What are the long‑term cardiovascular outcomes associated with tirzepatide treatment?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Randomized-trial evidence to date indicates that tirzepatide does not increase major adverse cardiovascular events and has shown signals of cardiovascular benefit in specific populations: a pre‑specified meta‑analysis of SURPASS trials found no excess risk for MACE‑4 (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.57–1.11) [1], the SUMMIT trial in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity reported a lower risk of a composite of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.41–0.95) [2], and the large SURPASS‑CVOT demonstrated noninferiority versus dulaglutide for MACE‑3 with numerically fewer events on tirzepatide (12.2% vs 13.1% over a median ~4 years) [3] [4] [5].
1. Trial‑level safety: absence of signal for increased MACE in development program
A pre‑specified cardiovascular meta‑analysis that pooled the SURPASS phase 2/3 trials concluded tirzepatide treatment was not associated with an increased risk of a composite MACE‑4 endpoint (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.57–1.11), a finding framed as cardiovascular safety within the T2D development dataset [1]. That analysis covered randomized trials of at least 26 weeks and found fewer, not more, events numerically, but confidence intervals included the possibility of no effect, underscoring that these trials were not primarily powered for definitive MACE conclusions beyond safety signals [1].
2. Heart‑failure benefit in a targeted population
In an independent, randomized trial (SUMMIT) of 731 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity, tirzepatide reduced the risk of a composite of adjudicated cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure (9.9% vs 15.3%; HR 0.62; P=0.026) and improved patient‑reported health status over a median follow‑up of about two years, indicating a clinically meaningful benefit in that high‑risk, obesity‑driven HF population [2].
3. Large cardiovascular outcomes trial: noninferiority vs an established GLP‑1 RA
SURPASS‑CVOT, the head‑to‑head, event‑driven cardiovascular outcomes trial comparing tirzepatide with dulaglutide in patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, met its primary noninferiority objective: tirzepatide was noninferior to dulaglutide for the MACE‑3 composite (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke) and showed a numerically lower event rate (12.2% vs 13.1%) though it did not meet statistical criteria for superiority [3] [4] [5]. This trial, involving thousands of participants over a median of ~4 years, provides the most definitive randomized evidence to date that tirzepatide is at least as safe as a GLP‑1 agent with established cardiovascular benefit [6] [3] [4].
4. Mechanistic and risk‑prediction signals: improved cardiometabolic profile and modeled ASCVD risk
Beyond hard events, tirzepatide produces large reductions in weight and improvements in glycemia and other cardiometabolic markers; post‑hoc analyses from SURMOUNT‑1 reported statistically significant reductions in predicted 10‑year ASCVD risk among people with obesity or overweight without diabetes, a surrogate signal that favorable risk factors could translate to lower long‑term atherosclerotic risk [7]. These modeling results are hypothesis‑generating and require confirmation in trials with clinical endpoints [7].
5. Real‑world evidence, remaining uncertainties, and safety signals
Real‑world observational analyses and systematic reviews are emerging but remain limited in duration and subject to confounding; an observational JACC: Advances study and a 2025 systematic review outline the need for more long‑term, real‑world data and point to ongoing work comparing tirzepatide with GLP‑1 RAs [8] [9]. Adverse‑event profiles differ: gastrointestinal events were more common with tirzepatide than dulaglutide in SURPASS‑CVOT, an important tolerability trade‑off for clinicians and patients [4]. The design and event‑driven nature of ongoing and completed trials (SURPASS‑CVOT) mean longer follow‑up and population heterogeneity will continue to shape interpretation [10] [6].
6. Bottom line, competing interpretations, and what remains to be settled
Taken together, randomized evidence shows no cardiovascular harm and supports at least noninferiority to an established cardioprotective GLP‑1 agent, with convincing benefits in HFpEF with obesity and favorable shifts in cardiometabolic risk factors that plausibly reduce long‑term risk [1] [2] [3] [7] [4]. Competing interpretations emphasize that superiority for MACE has not been consistently demonstrated, that many analyses are post‑hoc or model‑based, and that real‑world and longer‑term durability data are still accruing [3] [8] [9]. The evidence base now supports cardiovascular safety and potential benefit in selected populations, but definitive answers about magnitude and generalizability of long‑term cardiovascular protection will rely on continued trial follow‑up and high‑quality observational studies [10] [8].