Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Tirzepatide Versus Dulaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Tirzepatide, a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist, demonstrates substantial glycemic and weight benefits versus GLP-1 receptor agonists in indirect comparisons, but direct comparative safety evidence versus dulaglutide remains limited. We evaluated comparative safety (primary outcome: overall adverse events) and efficacy. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 (prospectively registered: PROSPERO CRD420251276594), we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL (inception–31 December 2025) for randomized controlled trials (≥26 weeks) comparing once-weekly tirzepatide with dulaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes. Three trials (N = 13,590 participants) were included. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled using random-effects models (risk ratios [RRs], 95% confidence intervals [CIs]). GRADE assessed certainty of evidence. Results: Overall adverse event incidence did not differ significantly (RR 1.04 [0.98–1.10]; I2 = 36%; moderate-certainty evidence). Discontinuation due to adverse events was consistently higher with tirzepatide (RR 1.32 [1.20–1.45]; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence), representing a 32% increased risk across all populations. Categorical HbA1c target achievement was analyzed in two trials; the third trial reported HbA1c as a continuous outcome only. At the primary threshold (HbA1c < 7.0%), tirzepatide was consistently superior with no heterogeneity (RR 1.48 [1.33–1.64]; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001). Across all thresholds combined, heterogeneity was extreme (I2 = 92%), limiting confidence in any pooled summary estimate; the greatest instability occurred at the strictest threshold (HbA1c < 5.7%; I2 = 98%; p = 0.40). Tirzepatide showed greater HbA1c target attainment in treatment-naive patients receiving dulaglutide 0.75 mg, whereas the glycemic advantage was smaller in patients with established cardiovascular disease receiving dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Categorical weight-loss outcomes were analyzed in two trials; tirzepatide was associated with greater weight-loss threshold achievement (RR 8.80 [4.04–19.17]; very low-certainty evidence), although interpretation is limited by substantial heterogeneity and restricted generalizability. Serious adverse events were not significantly different (RR 0.82 [0.47–1.43]; I2 = 42%). Conclusions: Overall adverse events were similar between treatments, but tirzepatide consistently increased discontinuation risk, indicating a clinically important tolerability-persistence trade-off. Glycemic efficacy was highly population-dependent: benefits were consistent at the primary HbA1c target (<7.0%; I2 = 0%) in early-stage disease, whereas the advantage was smaller in long-standing disease with established cardiovascular disease. Tirzepatide may be favored when glycemic or weight efficacy is prioritized in earlier-stage disease, provided tolerability is proactively managed. Dulaglutide remains appropriate when persistence is threatened by tolerability concerns or cardiovascular risk reduction is the primary goal.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Healthcare
Published
2026-03-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14070850
Primary Topic
Diabetes Treatment and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Tirzepatide Versus Dulaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Muhammad Atif Mazhar, Sadia Qazi, Muhammad Junaid, Mohsin Ali et al.
Healthcare
Diabetes Treatment and Management
article

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Tirzepatide Versus Dulaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Muhammad Atif Mazhar, Sadia Qazi, Muhammad Junaid, Mohsin Ali, Mehmoona Zahid, Umair Ali, Safia Bibi, Eshal Fatima, Eshal Atif, Anushah Faheem Ilyas, Rai Muhammad Hassan Ashraf
article en

Abstract

Background: Tirzepatide, a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist, demonstrates substantial glycemic and weight benefits versus GLP-1 receptor agonists in indirect comparisons, but direct comparative safety evidence versus dulaglutide remains limited. We evaluated comparative safety (primary outcome: overall adverse events) and efficacy. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 (prospectively registered: PROSPERO CRD420251276594), we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL (inception–31 December 2025) for randomized controlled trials (≥26 weeks) comparing once-weekly tirzepatide with dulaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes. Three trials (N = 13,590 participants) were included. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled using random-effects models (risk ratios [RRs], 95% confidence intervals [CIs]). GRADE assessed certainty of evidence. Results: Overall adverse event incidence did not differ significantly (RR 1.04 [0.98–1.10]; I2 = 36%; moderate-certainty evidence). Discontinuation due to adverse events was consistently higher with tirzepatide (RR 1.32 [1.20–1.45]; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence), representing a 32% increased risk across all populations. Categorical HbA1c target achievement was analyzed in two trials; the third trial reported HbA1c as a continuous outcome only. At the primary threshold (HbA1c < 7.0%), tirzepatide was consistently superior with no heterogeneity (RR 1.48 [1.33–1.64]; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001). Across all thresholds combined, heterogeneity was extreme (I2 = 92%), limiting confidence in any pooled summary estimate; the greatest instability occurred at the strictest threshold (HbA1c < 5.7%; I2 = 98%; p = 0.40). Tirzepatide showed greater HbA1c target attainment in treatment-naive patients receiving dulaglutide 0.75 mg, whereas the glycemic advantage was smaller in patients with established cardiovascular disease receiving dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Categorical weight-loss outcomes were analyzed in two trials; tirzepatide was associated with greater weight-loss threshold achievement (RR 8.80 [4.04–19.17]; very low-certainty evidence), although interpretation is limited by substantial heterogeneity and restricted generalizability. Serious adverse events were not significantly different (RR 0.82 [0.47–1.43]; I2 = 42%). Conclusions: Overall adverse events were similar between treatments, but tirzepatide consistently increased discontinuation risk, indicating a clinically important tolerability-persistence trade-off. Glycemic efficacy was highly population-dependent: benefits were consistent at the primary HbA1c target (<7.0%; I2 = 0%) in early-stage disease, whereas the advantage was smaller in long-standing disease with established cardiovascular disease. Tirzepatide may be favored when glycemic or weight efficacy is prioritized in earlier-stage disease, provided tolerability is proactively managed. Dulaglutide remains appropriate when persistence is threatened by tolerability concerns or cardiovascular risk reduction is the primary goal.

HealthcareVol. 14(7)
Aga Khan University (PK), Karachi Medical and Dental College (PK), Alfaisal University (SA), Khyber Medical College (PK), Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University (PK), University of Karachi (PK), Khyber Medical University (PK), Bolan University of Medical and Health Sciences (PK), University of Swabi (PK)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Diabetes Treatment and Management
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.