Research AppraisalSystematic Review

CagriSema Versus Semaglutide Monotherapy or Placebo for Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with GRADE Assessment

The American journal of cardiologyGadelmawla, Ahmed Farid, Hammad, Noha, Atta, Karim et al.15 May 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

75CEBM
Evidence: ModerateSystematic Review

PICO Framework

P — PopulationPatients with obesity
I — InterventionCagriSema (combination of semaglutide and cagrilintide)
C — ComparatorSemaglutide monotherapy or placebo
O — OutcomesPercent weight loss, absolute weight loss, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, gastrointestinal adverse events

Bottom Line

This meta-analysis of four RCTs (n=4,419) suggests CagriSema, a combination of semaglutide and cagrilintide, produces superior weight loss compared to semaglutide monotherapy or placebo in obesity patients. The treatment achieved an additional 11 kg weight loss and meaningful reductions in waist circumference and blood pressure. However, the extremely high heterogeneity (I² = 94.8%) significantly undermines confidence in these pooled estimates, suggesting substantial differences between studies that weren't adequately explored. Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with CagriSema. While the large effect size appears promising, the statistical heterogeneity, limited long-term data, and increased side effect profile warrant cautious interpretation. Clinicians should await individual patient data meta-analyses and longer-term safety studies before considering this combination therapy. The evidence currently appears insufficient to definitively change clinical practice.

Evidence: Moderate

Key Findings

  • P Value: Not reported

  • Effect Size: Cohen's d: -1.38 (large effect size)

  • Primary Outcome: Percent weight loss

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Mean difference: -11 kg absolute weight loss compared to controls

  • Confidence Interval: 95% CI: -1.84 to -0.91

Clinical Application

Limited by high cost, potential side effects, and need for specialist monitoring Would require TGA approval and PBS listing consideration; aligns with RACGP obesity management guidelines emphasising multimodal approaches Adults with obesity seeking pharmacological weight management

Abstract

The obesity epidemic is a major health burden that enhances susceptibility to a broad spectrum of metabolic-associated comorbidities, ranging from fatty liver disease and endocrine dysfunction to traditional risks like type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide, facilitate weight loss alongside glucose metabolism. The dual therapy CagriSema, which combines semaglutide with cagrilintide was developed. We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, from inception to July 2025, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CagriSema with semaglutide monotherapy or placebo in patients with obesity. Four RCTs (n = 4,419) were included (CagriSema: 3,055; control: 1,364). Pooled analysis showed that CagriSema significantly reduced percent weight loss (Cohen's d: -1.38; 95% CI: -1.84 to -0.91; I² = 94.8%). CagriSema also resulted in greater absolute weight loss (MD: -11 kg), waist circumference (MD: -9.41 cm), and systolic blood pressure (MD: -7.06 mmHg). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent (RR: 1.32). CagriSema therapy was associated with superior weight reduction compared with semaglutide or placebo. In conclusion, CagriSema achieves greater weight loss than semaglutide or placebo but increases gastrointestinal adverse events, warranting careful tolerability monitoring and longer-term data.

References

  1. 1.Gadelmawla, A. F., Hammad, N., Atta, K., Diaa, A., Abouzkaly, F., Soni, K., Kelkar, R., Agrawal, S. P., Ahmed, R., Jain, H., Passey, S., & Aronow, W. S. (2026). CagriSema versus semaglutide monotherapy or placebo for obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with GRADE assessment. *The American Journal of Cardiology*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2026.02.030
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service