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 · §5

Tirzepatide compared with semaglutide in type 2 diabetes — amendment log

Every change made since protocol registration, with its date and reason.

Document identifier
CEI-ES-029/5
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
2.2
Published
26 Jan 2025
Last reviewed
26 Apr 2025
Next review
26 Oct 2026
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.29
Certainty
High
Cycle
2025 Q1
Review type
Intervention review
Search executed
05 Dec 2024

§5Amendment log

Every change made to this review after protocol registration is recorded below with its date and its reason. A change that is not in this log did not happen. The Institute publishes the log in full, including changes that did not alter a conclusion, because a reader cannot judge which changes matter unless all of them are visible.

§5.1Amendment log

Table 9. Amendments to this review since protocol registration.

DateVersionAmendmentRecord
10 Nov 20240.1Protocol registeredThe review protocol was registered with the Institute’s secretariat before the search was executed. No change to the review question was made after registration.
10 Mar 20252.1Search re-runThe search was re-run to the current cycle date. Newly identified records were screened against the registered criteria without modification of those criteria.
28 May 20252.2Correction issuedA numerical error in one summary-of-findings row was corrected. The direction of the conclusion was unaffected and the correction is recorded in full in the corrections log.
15 Jul 20252.3Study reclassifiedA study previously included was reclassified as ineligible following retrieval of the full report. The quantitative synthesis was re-run without it.
05 Jan 20262.0Outcome addedAn additional outcome was added at the request of a public comment-period respondent. The addition is recorded here because it was made after protocol registration and is therefore post hoc.
Current version 2.2, ratified in the 2025 Q1 assessment cycle.

§5.2Clinical study report requests

Table 10. Clinical study reports requested for the contributing trials, and the outcome of each request. Refusals are recorded because a review that does not record them presents the sponsor's disclosure decision as the Institute's own.

TrialRequestedOutcome
STRIDE24 Nov 2024Supplied on request
SURPASS-CVOT17 Sep 2024Refused
FLOW04 Oct 2024No response
STEP-HFpEF-DM05 Nov 2024Redirected to a data-access portal
SURMOUNT-220 Sep 2024Refused
SURPASS-518 Oct 2024Refused
STEP-209 Sep 2024Supplied on request
SURPASS-106 Sep 2024Partially supplied

§5.3Superseded versions

Superseded versions of this review remain published at a stable address, are marked as superseded, and link forward to the current version. The current version links back to each of them. That practice was adopted following a submission that a document cited in the literature must remain retrievable in the form in which it was cited; the reasoning is published on the corrections policy disposition page.

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. Frías JP, Davies MJ, Rosenstock J, Pérez Manghi FC, Fernández Landó L, Bergman BK, Liu B, Cui X, Brown K. Tirzepatide versus semaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2021;385(6):503–515. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107519 · PMID 34170647

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.