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

Acute pancreatitis with incretin-based therapies — 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-025/3
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
1.2
Published
22 Nov 2025
Last reviewed
22 Mar 2026
Next review
22 Sep 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.25
Certainty
Moderate
Cycle
2025 Q4
Review type
Safety review
Search executed
04 Sep 2025

§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
ESSENCESemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled1,19772 weeks for part 1Resolution in 62.9 % versus 34.3 % with placebo; difference 28.7 percentage points (95 % CI 21.1 to 36.2)2025
EXENATIDE-GE-PDExenatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled19496 weeksNo significant difference from placebo. The Institute records this as a negative result of a widely publicised earlier phase 2 signal2025
STRIDESemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled79252 weeksEstimated treatment ratio 1.13 (95 % CI 1.06 to 1.21)2025
SURMOUNT-5TirzepatideRandomised, open-label, active-controlled75172 weeksMean change −20.2 % with tirzepatide versus −13.7 % with semaglutide2025
SURMOUNT-KOATirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled68 weeksImprovement relative to placebo. The Institute records that pain improvement in a weight-loss trial cannot be attributed to a direct joint effect2025
SURPASS-CVOTTirzepatideEvent-driven cardiovascular outcome trial13,299Median 4.5 yearsNon-inferior to dulaglutide on the primary composite. The Institute records that an active-controlled non-inferiority design cannot establish superiority over…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
SUMMITTirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled731Median 104 weeksHazard ratio 0.62 (95 % CI 0.41 to 0.95) for the composite; clinical summary score difference 6.9 points (95 % CI 3.3 to 10.6)2024
SURMOUNT-4TirzepatideRandomised withdrawal67052 weeks after a 36-week open-label lead-inContinued treatment −5.5 % versus +14.0 % after switching to placebo2024
SURMOUNT-OSA-1TirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled52 weeksSubstantial reduction in the apnoea–hypopnoea index relative to placebo; the Institute reproduces the pooled programme estimate rather than a per-trial figure2024
SURMOUNT-OSA-2TirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled52 weeksDirectionally consistent with the companion trial2024
SYNERGY-NASHTirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled19052 weeksResolution in 44 % to 62 % across doses versus 10 % with placebo2024
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
SURMOUNT-2TirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled93872 weeksMean change −14.7 % at 15 mg versus −3.2 % with placebo2023
SURMOUNT-3TirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled80672 weeks after a 12-week lead-inAdditional mean change −18.4 % versus +2.5 % with placebo after the lead-in2023
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-TEENSSemaglutideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled20168 weeksMean change −16.1 % versus +0.6 % with placebo; estimated difference −16.7 percentage points (95 % CI −20.3 to −13.2)2022
SURMOUNT-1TirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled2,53972 weeksMean change −20.9 % at 15 mg versus −3.1 % with placebo2022
SURPASS-5TirzepatideRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled47540 weeksReduction of 2.11 to 2.34 percentage points across doses versus 0.86 with placebo2022
AMPLITUDE-OExenatideEvent-driven cardiovascular outcome trial4,076Median 1.8 yearsHazard ratio 0.73 (95 % CI 0.58 to 0.92), with a composite kidney outcome also reduced2021
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
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: 51,744. 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 comparison7
Population outside the review question4
Intervention outside the review question10
Comparator not eligible7
No eligible outcome reported12
Duplicate report of an included study11
Conference abstract without extractable data15
Retracted or subject to an expression of concern18
65 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
ESSENCELowLowLowLowSome
EXENATIDE-GE-PDSomeLowLowLowLow
STRIDESomeLowLowLowLow
SURMOUNT-5LowLowLowLowLow
SURMOUNT-KOASomeLowLowLowSome
SURPASS-CVOTLowSomeLowLowLow
FLOWLowLowLowLowLow
STEP-HFpEF-DMLowLowSomeLowLow
SUMMITLowLowLowLowSome
SURMOUNT-4LowLowLowLowLow
SURMOUNT-OSA-1LowLowLowLowLow
SURMOUNT-OSA-2LowLowLowLowLow
SYNERGY-NASHLowLowSomeSomeLow
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.

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. Sodhi M, Rezaeianzadeh R, Kezouh A, Etminan M. Risk of gastrointestinal adverse events associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for weight loss. JAMA 2023;330(18):1795–1797. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.19574 · PMID 37796527

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.