PEDEvidence@pedevidence

SOURCE-LINKED STUDY SUMMARY

CagriSema vs Semaglutide: 32-Week Phase 2 Results

Original publication: Efficacy and safety of co-administered once-weekly cagrilintide 2·4 mg with once-weekly semaglutide 2·4 mg in type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 2 trial.

Lancet (London, England) ·

Human

PED EVIDENCE INTERPRETATION

Did CagriSema outperform both components?

In this 92-person phase 2 trial, weight fell 15.6% with CagriSema versus 5.1% with semaglutide at 32 weeks. The primary HbA1c difference versus semaglutide was statistically uncertain, so the weight result should not stand in for every outcome. [1]

Design
Double-blind randomized active-controlled trial; 92 participants
Population
Type 2 diabetes, BMI ≥27; metformin with or without an SGLT2 inhibitor
Comparison
Weekly subcutaneous cagrilintide plus semaglutide vs either alone; each component escalated to 2.4 mg
Duration
32 weeks

The evidence at a glance

Changes and adverse events at 32 weeks [1]
OutcomeCagriSemaSemaglutideCagrilintide
HbA1c change [1]−2.2 percentage points−1.8 percentage points−0.9 percentage points
Body-weight change [1]−15.6%−5.1%−8.1%
Any adverse event [1]68%71%80%

HbA1c difference vs semaglutide: −0.4 percentage points (95% CI −0.8 to 0.0), P=.075; vs cagrilintide: −1.3 (−1.7 to −0.8), P<.0001. Weight differences favored the combination versus both components (P<.0001). Gastrointestinal events were usually mild or moderate.

OUR READING OF THE EVIDENCE

What this changes

The weight result supports testing the combination in larger and longer trials. It should be reported alongside the uncertain primary-endpoint comparison with semaglutide. [1]

What it does not establish

With approximately 30 people per arm, similar adverse-event percentages cannot establish equivalent safety or exclude uncommon harms. This is not a comparison with tirzepatide. [1]

Put it in context

Sources and transparency

Interpretation added . Primary publication abstract, with results and limitations checked against the indexed source. Full tables and supplementary materials were not independently reviewed.

Funded by Novo Nordisk. Abstract-based interpretation; not an independent assessment of all adverse events or methodological quality. [1]

  1. Efficacy and safety of co-administered once-weekly cagrilintide 2·4 mg with once-weekly semaglutide 2·4 mg in type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 2 trial.DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(23)01163-7 · Primary abstract: methods, outcomes and funding

AI-assisted editorial analysis by PED Evidence. Sources are linked for verification; no independent clinician review or formal risk-of-bias assessment is claimed. Studied exposures describe the research, not a recommended regimen. Editorial and correction policy.

Questions this study helps answer

Was CagriSema better on the primary outcome?

Versus semaglutide, the HbA1c difference was −0.4 percentage points, with a 95% confidence interval of −0.8 to 0.0 and P=0.075. That comparison did not meet the conventional 0.05 threshold. [1]

Did the trial compare CagriSema with tirzepatide?

No. Its three groups were CagriSema, semaglutide and cagrilintide. It cannot establish superiority over tirzepatide. [1]

Original compact summary and study details
Abstract summarizedQuality not appraised
What was studied
A 32-week, double-blind phase 2 trial randomized adults with type 2 diabetes to weekly CagriSema, semaglutide or cagrilintide. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c.
Who / model studied
The trial included 92 adults with type 2 diabetes and BMI of at least 27 who used metformin, with or without an SGLT2 inhibitor: 31 received CagriSema, 31 semaglutide and 30 cagrilintide.
Studied dose & schedule
Dose and schedule have not yet been extracted for this summary.
What the study found
HbA1c fell 2.2 percentage points with CagriSema, 1.8 with semaglutide and 0.9 with cagrilintide. CagriSema was superior to cagrilintide, but not semaglutide, for the primary outcome. Weight fell 15.6%, versus 5.1% and 8.1%; gastrointestinal events were usually mild or moderate.
Limitations & context
This was a small phase 2 trial with 32 weeks of follow-up; the authors called for larger, longer phase 3 studies.

Read summary source ↗ · Prepared 9/22/2026 · AI-assisted, source-based summary

Review record & corrections

Summary prepared: . Source scope: abstract. This is an AI-assisted source summary, not an independent clinician sign-off.

No public field-by-field revision history is available for this card yet. The date above is the summary date, not proof that every field was updated then.

Inspect the source · Correction policy

Save, annotate or compare this study in the library →

Research findings apply to the population and conditions studied. This educational summary is not a treatment recommendation or a formal assessment of study quality.

Original publication ↗ · DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(23)01163-7

Explore related compounds

Evidence and review standards

← All study summaries