

Sebastian Schneeweiß, Heribert Schunkert, Rishi Desai, Georg Hahn et al.
6 citations
Nature Medicine
Diabetes Treatment and Management
7.77
article

Cardiovascular outcomes of semaglutide and tirzepatide for patients with type 2 diabetes in clinical practice

Sebastian Schneeweiß, Heribert Schunkert, Rishi Desai, Georg Hahn, Anthony Kehoe, Sushama Kattinakere Sreedhara, Nils Krüger, Shirley Wang, Kenshiro Fuse
article en
6 citations

Abstract

Cardiovascular outcome trials of the incretin-based medicines tirzepatide and semaglutide have shown benefits in populations with varying levels of cardiovascular risk. However, without direct head-to-head comparisons, treatment decisions rely on indirect evidence from heterogeneous trial populations, leaving optimal treatment choices uncertain. Here we conducted five cohort studies to assess the effectiveness of tirzepatide and semaglutide in patients with elevated cardiovascular risk, including obesity and type 2 diabetes, enrolled in insurance programs in the USA between 2018 and 2025. First, we emulated two cardiovascular outcome trials, SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide versus sitagliptin as placebo proxy) and SURPASS-CVOT (tirzepatide versus dulaglutide), to benchmark and critically evaluate our design, data and analytic framework. Second, we assessed each drug in expanded populations reflective of patients routinely seen in clinical practice. Third, we directly compared tirzepatide versus semaglutide. Baseline confounders were balanced using propensity score matching. For the primary composite endpoint of myocardial infarction, stroke or all-cause mortality, benchmarking identified high agreement between the reference trials and their emulations for all individual endpoints except for all-cause mortality in SUSTAIN-6, informing subsequent analyses. In expanded populations, comparing semaglutide versus sitagliptin for the composite outcome of myocardial infarction or stroke yielded a hazard ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.91), and comparing tirzepatide versus dulaglutide for the composite outcome including mortality yielded a hazard ratio of 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.01). In the head-to-head comparison of tirzepatide versus semaglutide, the hazard ratio was 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.18). These findings support a comparable cardiovascular benefit of tirzepatide and semaglutide in clinical practice and demonstrate how rigorously designed real-world evidence can complement randomized clinical trials. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT06659744 , NCT07088718 , NCT07096063 .

Nature MedicineVol. 32(1)
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US), Harvard University (US), German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DE), Deutsches Herzzentrum München (DE)
Deutsche Herzstiftung, National Institutes of Health
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Diabetes Treatment and Management
7.77
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.