Ozempic and Mounjaro: Saving Your Heart BEFORE the Scale Moves

1. Introduction: The Medicine That Does More Than We Thought

Imagine you just started a new medicine to help you lose weight. You are probably thinking about the numbers on your bathroom scale. You might be dreaming about fitting into your old favorite jeans or having more energy to play in the yard. But then, only a few weeks later, your doctor tells you something that stops you in your tracks. Even though you haven’t lost much weight yet, your heart is already much safer.

It turns out that what you thought was just a “weight loss shot” is actually a “heart protection shot” in disguise. This is a very big deal for people who worry about their heart health every single day. For a long time, we thought these drugs helped the heart only because they helped people get thinner. We know that carrying less weight makes the heart’s job easier. But new science is proving that there is a “hidden” power inside these medications.

These drugs are called GLP-1 and dual GIP/GLP-1 medications. You might know them by names like semaglutide or tirzepatide. They are changing everything we know about medicine. This post will look at why these drugs are surprising the best doctors in the world. We will see how they protect your heart in ways that have nothing to do with the scale. This is the story of how we are moving from just fixing “clogged pipes” to fixing the whole way the body works.

2. Takeaway #1: The “Fast-Acting” Shield (Benefits Before Weight Loss)

One of the most amazing stories in modern medicine comes from a huge study called the SELECT trial. Doctors looked at more than 17,000 people. All of these people took a weekly shot of semaglutide. The doctors thought they would have to wait months or years to see the heart benefits. They thought the heart would only get better after the patients lost a lot of fat.

They were wrong. The heart benefits showed up almost right away. In just three weeks, the people taking the medicine started having fewer heart attacks and strokes. By three months, the “shield” was very strong. At that point, people had only lost a tiny bit of weight—less than 4 pounds for every 100 pounds they weighed.

The Pipe Analogy Think of the blood vessels in your body like old metal pipes in a house. Over many years, these pipes can get rusty and weak on the inside. Usually, to fix a pipe, you have to spend a long time scrubbing out all the rust. These new medicines work like a “protective coating” you spray inside the pipe. This coating works instantly. It stops the rust from breaking off and keeps the pipe from leaking, even if the pipe is still the same size it was before.

The Analysis: Why Speed Matters This “fast-acting” shield is a game-changer for your peace of mind. If you are at high risk for a heart attack, you might feel like you are living with a ticking time bomb inside your chest. Waiting a year to lose 50 pounds feels like a very dangerous waiting game. Knowing that the medicine starts talking to your blood vessels in just 21 days is a huge relief. It means the drug is telling your body to “calm down” and stop the inflammation that causes heart attacks long before the weight loss kicks in. It provides protection during the most dangerous time of a patient’s journey.

3. Takeaway #2: Strengthening the “Cap” (Plaque Stabilization)

Most people think that heart disease is just about how “clogged” your arteries are. Doctors call these clogs “plaque.” We used to think the only way to save a heart was to shrink the clog until it disappeared. But scientists have found that it is actually more important to make the clog “tougher.”

Making the Clog Safe A study by a researcher named Dr. Hjuler Boesgaard used special heart scans to look at what happened to these clogs. The study found that the clogs didn’t necessarily get smaller. Instead, they changed. The medicine helped the body build more collagen inside the clog. You can think of collagen like “biological glue” or “super-tough fiber.” This glue makes the clog stable so it doesn’t cause trouble.

The Balloon Analogy Think of a dangerous clog like a thin-skinned balloon filled with grape jelly. If that thin skin pops, the jelly spills out into the blood. This causes a big blood clot, which leads to a heart attack. These drugs act like a thick “protective tape” wrapped around that balloon. The balloon might still be there, but the tape makes it almost impossible to pop.

“Liraglutide treatment is associated with… significantly greater increase in fibrous-plaque volume… stabilization of vulnerable plaque architecture.”

In plain English, this means the medicine helps your body build a strong wall. This wall keeps the “jelly” inside the clog from exploding.

The Analysis: The Fear of the “Pop” For a patient, the scariest part of heart disease is the “sudden” event. One minute you feel fine, and the next, a plaque ruptures and everything changes. By using “biological glue” to toughen the plaque, these drugs offer a new kind of security. We aren’t just cleaning the pipes; we are reinforcing them so they don’t burst under pressure. It turns a “vulnerable” heart into a “stable” heart.

4. Takeaway #3: Why “Pills” Weren’t Enough (The DPP-4 Mystery)

You might ask, “Why do I have to take a shot? Why can’t I just take a pill?” This is a great question. There are older pills called DPP-4 inhibitors. These pills work by helping your body keep its own natural GLP-1 around a little longer.

But when doctors tested these pills in big studies like SAVOR-TIMI 53, they didn’t really save lives. They were safe, but they didn’t provide that “shield” we talked about. The reason comes down to “power.” The pills only boost your natural GLP-1 by about 2 or 3 times. This isn’t enough to reach the heart.

The Floodlight Analogy Imagine you are looking for a tiny needle in a big, dark, messy garage. A small, dim flashlight (the pill) might help you see where the door is, but it isn’t bright enough to show you the dark corners where the needle is hiding.

The new shots are “super-charged.” They stay in your body for a whole week and provide a dose that is 10 times higher than what your body can make. This is like turning on a powerful floodlight. You need that extra “power” to reach the “dark corners” of your heart and blood vessels. Only when the light is that bright do the anti-inflammatory effects actually turn on and start protecting you.

5. Takeaway #4: New Hope for a Stiff Heart (HFpEF)

There is a specific kind of heart trouble that has been very hard to treat. Doctors call it HFpEF. In simple terms, this means the heart is strong enough to pump, but the muscle has become too thick and “stiff.” Because the heart is stiff, it can’t relax enough to fill up with blood.

People with this “stiff heart” feel tired and out of breath all the time. Even walking to the mailbox can feel like climbing a mountain. For a long time, doctors had very few ways to help.

The SUMMIT and STEP-HFpEF Success New trials called SUMMIT and STEP-HFpEF showed that these new drugs are a miracle for this condition. Here is what the data showed:

• Walking Further: In a “6-minute walk test,” people could walk much further than before.
• Lower Inflammation: A major marker of “fire” in the body, called hs-CRP, dropped by a massive 9% in the SUMMIT trial.
• Fewer Emergencies: There was a 38% reduction in serious heart failure events like hospital visits.

The Analysis: Getting Your Life Back This isn’t just about a lab test; it’s about what you can do on a Tuesday afternoon. When inflammation drops by 34.9%, the heart stops “fighting” itself. It can finally relax. For a patient, this means being able to play with your grandkids or go grocery shopping without having to stop and gasp for air. It is about moving from a life of “staying on the couch” to a life of “being part of the world” again.

6. Takeaway #5: The “Dream Team” (GLP-1s and Statins)

A very common question is: “If this shot is so good, can I stop taking my cholesterol pill (statin)?”

The answer is a very big no. These two medicines are not rivals; they are teammates. To keep your heart safe, you need both.

The Neighborhood Analogy Imagine you want to keep a neighborhood safe and clean. You need two different crews. First, you need trash collectors to drive around and pick up the grease and garbage on the street. That is what statins do—they lower ApoB, which is the “bad” grease that clogs things up. Second, you need firefighters to put out the small fires of inflammation before they burn down a house. That is what the GLP-1 shots do.

If you have trash collectors but no firefighters, a small fire can still destroy a house. If you have firefighters but no trash collectors, the streets will eventually get blocked by garbage. You need the “Dream Team” to be totally safe.

How They Work Together:

• Statins: Focus on the “fats.” They lower ApoB and clean the blood.
• GLP-1s: Focus on the “fire.” They lower inflammation and fix the vessel walls.

7. The Road Ahead: What We Still Don’t Know

Even though these drugs are a breakthrough, science is a journey that never ends. We still have questions.

• The “Saturation” Effect: In a study called SURPASS-CVOT, doctors found that adding more and more medicine didn’t always mean more heart protection. It seems like once the “shield” is turned on, it is as strong as it can get.
• Stomach Issues: These drugs can be hard on the belly. About 18% of people in the SUMMIT trial had diarrhea or nausea. This is a real problem because the heart protection only works if you keep taking the shot. Doctors are working hard to find ways to make the medicine easier to handle.
• Long-Term Health: We are still watching to see how these drugs help over 10 or 20 years. So far, the news is very good, but we must keep learning.

8. Conclusion: A New Era for Your Heart

We are living through a revolution. For decades, heart doctors were like plumbers—they only cared about the “pipes” and the “clogs.” Today, we are learning that the heart is part of a big, connected system. By fixing the body’s “internal engine” (its metabolism) and putting out the fires of inflammation, we can protect the heart in ways we never thought possible.

These medications prove that everything in your body is linked. A shot that helps your blood sugar and your weight is also the same shot that builds a shield around your heart and helps you breathe easier. It is a new era where we treat the whole person, not just one number on a chart.

Ponder Point: If we can protect the heart by fixing the body’s metabolism, how many other “incurable” diseases might be next? If we can fix the “engine,” could we also help the brain or the kidneys in the same way? The future of medicine looks brighter than ever.

---

DEEP DIVE

Incretin-Based Metabolic Therapies in Cardiovascular Medicine

A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Outcomes, Pathophysiological Mechanisms, and Future Frontiers

Index Terms — atherosclerosis, cardiometabolic medicine, cardiorenal protection, cardiovascular outcomes trials, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, plaque stabilization, semaglutide, tirzepatide, type 2 diabetes.

Abbreviations

ApoB  apolipoprotein B ARR  absolute risk reduction ASCVD  atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease BMI  body-mass index CCTA  coronary computed tomography angiography CI  confidence interval CKD  chronic kidney disease CV  cardiovascular CVD  cardiovascular disease CVOT  cardiovascular outcomes trial DPP-4  dipeptidyl peptidase-4 eGFR  estimated glomerular filtration rate eNOS  endothelial nitric oxide synthase GIP  glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide GIP/GLP-1RA  dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist (e.g., tirzepatide) GLP-1  glucagon-like peptide-1 GLP-1RA  GLP-1 receptor agonist HbA1c  glycated hemoglobin HDL-C  high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HF  heart failure HFpEF  heart failure with preserved ejection fraction HR  hazard ratio hs-CRP  high-sensitivity C-reactive protein

ICAM-1  intercellular adhesion molecule 1 IL-6  interleukin-6 IVUS  intravascular ultrasound KCCQ-CSS  Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score LDL-C  low-density lipoprotein cholesterol LVEF  left ventricular ejection fraction MACE  major adverse cardiovascular events MI  myocardial infarction NF-κB  nuclear factor kappa-B NYHA  New York Heart Association PAD  peripheral artery disease PCSK9  proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 PKA  protein kinase A RRR  relative risk reduction SBP  systolic blood pressure SC  subcutaneous SGLT2i  sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor T2D  type 2 diabetes TNF-α  tumor necrosis factor alpha UACR  urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio VCAM-1  vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 VSMC  vascular smooth muscle cell 6MWD  6-minute walk distance

Abstract

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists (GIP/GLP-1RAs) have undergone evaluation across an extensive cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) program. Placebo-controlled superiority trials in type 2 diabetes (T2D) — LEADER, SUSTAIN-6, REWIND, and SOUL — and in obesity without diabetes (SELECT) demonstrated statistically significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of approximately 12%–26% [3], [4], [10]–[12]. PIONEER 6 established cardiovascular safety with a favorable nonsignificant point estimate [13]. In an active-comparator setting, tirzepatide was noninferior to dulaglutide for 3-point MACE in SURPASS-CVOT (HR 0.92; P = 0.09 for superiority) and reduced all-cause mortality by 16% [6]. In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with obesity, SUMMIT demonstrated a 38% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure, complementing the STEP-HFpEF program [5], [20], [21]. The FLOW trial demonstrated cardiorenal benefit in chronic kidney disease (CKD) with T2D [22].

The dominant clinical question is whether these benefits are downstream consequences of weight loss, glycemic improvement, and blood-pressure reduction, or whether they reflect direct pleiotropic actions on the vascular wall and myocardium. The accumulated data support a multifactorial explanation: cardiometabolic burden is reduced, while the rapid separation of MACE event curves in placebo-controlled trials — within months and before substantial weight loss — together with imaging evidence for plaque stabilization and reduced coronary inflammation, plausibly support a contribution from direct vascular anti-inflammatory and endothelial mechanisms [9], [24], [25]. This review synthesizes the cellular and physiological mechanisms, contrasts incretin-based therapies with lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy, summarizes the principal randomized trials, evaluates the distinction between plaque regression and plaque stabilization, and outlines unresolved questions and clinical-implementation considerations.

1. Cellular and Physiological Mechanisms

GLP-1 receptors are expressed in pancreatic β-cells, central-nervous-system appetite centers, and — at substantially lower density — in cardiac atria, vascular endothelium, smooth muscle, immune cells, and the renal nephron [13], [14]. Direct receptor expression in human coronary endothelial and smooth-muscle cells has been difficult to confirm using validated antibodies, raising the possibility that some “vascular” effects are mediated indirectly through circulating immune cells, hepatic signaling, or central-nervous-system pathways [14]. Dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonism leverages complementary metabolic actions: glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) signaling enhances lipid handling and insulin sensitivity in adipose tissue, while GLP-1 signaling drives satiety, glucose-dependent insulin secretion, and the bulk of incretin-mediated cardiovascular effects [2], [6]. Table I maps target tissues to molecular cascades, clinical biomarkers, and the corresponding cardiovascular outcomes that emerge in clinical studies.

Table I. Cellular and physiological mechanisms of incretin-mediated cardioprotection.

Target tissue / system	Receptor	Molecular cascade	Biomarker / surrogate	Cardiovascular outcome
Vascular endothelium	GLP-1R	Restoration of eNOS coupling; reduced superoxide generation; increased nitric-oxide bioavailability.	Improved flow-mediated dilation; reduced soluble ICAM-1 and VCAM-1.	Coronary microvascular vasodilation; preserved endothelial function; reduced monocyte adhesion.
Vascular and circulating immune cells	GLP-1R	cAMP / PKA activation; suppressed NF-κB translocation; reduced macrophage activation.	Lower high-sensitivity CRP, IL-6, and TNF-α.	Suppressed monocyte recruitment to vessel wall; reduced foam-cell formation and plaque inflammation.
Arterial smooth muscle and plaque matrix	GLP-1R	Reduced VSMC proliferation; modulation of matrix metalloproteinase expression; increased collagen deposition.	Increased fibrous-plaque volume on coronary CT angiography; thicker fibrous cap on intravascular imaging.	Stabilization of vulnerable plaque architecture; reduced rupture and erosion.
Myocardium and coronary microcirculation	GLP-1R	Increased myocardial glucose uptake under stress; reduced cardiomyocyte apoptosis via caspase-3 pathway inhibition.	Reduced NT-proBNP and troponin; preserved LVEF in selected populations.	Mitigation of ischemia-reperfusion injury; improved diastolic function; reduced HF progression.
Adipose tissue and liver	GLP-1R and GIPR	Central appetite suppression; reduced hepatic lipogenesis and ectopic fat deposition; improved insulin sensitivity.	5%–15% body-weight reduction; lower waist circumference; improved HOMA-IR.	Reduced cardiac preload/afterload; reversal of obesity-related systemic inflammation.
Renal nephron and hemodynamics	GLP-1R and GIPR	Proximal-tubule sodium-hydrogen exchanger (NHE3) inhibition; natriuresis; reduced glomerular hyperfiltration.	2–5 mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure; preserved eGFR slope.	Reduced myocardial wall stress; mitigation of cardiorenal syndrome.

2. Drug-Class Comparison: Incretin-Based vs. Lipid-Lowering Therapies

Traditional lipid-lowering therapies — statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, inclisiran, and bempedoic acid — primarily reduce circulating apolipoprotein B (ApoB)–containing lipoproteins, which both retards new atherogenesis and, at sufficient magnitude, drives angiographic plaque regression [15]–[17]. Incretin-based therapies operate on a different axis: they exert modest effects on the lipid panel but substantial effects on systemic inflammation, vascular biology, body composition, blood pressure, and renal hemodynamics [2], [18]. Table II summarizes the comparative profile in terms of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and MACE outcomes. The clinical implication is not substitution but combination: aggressive ApoB lowering to address the lipid driver of atherogenesis, paired with incretin therapy to address residual cardiometabolic and inflammatory risk.

Table II. Pharmacological and clinical profiles: incretin-based vs. lipid-lowering therapies.

Drug class (example)	Primary molecular target	Lipid effects (typical)	Impact on MACE and HF	Secondary metabolic benefits
GLP-1 receptor agonists (semaglutide, liraglutide, dulaglutide)	GLP-1 receptor	LDL-C ↓ ~2%–5%; triglycerides ↓ ~12%–18%; HDL-C ↑ ~3%–5%; modest ApoB reduction.	MACE relative risk reduction approximately 12%–26% across positive placebo-controlled CVOTs (LEADER 13%, REWIND 12%, SOUL 14%, SELECT 20%, SUSTAIN-6 26%). PIONEER 6 was a noninferiority safety trial with a nonsignificant favorable point estimate. Favorable HF symptom and functional outcomes in HFpEF.	Weight loss 6%–15%; SBP ↓ 2–5 mmHg; significant hs-CRP reduction; eGFR preservation.
GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist (tirzepatide)	GIP and GLP-1 receptors	LDL-C ↓ ~5%–8%; triglycerides ↓ ~20%–25%; HDL-C ↑ ~5%–8%; greater ApoB reduction than GLP-1RA monotherapy.	Noninferior to dulaglutide for 3-point MACE (HR 0.92, 95.3% CI 0.83–1.01; P = 0.09 for superiority) in SURPASS-CVOT, with 16% reduction in all-cause mortality. 38% reduction in HF-event composite and 46% reduction in worsening HF events in SUMMIT (HFpEF + obesity).	Weight loss 11%–22%; HbA1c reduction 1.5%–2.0%; SBP ↓ 3–5 mmHg; favorable eGFR slope.
Statins (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors)	Hepatic HMG-CoA reductase	LDL-C ↓ 30%–55%; triglycerides ↓ 10%–25%; HDL-C ↑ 5%–10%; ApoB ↓ 30%–50%.	Approximately 22% MACE relative risk reduction per 1.0 mmol/L (38.7 mg/dL) LDL-C reduction (CTT meta-analysis); neutral on HF.	Direct plaque stabilization; modest hs-CRP reduction; pleiotropic endothelial effects.
Ezetimibe	NPC1L1 cholesterol transporter	LDL-C ↓ 15%–22%; triglycerides ↓ ~5%; HDL-C ↑ ~1%–3%; ApoB ↓ ~10%–15%.	~6% MACE relative risk reduction added to statin therapy (IMPROVE-IT); neutral on HF.	Localized intestinal effects; favorable safety profile.
PCSK9 inhibitors (alirocumab, evolocumab) and inclisiran	Circulating PCSK9 (mAb) or hepatic PCSK9 mRNA (siRNA)	LDL-C ↓ 50%–60%; ApoB ↓ 40%–50%; Lp(a) ↓ 20%–30%; modest triglyceride reduction.	~15% MACE relative risk reduction added to statin therapy (FOURIER, ODYSSEY OUTCOMES); neutral on HF.	Drives coronary plaque regression on serial IVUS (GLAGOV); rare adverse events.
Bempedoic acid	Hepatic ATP-citrate lyase	LDL-C ↓ 17%–28%; minor effect on triglycerides and HDL-C; ApoB ↓ ~15%.	13% MACE relative risk reduction in statin-intolerant patients (CLEAR Outcomes); neutral on HF.	~20% hs-CRP reduction; neutral on glycemia.

3. Evidence From Major Randomized Trials

The cardiovascular efficacy of incretin-based therapies has been established across a sequence of large prospective CVOTs. The trial program has evolved from glycemic-safety and outcomes studies in T2D (the LEADER, SUSTAIN-6, REWIND, EXSCEL, and PIONEER 6 era [10]–[13], [19]), to outcomes trials in expanded populations including obesity without diabetes (SELECT [3]), HFpEF with obesity (SUMMIT [5], with a companion semaglutide program in STEP-HFpEF [20], [21]), CKD (FLOW [22]), and an active-comparator setting (SURPASS-CVOT [6]). For navigability, the trials are summarized in two tables grouped by enrollment population: Table III covers T2D CVOTs; Table IV covers trials in obesity, HFpEF, and CKD. The next sections discuss what these trials reveal about mechanism: the time course of benefit, the imaging signature of plaque stabilization, and the limits of inference from each trial design.

Table III. Cardiovascular outcomes trials in type 2 diabetes.

Abbreviations used in this table: ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CV = cardiovascular; CVD = cardiovascular disease; HR = hazard ratio; SC = subcutaneous; SGLT2i = sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor.

Trial (publication)	Intervention vs. comparator	Population and N	Follow-up	Primary cardiovascular outcome (HR, 95% CI)	Key secondary effects and notable limitations
LEADER (Marso et al., NEJM 2016) [10]	Liraglutide 1.8 mg SC daily vs. placebo, on standard care.	T2D with high CV risk (≥80% with established CVD). N = 9,340.	Median 3.8 years.	3-point MACE: HR 0.87 (0.78–0.97), P = 0.01 for superiority. CV death: HR 0.78 (0.66–0.93).	All-cause mortality HR 0.85; nonfatal MI and stroke numerically lower (not individually significant). GI adverse events most common discontinuation reason.
SUSTAIN-6 (Marso et al., NEJM 2016) [11]	Semaglutide 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg SC weekly vs. placebo.	T2D with high CV risk. N = 3,297.	104 weeks.	3-point MACE: HR 0.74 (0.58–0.95), P < 0.001 for noninferiority, P = 0.02 for superiority. Nonfatal stroke: HR 0.61 (0.38–0.99).	Statistically significant increase in retinopathy complications (HR 1.76, 1.11–2.78); small sample size limits stroke-subtype precision.
REWIND (Gerstein et al., Lancet 2019) [12]	Dulaglutide 1.5 mg SC weekly vs. placebo.	T2D, ~68% without established CVD (broad primary-prevention cohort). N = 9,901.	Median 5.4 years.	3-point MACE: HR 0.88 (0.79–0.99), P = 0.026 for superiority.	Benefit consistent in primary- and secondary-prevention subgroups; first GLP-1RA CVOT to show benefit in a predominantly primary-prevention population.
PIONEER 6 (Husain et al., NEJM 2019) [13]	Oral semaglutide 14 mg daily vs. placebo.	T2D ≥50 years with established CVD or CKD. N = 3,183.	Median 15.9 months.	3-point MACE: HR 0.79 (0.57–1.11); P < 0.001 for noninferiority (not powered for superiority).	CV safety trial; favorable but nonsignificant point estimate. Cardiovascular and all-cause mortality numerically lower.
SOUL (McGuire et al., NEJM 2025) [4]	Oral semaglutide titrated to 14 mg daily vs. placebo, on standard care (~27% on baseline SGLT2i).	T2D ≥50 years with established ASCVD, CKD, or both. N = 9,650.	Median 49.5 months.	3-point MACE: HR 0.86 (0.77–0.96), P = 0.006 for superiority.	Driven primarily by 26% reduction in nonfatal MI; benefit preserved regardless of baseline or in-trial SGLT2i use. GI events most common adverse-event class.
SURPASS-CVOT (Nicholls et al., NEJM 2025) [6]	Tirzepatide (max tolerated up to 15 mg) SC weekly vs. dulaglutide 1.5 mg SC weekly (active comparator).	T2D with established ASCVD. N = 13,165 (6,586 vs. 6,579).	Median 4.0 years.	3-point MACE: HR 0.92 (95.3% CI 0.83–1.01); P = 0.003 for noninferiority, P = 0.09 for superiority. Expanded 4-point MACE: HR 0.88 (0.80–0.96). All-cause mortality HR 0.84 (0.75–0.94).	Active-comparator design narrows margin for showing superiority. Tirzepatide produced ~7%–8% greater weight loss and ~0.8% greater HbA1c reduction; favorable eGFR-slope trend.

Table IV. Trials in obesity, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease.

Abbreviations used in this table: ARR = absolute risk reduction; BMI = body-mass index; CV = cardiovascular; HR = hazard ratio; KCCQ-CSS = Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA = New York Heart Association functional class; PAD = peripheral artery disease; SC = subcutaneous; UACR = urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Trial (publication)	Intervention vs. comparator	Population and N	Follow-up	Primary outcome (HR or treatment difference)	Key secondary effects and notable limitations
SELECT (Lincoff et al., NEJM 2023) [3]	Semaglutide 2.4 mg SC weekly vs. placebo, all on standard CV care.	BMI ≥27 kg/m², established CVD (prior MI, stroke, or symptomatic PAD), no diabetes. N = 17,604.	Mean 39.8 months.	3-point MACE: HR 0.80 (0.72–0.90), P < 0.001 for superiority. ARR 1.5%.	Prespecified time-to-benefit analysis: nominally significant MACE reduction at 3 months (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41–0.95) and 6 months (HR 0.60), before substantial weight loss [25]. Cardioprotection consistent across baseline HbA1c, weight, and waist-circumference categories. GI events drove ~17% discontinuation.
SUMMIT (Packer et al., NEJM 2025) [5]	Tirzepatide titrated to maximum tolerated dose (5, 10, or 15 mg) SC weekly vs. placebo.	HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%), NYHA II–IV, BMI ≥30 kg/m², with or without diabetes. N = 731.	Median 104 weeks.	CV death or worsening HF (composite): HR 0.62 (0.41–0.95), P = 0.026. Worsening HF events: HR 0.54 (0.34–0.85).	KCCQ-CSS between-group difference +6.9 (3.3–10.6); 6-minute walk distance +18 m; weight loss treatment difference −11.6%; hs-CRP −34.9%. Modest sample size; CV death events too few to interpret individually.
STEP-HFpEF (Kosiborod et al., NEJM 2023) [20]	Semaglutide 2.4 mg SC weekly vs. placebo.	HFpEF (LVEF ≥45%), BMI ≥30 kg/m², no diabetes. N = 529.	52 weeks.	Dual primary endpoints: KCCQ-CSS change +16.6 vs. +8.7 (between-group +7.8, 95% CI 4.8–10.9, P < 0.001); body weight −13.3% vs. −2.6% (between-group −10.7%, P < 0.001).	Six-minute walk distance and CRP also improved with semaglutide. Symptom and exercise-capacity trial; not powered for hard CV endpoints.
STEP-HFpEF DM (Kosiborod et al., Lancet 2024) [21]	Semaglutide 2.4 mg SC weekly vs. placebo.	HFpEF (LVEF ≥45%), BMI ≥30 kg/m², with T2D. N = 616.	52 weeks.	Dual primary endpoints: KCCQ-CSS change +13.7 vs. +6.4 (between-group +7.3, P < 0.001); body weight −9.8% vs. −3.4% (between-group −6.4%, P < 0.001).	Six-minute walk distance and CRP improved with semaglutide; absolute weight loss smaller than non-diabetic STEP-HFpEF. Not powered for hard CV endpoints.
FLOW (Perkovic et al., NEJM 2024) [22]	Semaglutide 1.0 mg SC weekly vs. placebo (trial terminated early for efficacy).	T2D with CKD (eGFR 50–75 with elevated UACR, or eGFR 25–50). N = 3,533.	Median 3.4 years.	Composite major kidney disease events (kidney failure, sustained ≥50% eGFR reduction, kidney or CV death): HR 0.76 (0.66–0.88), P = 0.0003.	MACE: HR 0.82 (0.68–0.98). CV death: HR 0.71 (0.56–0.89). Demonstrated cardiorenal benefit in CKD with T2D.

4. Plaque Stabilization vs. Atherosclerotic Regression

A central mechanistic question is whether the MACE reduction observed with GLP-1RA therapy is mediated by physical regression of total atheroma volume or by qualitative remodeling that stabilizes the existing plaque burden. Intensive lipid-lowering with high-intensity statins and PCSK9 inhibitors has been shown on serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to reduce both total atheroma volume and lipid-rich plaque components [15], [17], [23]. The imaging signature of incretin therapy is different.

In the observational, prospective CCTA study of Hjuler Boesgaard and colleagues, 204 asymptomatic patients with T2D (55 receiving liraglutide as part of clinical care, 149 not) underwent baseline and 1-year CCTA [9]. The change in total atheroma volume did not differ between groups (38 ± 180 mm³ in the liraglutide group vs. −1 ± 160 mm³ in the comparator group, P = 0.13). However, the liraglutide group showed a significantly greater increase in fibrous-plaque volume. In the context of plaque biology, fibrous-plaque expansion is a favorable structural change: dense, collagen-rich fibrous tissue forms a thicker cap that insulates the thrombogenic lipid core from circulating coagulation factors. The shift toward fibrous composition resembles the qualitative plaque change observed with statin therapy and is the structural substrate of plaque stabilization [9], [15]. The observational design of this study limits causal inference; a randomized CCTA trial addressing this question remains an evidence gap.

Complementary in-vivo evidence for a direct anti-inflammatory vascular action comes from the LIRAFLAME positron emission tomography / computed tomography (PET/CT) substudy [24]. Thirty randomly selected participants from the parent LIRAFLAME trial underwent paired [⁶⁴Cu]Cu-DOTATATE PET/CT imaging of the coronary arteries at baseline and after 26 weeks. The tracer binds somatostatin receptor 2, which is highly expressed on activated macrophages. Coronary tracer uptake decreased significantly in the liraglutide arm (assessed as both maximum and mean-of-maximum standardized uptake values) at the participant level and the individual coronary-segment level; no such reduction was seen with placebo. The change in coronary tracer uptake correlated with the change in systemic high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), linking a systemic anti-inflammatory effect to a regional reduction in macrophage activity within the coronary vessel wall [24]. Preclinical work in apolipoprotein-E–deficient and LDL-receptor–deficient mouse models, and in Watanabe heritable hyperlipidemic rabbits, has shown analogous effects: reduced macrophage accumulation, inhibited foam-cell formation, and thicker fibrous caps [14], [18]. Taken together, the human imaging and animal data are most consistent with plaque stabilization rather than gross atheroma regression, though the causal mechanism remains an inference rather than a directly proven pathway.

5. Mechanistic Basis for the Rapid Onset of Cardioprotective Benefit

The MACE event curves in SELECT diverged early. The trial’s primary result was a 20% reduction in 3-point MACE over a mean follow-up of 39.8 months (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72–0.90) [3]. In a prespecified time-to-benefit secondary analysis presented at the European Congress on Obesity in 2025 and subsequently published, semaglutide produced a nominally significant reduction in MACE within the first 3 months (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41–0.95) and the first 6 months (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44–0.81), with curve separation visible within approximately 3 weeks of randomization [25], [26]. At 3 months, the mean placebo-adjusted body-weight difference was only approximately 3.6%, and patients were still in the protocol dose-escalation phase. The onset of clinical benefit in this secondary analysis therefore precedes substantial weight loss and predates the achievement of target maintenance dosing, although the time-to-benefit estimates carry wider confidence intervals than the primary endpoint.

Several non-weight-dependent mechanisms could plausibly explain this early cardioprotection:

Endothelial preservation. GLP-1RAs reduce reactive-oxygen-species generation and prevent endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) uncoupling, increasing local nitric-oxide bioavailability. The net effect is improved coronary microvascular vasodilation and local antithrombotic / antiplatelet tone.

Rapid suppression of plaque-local inflammation. Macrophages in vulnerable plaques produce inflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNF-α], interleukin-6 [IL-6]) and matrix metalloproteinases that degrade the fibrous cap. GLP-1R activation downregulates the nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-κB) cascade within days to weeks, preserving cap integrity and reducing the substrate for erosion and rupture.

Myocardial substrate optimization. Under ischemic and high-stress conditions, GLP-1R activation increases myocardial glucose uptake and glycolytic flux while inhibiting caspase-3–mediated cardiomyocyte apoptosis. This improves the oxygen-efficiency of energy production and reduces infarct expansion and arrhythmic substrate.

These pathways are consistent with the observation that the early MACE reduction in SELECT was driven principally by reductions in nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) and heart-failure–related events rather than by changes that require months of weight loss to materialize [25], [27]. Direct causal demonstration in human coronary tissue remains an evidence gap.

6. The DPP-4 Inhibitor Discrepancy

A clarifying contrast comes from dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which act by preventing degradation of endogenous active GLP-1. These agents produce modest improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of approximately 0.5%–0.8% and a neutral profile on weight and blood pressure [28]. Across the major CVOTs — SAVOR-TIMI 53 (saxagliptin), EXAMINE (alogliptin), TECOS (sitagliptin), CARMELINA (linagliptin), and CAROLINA (linagliptin vs. glimepiride) — DPP-4 inhibitors have demonstrated cardiovascular safety but no MACE reduction; SAVOR-TIMI 53 additionally showed an increase in heart-failure hospitalization with saxagliptin [28]–[31].

This therapeutic divergence is reconciled by drug-exposure pharmacology. Endogenous GLP-1 is secreted in small amounts from intestinal L-cells in response to nutrient stimuli and has a circulating half-life of less than two minutes due to rapid DPP-4–mediated degradation. DPP-4 inhibition extends this half-life and increases circulating active GLP-1 by approximately 2- to 3-fold, which is sufficient to engage high-density pancreatic islet receptors and produce glucose-dependent insulin secretion and glucagon suppression. Receptor density in cardiovascular and immune tissues is, however, markedly lower than in the pancreas, and the modest physiological increment in GLP-1 produced by DPP-4 inhibition does not appear sufficient to drive the downstream signaling needed for anti-inflammatory, endothelial, or plaque-modifying effects [13], [14], [28].

Engineered GLP-1RAs achieve supra-physiological active-drug exposure for extended periods. Semaglutide has a plasma half-life of approximately 155–184 hours (≈ one week), driven by albumin binding via a C18 fatty-diacid side chain [32]. Once-weekly dosing therefore produces sustained drug concentrations that are an order of magnitude or more above physiologic baseline. The implication is mechanistically important: cardiovascular benefit appears to require pharmacological-level direct receptor activation, not merely augmentation of physiologic incretin signaling.

7. Practical Clinical Implications

7.1 Population-Specific Cardiorenal Efficacy

Type 2 diabetes with established ASCVD or CKD. GLP-1RAs (subcutaneous semaglutide, liraglutide, dulaglutide) and the GIP/GLP-1RA tirzepatide are evidence-based additions to lipid-lowering and antiplatelet therapy. Oral semaglutide titrated to 14 mg daily reduced 3-point MACE by 14% in SOUL (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77–0.96), with the principal driver a 26% reduction in nonfatal MI; benefit was preserved in the prespecified subgroup receiving sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) at baseline, which supports combined GLP-1RA + SGLT2i use as a supported option pursuing complementary pathways [4], [33].

Overweight or obesity without diabetes, with established CVD. In SELECT, semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly reduced MACE by 20% (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72–0.90) with a 1.5% absolute risk reduction over a mean follow-up of 39.8 months [3]. The cardioprotective effect was consistent across baseline HbA1c (normoglycemic and prediabetic strata) and across baseline weight and waist categories; a mediation analysis estimated that only approximately one third of the MACE benefit was attributable to waist-circumference reduction, indicating substantial weight-independent benefit [34], [35]. Therapy should therefore not be discontinued in patients with established CVD who do not achieve the weight-loss targets observed in clinical trials.

HFpEF with obesity. In SUMMIT, tirzepatide reduced the composite of cardiovascular death or worsening heart-failure events by 38% (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41–0.95) and worsening HF events alone by 46% (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34–0.85), with a +6.9-point between-group improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS), an 18-meter improvement in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), and a placebo-adjusted weight loss of −11.6% [5]. The companion STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM programs demonstrated semaglutide-mediated improvements in KCCQ-CSS, body weight, and 6MWD in similar populations with and without diabetes [20], [21]. Incretin therapy is a supported, evidence-based option in obese HFpEF.

Chronic kidney disease. In SOUL, oral semaglutide reduced MACE in CKD subgroups consistent with the overall trial; in SURPASS-CVOT, tirzepatide slowed estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline relative to dulaglutide [4], [6]. The dedicated FLOW trial of subcutaneous semaglutide in T2D-related CKD showed a 24% reduction in the composite of major kidney disease events (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66–0.88) and significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes [22], supporting GLP-1RA therapy as an evidence-based addition for cardiorenal protection in this population.

7.2 Integration With Lipid Management

Statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors, inclisiran, and bempedoic acid remain foundational therapy for atherogenic-lipoprotein reduction. The lipid-modifying effects of GLP-1RAs are modest in comparison: the SELECT lipid analysis reported net placebo-adjusted reductions of approximately 2% in LDL-C and 15% in triglycerides [34]. The implication for practice is that incretin therapy is not a substitute for ApoB-lowering therapy in established ASCVD but is complementary: aggressive ApoB lowering addresses the lipid driver of atherogenesis, while incretin therapy addresses residual inflammatory, vascular, and metabolic risk. The combination is a supported, evidence-based approach for secondary prevention in cardiometabolically high-risk patients.

8. Open Research Questions

8.1 Direct Vascular Receptor Signaling vs. Indirect Systemic Effects

Whether the cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1RAs depend on direct receptor activation in vascular and myocardial tissue — or are mediated by indirect systemic effects on adipose-tissue inflammation, hepatic lipid handling, neurohumoral tone, and intestinal signaling — remains incompletely resolved. Validated immunohistochemistry has had difficulty confirming high-density GLP-1R expression in human coronary endothelium and smooth muscle, raising the possibility that the “vascular” effects are substantially indirect [14]. Resolving this question is more than academic: it determines whether the next generation of incretin-based molecules should be designed for receptor-selective vascular targeting or for refined systemic-metabolic activity.

8.2 The “Saturation” Hypothesis From SURPASS-CVOT

SURPASS-CVOT compared tirzepatide directly with dulaglutide and met its prespecified noninferiority margin but not formal superiority (HR 0.92, 95.3% CI 0.83–1.01; P = 0.09) [6]. Tirzepatide produced substantially greater weight loss (~7–8% additional) and superior glycemic control (~0.8% additional HbA1c reduction), yet the additional cardiovascular benefit over an already-active comparator was modest. One interpretation is a “saturation effect”: once the GLP-1 axis is fully engaged, additional metabolic improvement and GIP receptor activation may yield diminishing returns on hard macrovascular endpoints. Alternative interpretations include (a) trial design (active comparator narrows the margin to detect superiority) and (b) underlying biology that limits incremental benefit on plaque stabilization beyond a threshold. The companion finding of a significant 16% all-cause mortality reduction with tirzepatide and benefit on the expanded 4-point MACE endpoint suggests that additional risk reduction may exist but is more diffusely distributed than the 3-point MACE composite captures [6]. Adequately powered placebo-controlled trials of next-generation triple-incretin agonists will be needed to resolve this question.

8.3 Long-Term Efficacy and Combination Regimens

Prospective randomized data on multi-pathway combination regimens — GLP-1RA + SGLT2i, GLP-1RA + finerenone, GLP-1RA + intensive ApoB-lowering — remain limited. Although the SOUL prespecified analysis showed preserved MACE benefit in the SGLT2i-treated subgroup, that analysis was non-randomized for the SGLT2i exposure [33]. Dedicated factorial trials would clarify whether these complementary pathways produce additive, supra-additive, or attenuated effects on hard outcomes.

8.4 Tolerability and Real-World Adherence

Gastrointestinal adverse events drive treatment discontinuation in clinical trials. In SUMMIT, diarrhea (18.4% vs. 6.3%), nausea (17.0% vs. 6.5%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation (6.3% vs. 1.4%) were more frequent with tirzepatide than with placebo [5]. SOUL reported overall serious adverse events in 47.9% of the oral-semaglutide arm vs. 50.3% in placebo, with GI events the most common [4]. Real-world discontinuation rates are typically higher than clinical-trial rates. Long-term cardiovascular benefit depends on sustained therapy; improving titration protocols and identifying patient-level predictors of intolerance are practical research priorities.

Disclosures

The LEADER, SUSTAIN-6, REWIND, PIONEER 6, SELECT, SOUL, STEP-HFpEF (with and without diabetes), and FLOW trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk. The SUMMIT and SURPASS-CVOT trials were sponsored by Eli Lilly. These industry sponsorships are routine for cardiovascular outcomes trials in the incretin therapeutic area; results have been published in peer-reviewed journals with adjudicated endpoints. The author declares no financial conflicts related to the manufacturers cited.

References

1. Luconi M, Cantini G, Ceriello A, Mannucci E. Perspectives on cardiovascular effects of incretin-based drugs: From bedside to bench, return trip. Int J Cardiol. 2017;241:302-310. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.02.126
2. Ibe T, Borlaug BA. Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists and Cardiovascular Disease. Annu Rev Med. 2026;77(1):1-15. doi:10.1146/annurev-med-043024-011141
3. Lincoff AM, Brown-Frandsen K, Colhoun HM, et al. Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Obesity without Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(24):2221-2232. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2307563
4. McGuire DK, Marx N, Mulvagh SL, et al. Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2025;392(20):2001-2012. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2501006
5. Packer M, Zile MR, Kramer CM, et al. Tirzepatide for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Obesity. N Engl J Med. 2025;392(5):427-437. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2410027
6. Nicholls SJ, Pavo I, Bhatt DL, et al. Cardiovascular Outcomes with Tirzepatide versus Dulaglutide in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2025;393(24):2409-2420. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2505928
7. Borlaug BA, Zile MR, Kramer CM, et al. Effects of tirzepatide on circulatory overload and end-organ damage in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity: a secondary analysis of the SUMMIT trial. Nat Med. 2025;31(2):544-551. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03374-z
8. Borlaug BA, Zile MR, Kramer CM, et al. Impact of Body Mass Index, Central Adiposity, and Weight Loss on the Benefits of Tirzepatide in HFpEF: The SUMMIT Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025;86(4):242-255. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.04.059
9. Heinsen LJ, Pararajasingam G, Andersen TR, et al. Liraglutide treatment is associated with progression of coronary artery fibrous plaque: a prospective 1-year follow-up study in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2023;23(1):214. Published 2023 Apr 28. doi:10.1186/s12872-023-03228-5
10. Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, et al. Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(4):311-322. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1603827
11. Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, et al. Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1834-1844. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1607141
12. Gerstein HC, Colhoun HM, Dagenais GR, et al. Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10193):121-130. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31149-3
13. Husain M, Birkenfeld AL, Donsmark M, et al. Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(9):841-851. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1901118
14. Pyke C, Heller RS, Kirk RK, et al. GLP-1 receptor localization in monkey and human tissue: novel distribution revealed with extensively validated monoclonal antibody. Endocrinology. 2014;155(4):1280-1290. doi:10.1210/en.2013-1934
15. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration, Baigent C, Blackwell L, et al. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2010;376(9753):1670-1681. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61350-5
16. Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al. Ezetimibe Added to Statin Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(25):2387-2397. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1410489
17. Nicholls SJ, Puri R, Anderson T, et al. Effect of Evolocumab on Progression of Coronary Disease in Statin-Treated Patients: The GLAGOV Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;316(22):2373-2384. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.16951
18. Park B, Bakbak E, Teoh H, et al. GLP-1 receptor agonists and atherosclerosis protection: the vascular endothelium takes center stage. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2024;326(5):H1159-H1176. doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00574.2023
19. Holman RR, Bethel MA, Mentz RJ, et al. Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(13):1228-1239. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1612917
20. Kosiborod MN, Abildstrøm SZ, Borlaug BA, et al. Semaglutide in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Obesity. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(12):1069-1084. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2306963
21. Kosiborod MN, Deanfield J, Pratley R, et al. Semaglutide versus placebo in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a pooled analysis of the SELECT, FLOW, STEP-HFpEF, and STEP-HFpEF DM randomised trials. Lancet. 2024;404(10456):949-961. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01643-X
22. Perkovic V, Tuttle KR, Rossing P, et al. Effects of Semaglutide on Chronic Kidney Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2024;391(2):109-121. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2403347
23. Nissen SE, Nicholls SJ, Sipahi I, et al. Effect of very high-intensity statin therapy on regression of coronary atherosclerosis: the ASTEROID trial. JAMA. 2006;295(13):1556-1565. doi:10.1001/jama.295.13.jpc60002
24. Jensen JK, Zobel EH, von Scholten BJ, et al. Effect of 26 Weeks of Liraglutide Treatment on Coronary Artery Inflammation in Type 2 Diabetes Quantified by [⁶⁴Cu]Cu-DOTATATE PET/CT: Results from the LIRAFLAME Trial. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:790405. Published 2021 Nov 30. doi:10.3389/fendo.2021.790405
25. Garvey WT, Blüher M, Osorto Contreras CK, et al. Coadministered Cagrilintide and Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity. N Engl J Med. 2025;393(7):635-647. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2502081
26. Hussain M, Miras AD. Peptidhormonanaloga basierte medikamentöse Adipositastherapie ist effektiv : Was ist die Evidenz zu harten Endpunkten und zum Langzeitverlauf? [Peptide hormone analogue-based pharmacotherapy for obesity is effective : What is the evidence on hard end points and the long-term course?]. Chirurgie (Heidelb). 2026;97(1):11-20. doi:10.1007/s00104-025-02402-z
27. Deanfield J, Verma S, Scirica BM, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with obesity and prevalent heart failure: a prespecified analysis of the SELECT trial. Lancet. 2024;404(10454):773-786. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01498-3
28. Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, et al. Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(14):1317-1326. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1307684
29. Green JB, Bethel MA, Armstrong PW, et al. Effect of Sitagliptin on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(3):232-242. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1501352
30. Rosenstock J, Perkovic V, Johansen OE, et al. Effect of Linagliptin vs Placebo on Major Cardiovascular Events in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes and High Cardiovascular and Renal Risk: The CARMELINA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;321(1):69-79. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.18269
31. Rosenstock J, Kahn SE, Johansen OE, et al. Effect of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The CAROLINA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;322(12):1155-1166. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.13772
32. Lau J, Bloch P, Schäffer L, et al. Discovery of the Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Analogue Semaglutide. J Med Chem. 2015;58(18):7370-7380. doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b00726
33. Marx N, Deanfield JE, Mann JFE, et al. Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in People With Type 2 Diabetes, According to SGLT2i Use: Prespecified Analyses of the SOUL Randomized Trial. Circulation. 2025;151(23):1639-1650. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.125.074545
34. Lingvay I, Deanfield J, Kahn SE, et al. Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes by Baseline HbA1c and Change in HbA1c in People With Overweight or Obesity but Without Diabetes in SELECT. Diabetes Care. 2024;47(8):1360-1369. doi:10.2337/dc24-0764
35. Deanfield J, Lincoff AM, Kahn SE, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes by baseline and changes in adiposity measurements: a prespecified analysis of the SELECT trial. Lancet. 2025;406(10516):2257-2268. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01375-3