Network meta-analysis

Weight loss of 5 percent or more

Type 2 diabetes (adults); background therapy: one or more non insulin glucose lowering drugs

weeks 20 to 40 (target week 26)Hypothetical (as if everyone stayed on treatment)Doses of a drug pooledOdds ratio

Randomized trials

Treatments

3,283

Participants

794

Events

In plain language

Across 5 trials with 3,283 participants, 4 of 6 treatments had a clearly better result than placebo on weight loss of 5 percent or more, and for 2 the evidence could not tell them apart from placebo. The most favorable estimate was for Tirzepatide injection: odds ratio 21.62 (95% credible interval 4.66 to 88.60).

Higher values favor the treatment. "Clearly" means the 95% credible interval excludes no difference. These are averages across trials; they do not say how any one person will respond. Not medical advice.

Network of trials

Each circle is a treatment; each line joins treatments that were randomized against each other in at least one trial.

Node area shows participants; line width shows trials comparing two treatments directly. Blue: GLP-1 receptor agonist containing treatments; grey: comparators. Hover over or tab to a node or line for details.

Effects compared with Placebo

Odds ratio. Higher values favor the treatment.

Versus Placebo, log scale. Blue: Bayesian random effects posterior median with 95% credible interval (thick) and 95% prediction interval (dashed). Amber diamond: frequentist estimate with 95% confidence interval. Hover over or tab to a row for its values.

Effects of each treatment versus Placebo
Treatment	Bayesian OR (95% CrI)	95% prediction interval	Verdict
Tirzepatide injection TIRZ_SC	21.62 (4.66 to 88.60)	3.06 to 131	Better
Semaglutide tablet SEMA_PO	11.44 (3.34 to 30.18)	1.90 to 46.20	Better
Dulaglutide injection DULA_SC	5.26 (1.41 to 18.88)	0.85 to 27.82	Better
Liraglutide injection LIRA_SC	5.00 (1.18 to 14.83)	0.74 to 21.78	Better
Sitagliptin SITAGLIPTIN	2.14 (0.39 to 7.86)	0.24 to 10.93	Unclear
Lixisenatide injection LIXI_SC	1.60 (0.48 to 5.18)	0.29 to 7.85	Unclear

Ranking

How likely each treatment is to be among the best. Rankings ignore the size of differences and their certainty, so read them with the effects above.

League table

Every treatment against every other: odds ratio of the row treatment versus the column treatment, posterior median and 95% credible interval. Green: row clearly better; red: row clearly worse.

Every treatment in a row compared with every treatment in a column
Row versus column	PLACEBO	TIRZ_SC	SEMA_PO	DULA_SC	LIRA_SC	SITAGLIPTIN	LIXI_SC
PLACEBO	PLACEBO	0.05 0.01 to 0.21	0.09 0.03 to 0.30	0.19 0.05 to 0.71	0.20 0.07 to 0.84	0.47 0.13 to 2.59	0.62 0.19 to 2.09
TIRZ_SC	21.62 4.66 to 88.60	TIRZ_SC	1.90 0.43 to 9.61	4.08 1.14 to 14.13	4.33 0.83 to 26.63	10.32 1.70 to 74.96	13.58 1.93 to 80.27
SEMA_PO	11.44 3.34 to 30.18	0.53 0.10 to 2.35	SEMA_PO	2.15 0.61 to 7.01	2.28 0.78 to 6.98	5.39 1.86 to 18.46	7.23 1.26 to 30.56
DULA_SC	5.26 1.41 to 18.88	0.25 0.07 to 0.88	0.47 0.14 to 1.63	DULA_SC	1.06 0.25 to 5.49	2.52 0.53 to 14.93	3.30 0.53 to 17.87
LIRA_SC	5.00 1.18 to 14.83	0.23 0.04 to 1.21	0.44 0.14 to 1.28	0.94 0.18 to 4.04	LIRA_SC	2.36 0.53 to 12.27	3.14 0.44 to 14.54
SITAGLIPTIN	2.14 0.39 to 7.86	0.10 0.01 to 0.59	0.19 0.05 to 0.54	0.40 0.07 to 1.88	0.42 0.08 to 1.87	SITAGLIPTIN	1.33 0.15 to 7.42
LIXI_SC	1.60 0.48 to 5.18	0.07 0.01 to 0.52	0.14 0.03 to 0.79	0.30 0.06 to 1.88	0.32 0.07 to 2.29	0.75 0.13 to 6.74	LIXI_SC

Heterogeneity, fit and convergence

Bayesian random effects (primary)

Heterogeneity (tau): 0.338 (95% CrI 0.074 to 1.382), log scale
Residual deviance: 14.9 for 12 data points
DIC: 25.4 (pD 10.5)
Largest R-hat: 1.001
Smallest ESS: bulk 2,328, tail 2,459
Divergent transitions: 0
Convergence: All criteria met
Priors: PR02 N(0, 5^2); PR05 N(0, 2.5^2); PR09 log normal(-2.29, 1.53^2) on tau^2 (General physical health indicators, pharm vs placebo control)

Inconsistency

Do trials comparing two treatments directly agree with the indirect evidence through other treatments?

No comparison here has both direct and indirect evidence, so inconsistency cannot be checked by node splitting.

Small study effects

A comparison adjusted funnel plot: each point is one trial comparison, centered on its own network estimate. Asymmetry can signal that small trials with unfavorable results are missing.

Fewer than ten trial comparisons, too few to judge funnel plot asymmetry.

Baseline characteristics of the trials

The baseline value of each effect modifier or prognostic factor that applies here, per trial: mean or percent over arms, weighted by the number randomized. A note under a value names a stand in (a median for a mean, 100 minus the male share, Asian subgroup rows, an all Asian site list); "not reported" means no source of the trial prints it.

Baseline effect modifiers and prognostic factors per trial
Trial	Baseline BMI or body weight (kg/m2) effect modifier, prognostic factor; 5 of 5	Sex (percent female) effect modifier, prognostic factor; 5 of 5	Treatment duration (weeks) effect modifier; 5 of 5	Lifestyle co-intervention intensity (none standard intensive) effect modifier, prognostic factor; 5 of 5
NCT03131687 S000010	32.57	46.85	26	standard
PIONEER 4 S000133	32.94	48	52	not_reported
PIONEER 10 S000234	26.26	25.74	52	not_reported
PIONEER 12 S000522	28.58	41.7	26	not_reported
GETGOAL-M S002188	32.85	58.44	24	not_reported

Comparability of the trials

Checked across designs (the set of treatments each trial compares) for eligibility, outcome definition and assessment, and the baseline factors above. Flags point to possible intransitivity; notes describe variation that is not tied to design.

FlagBaseline, Baseline BMI or body weight: design means range from 26.3 (DULA_SC vs SEMA_PO) to 32.9 (LIRA_SC vs PLACEBO vs SEMA_PO) kg/m2; threshold 3
FlagBaseline, Sex: design means range from 25.7 (DULA_SC vs SEMA_PO) to 58.4 (LIXI_SC vs PLACEBO) percent female; threshold 15
FlagBaseline, Treatment duration: design means range from 24.0 (LIXI_SC vs PLACEBO) to 52.0 (DULA_SC vs SEMA_PO) weeks; threshold 26
NoteOutcome assessment, time point: selected time points span 24 to 26 weeks
NoteOutcome assessment, analysis set: mixed: full_analysis 3, modified_itt 2
NoteOutcome assessment, definition: mixed: HbA1c below 7.0 percent 1, HbA1c below 7.0 percent, LOCF, mITT on treatment dataset 1, not stated 3
NoteOutcome assessment, proportion method: mixed: imputed 1, not stated 2, not_stated 1, observed 1
NoteRisk of bias, blinding: mixed: double_blind 4, single_blind 1
NoteData handling, input conversions: arms_combined 4, count_from_percent 5

Comparability items per trial
Trial	time weeks	analysis set	definition	instrument	adjudicated	proportion method	intercurrent events (discontinuation)	intercurrent events (rescue)	blinding	funding	start year	Eligibility
NCT03131687	26	modified_itt	HbA1c below 7.0 percent, LOCF, mITT on treatment dataset	not stated	not stated	imputed	hypothetical	hypothetical	double_blind	industry	2017	age 18 to 75; T2D at least 6 months; HbA1c 7.0 to 10.5%; BMI 23 to 50; diet and exercise or metformin
PIONEER 4	26	full_analysis	not stated	not stated	not stated	observed	hypothetical	hypothetical	double_blind	industry	2016	Age 18 or older; T2D on metformin with or without SGLT2i; HbA1c 7.0 to 9.5 percent; eGFR 60 or more
PIONEER 10	26	full_analysis	HbA1c below 7.0 percent	not stated	not stated	not stated	hypothetical	hypothetical	single_blind	industry	2017	Japanese adults 20 or older; T2D; HbA1c 7.0 to 10.5 percent on one oral glucose lowering drug
PIONEER 12	26	full_analysis	not stated	not stated	not stated	not stated	hypothetical	hypothetical	double_blind	industry	2019	adults with type 2 diabetes on metformin, HbA1c 7.0 to 10.5 percent
GETGOAL-M	24	modified_itt	not stated	not stated	not stated	not_stated	hypothetical	hypothetical	double_blind	industry	2008	type 2 diabetes on metformin 1.5 g/day or more for 3 months; HbA1c 7 to 10 percent; FPG 13.9 mmol/L or less

Trial data

What each trial contributes. Arm rows give the arm value with its standard error, or events over participants; contrast rows give the odds ratio on the analysis scale (log) against the trial's first row. Flags mark converted, combined or approximated inputs.

Trial data entering this analysis
Trial	Arm	Treatment	Week	Data	Events / N	Flags	Source
NCT03131687	A1	PLACEBO	26	arm, responders	0 / 51		R0016215:Supplement Table 4
NCT03131687	A2+A3+A4+A5	TIRZ_SC	26	arm, responders	102 / 211	arms_combined	R0016215:Supplement Table 4
NCT03131687	A6	DULA_SC	26	arm, responders	12 / 54		R0016215:Supplement Table 4
PIONEER 4	A1	SEMA_PO	26	arm, responders	110 / 238	count_from_percent	R0015836:Figure 3C
PIONEER 4	A2	LIRA_SC	26	arm, responders	69 / 244	count_from_percent	R0015836:Figure 3C
PIONEER 4	A3	PLACEBO	26	arm, responders	8 / 112	count_from_percent	R0015836:Figure 3C
PIONEER 10	A1+A2+A3	SEMA_PO	26	arm, responders	64 / 370	arms_combined	R0018421:Table 4
PIONEER 10	A4	DULA_SC	26	arm, responders	4 / 62		R0018421:Table 4
PIONEER 12	A1+A2+A3	SEMA_PO	26	arm, responders	294 / 941	arms_combined	R0019776:Table 2
PIONEER 12	A4	SITAGLIPTIN	26	arm, responders	27 / 335		R0019776:Table 2
GETGOAL-M	A1+A2	LIXI_SC	24	arm, responders	85 / 497	count_from_percent;arms_combined	registry:outcomes
GETGOAL-M	A3	PLACEBO	24	arm, responders	19 / 168	count_from_percent	registry:outcomes

Rerun this analysis yourself

Remove treatments or trials and refit the frequentist and Bayesian models in your browser, with the same methods as the published analysis.

Open in the NMA lab