Cardiovascular benefit in primary compared with secondary prevention
Does the cardiovascular effect of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist established in secondary prevention extend to a primary-prevention population?
§1Abstract
§1.1Review question
Does the cardiovascular effect of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist established in secondary prevention extend to a primary-prevention population?
§1.2PICO frame
Table 1. The registered PICO frame. Any change made after protocol registration is recorded in the amendment log at §5 and is identified there as post hoc.
| Element | As registered |
|---|---|
| Population | Adults with type 2 diabetes or obesity, stratified by presence of established cardiovascular disease. |
| Intervention | A glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. |
| Comparator | Placebo. |
| Outcomes | Major adverse cardiovascular events; absolute risk difference in each stratum. |
§1.3Method in brief
A review of the effects of an intervention on pre-specified outcomes, with a quantitative synthesis where the contributing studies are sufficiently similar. The protocol was registered with the Institute's secretariat before the search was executed. The search was run on 29 January 2026 across 8 sources and is reproduced in full at §2. Screening, extraction and certainty assessment were performed independently by two members of the secretariat with disagreement resolved by a third.[1,2]
§1.4Conclusion
Moderate certainty evidence, resting principally on one trial that enrolled a majority primary-prevention population, indicates that the relative effect is broadly similar across strata. The Institute emphasises that a similar relative effect over a much lower baseline risk produces a much smaller absolute benefit, and that the number needed to treat in primary prevention is several times that in secondary prevention. Reporting the hazard ratio without the absolute risk difference is the most common way this evidence is misrepresented.
The conclusion rests on 4 contributing studies, listed with their extracted data at §3 and summarised outcome by outcome at §4.
§1.5Limitations
§1.6Consultation
This review was released for public comment before ratification. Draft synthesis: Cardiovascular benefit in primary compared with secondary prevention received 10 submissions. Amendments arising are recorded in the amendment log and are traceable to a numbered submission.
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.
- Gerstein HC, Colhoun HM, Dagenais GR, Diaz R, Lakshmanan M, Pais P, Probstfield J, Riesmeyer JS, Riddle MC, Rydén L, Xavier D, Atisso CM, Dyal L, Hall S, Rao-Melacini P, Wong G, Avezum A, Basile J, Chung N, Conget I. Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet 2019;394(10193):121–130. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31149-3 · PMID 31189511
- Lincoff AM, Brown-Frandsen K, Colhoun HM, Deanfield J, Emerson SS, Esbjerg S, Hardt-Lindberg S, Hovingh GK, Kahn SE, Kushner RF, Lingvay I, Oral TK, Michelsen MM, Plutzky J, Tornøe CW, Ryan DH. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity without diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2023;389(24):2221–2232. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2307563 · PMID 37952131
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.