Evidence

Tirzepatide and the GIP paradox: why adding an "obesogenic" hormone worked

In 2002, mice lacking the GIP receptor resisted obesity. Two decades later, an agonist of that same receptor, combined with GLP-1, beat semaglutide in head-to-head trials. What explains the paradox, and where the evidence ends.

Published October 9, 2026 · 5 min read · 15 sources

The GIP paradox

Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) is secreted in the duodenum mainly after fat absorption. In 2002 a Kyoto group reported in Nature Medicine that wild-type mice on a high-fat diet hypersecreted GIP and accumulated visceral and subcutaneous fat, while mice lacking the GIP receptor (Gipr−/−) were protected from both obesity and insulin resistance; they used fat as their preferred energy substrate. The authors concluded that GIP links overnutrition to obesity and was a target for anti-obesity drugs1.

The logical reading was to block the receptor, not stimulate it. Which is why it was surprising that industry bet on the opposite: a peptide that activates both the GIP and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide.

Antagonist or agonist: a debate still open

Amgen investigators developed antagonist antibodies against the GIP receptor. In diet-induced obese mice the antibody protected against weight gain and improved several metabolic parameters; in obese non-human primates weight loss was more pronounced, and it was enhanced when combined with GLP-1 agonists2. The same Amgen strategy gave rise to maridebart cafraglutide, an antibody conjugate that combines GIP receptor antagonism with GLP-1 receptor agonism15, which the blog already covered in After semaglutide.

In 2020 the same group proposed a reconciliation: in adipocytes, chronic GIP receptor agonism desensitizes the receptor so that it ends up functioning like an antagonist3. In other words, in the laboratory both approaches can converge on a similar effect on adipose tissue.

Lilly investigators argue for another reading: GIP would be the primary incretin; in the central nervous system its receptor attenuates nausea and suppresses appetite; and in adipose tissue it would protect against ectopic fat7. In mice, a GIP receptor agonist reduced nausea-like behavior induced by a PYY analog without affecting hypophagia, and GIP and PYY receptors are expressed by the same neurons in the area postrema6. Both groups are employees of the companies developing each approach37, and the debate is unresolved.

An imbalanced dual agonist

Tirzepatide (LY3298176) is a fatty-acid-modified peptide for once-weekly dosing. In its phase 1, with 142 study subjects exposed to tirzepatide, dulaglutide or placebo, the most frequent adverse effects were gastrointestinal, dose-dependent and mild to moderate in severity5.

Its pharmacology is not symmetric. By calculating occupancy of each receptor at clinically effective doses, Willard and colleagues showed greater engagement of the GIP receptor than of the GLP-1 receptor. At the GIP receptor it mimics native GIP; at the GLP-1 receptor it is biased toward cAMP generation over β-arrestin recruitment, with less receptor internalization. In islets, that bias was associated with greater insulin secretion4.

SURPASS-2: versus semaglutide in type 2 diabetes

In SURPASS-2, a 40-week open-label trial in 1,879 patients with type 2 diabetes (mean baseline HbA1c 8.28%), tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg lowered HbA1c by 2.01, 2.24 and 2.30 percentage points, versus 1.86 with semaglutide 1 mg. All three doses were noninferior and superior. The weight difference versus semaglutide was −1.9 kg, −3.6 kg and −5.5 kg8. The SURMOUNT-1 results versus placebo are summarized on the product page and are not repeated here.

Obesity: head-to-head and withdrawal

SURMOUNT-5 compared the two drugs directly in 751 adults with obesity without diabetes, using each one's maximum tolerated dose (tirzepatide 10 or 15 mg; semaglutide 1.7 or 2.4 mg) for 72 weeks. Weight change was −20.2% with tirzepatide and −13.7% with semaglutide (P < 0.001), and waist change −18.4 cm versus −13.0 cm. The trial was open-label and funded by Lilly9.

−20.2% vs −13.7%weight change at 72 weeks, tirzepatide vs semaglutide (SURMOUNT-5)9
+14.0%weight regained over 52 weeks after switching to placebo (SURMOUNT-4)10
HR 0.92major adverse cardiovascular events vs dulaglutide (SURPASS-CVOT)11

SURMOUNT-4 measured what happens on stopping. After a 36-week open-label tirzepatide lead-in (mean loss 20.9%), 670 participants were randomized to continue or switch to placebo. From week 36 to 88, weight changed −5.5% with tirzepatide and +14.0% with placebo; 89.5% of those who continued kept at least 80% of their loss, versus 16.6% on placebo10. The blog already reviewed body composition and rebound in GLP-1s: muscle, rebound, eyes and pancreas.

SURPASS-CVOT: the first outcomes trial

SURPASS-CVOT randomized 13,299 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to tirzepatide (up to 15 mg) or dulaglutide 1.5 mg, a comparator with proven cardiovascular benefit. The composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke occurred in 12.2% versus 13.1% (HR 0.92; 95.3% CI 0.83 to 1.01): noninferior (P = 0.003), not superior (P = 0.09). There were more gastrointestinal events with tirzepatide11.

A prespecified exploratory analysis estimated the effect versus an imputed placebo derived from REWIND: tirzepatide was associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events (HR 0.72) and lower all-cause mortality (HR 0.61)12. It is an indirect comparison, with several authors employed by the manufacturer, and does not replace a placebo-controlled trial. The other hard-outcome areas (sleep apnea, heart failure, liver) are in GLP-1s beyond weight.

Honest limits

  • Gastrointestinal tolerability. In SURPASS-2, nausea affected 17 to 22% with tirzepatide and 18% with semaglutide; diarrhea 13 to 16% versus 12%. Serious adverse events were 5 to 7% versus 3%8. The antiemetic GIP hypothesis comes from animal models6.
  • Discontinuation. In a cohort of 125,474 US adults starting liraglutide, semaglutide or tirzepatide, 64.8% of those without diabetes stopped within the first year; moderate or severe gastrointestinal events were associated with more discontinuation13.
  • Weight regain. Stopping was associated with substantial regain of lost weight10.
  • Cost. A US lifetime model estimated $197,023 per quality-adjusted life-year for tirzepatide, above usual thresholds; reaching $100,000 would require an additional 30.5% discount on the net price14.
  • Funding. SURPASS-2, SURMOUNT-5 and SURPASS-CVOT were funded by the manufacturer, and SURMOUNT-4 had authors employed by the manufacturer891011.

Sources

  1. Miyawaki K, et al. Inhibition of gastric inhibitory polypeptide signaling prevents obesity. Nat Med. 2002;8(7):738-42. PubMed 12068290 ↗
  2. Killion EA, et al. Anti-obesity effects of GIPR antagonists alone and in combination with GLP-1R agonists in preclinical models. Sci Transl Med. 2018;10(472):eaat3392. PubMed 30567927 ↗
  3. Killion EA, et al. Chronic glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor (GIPR) agonism desensitizes adipocyte GIPR activity mimicking functional GIPR antagonism. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):4981. PubMed 33020469 ↗
  4. Willard FS, et al. Tirzepatide is an imbalanced and biased dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist. JCI Insight. 2020;5(17):e140532. PubMed 32730231 ↗
  5. Coskun T, et al. LY3298176, a novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: from discovery to clinical proof of concept. Mol Metab. 2018;18:3-14. PubMed 30473097 ↗
  6. Samms RJ, et al. GIPR agonism inhibits PYY-induced nausea-like behavior. Diabetes. 2022;71(7):1410-1423. PubMed 35499381 ↗
  7. Samms RJ, Sloop KW. A contemporary rationale for agonism of the GIP receptor in the treatment of obesity. Diabetes. 2025;74(8):1326-1333. PubMed 40521890 ↗
  8. Frías JP, et al. Tirzepatide versus semaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-2). N Engl J Med. 2021;385(6):503-515. PubMed 34170647 ↗
  9. Aronne LJ, et al. Tirzepatide as compared with semaglutide for the treatment of obesity (SURMOUNT-5). N Engl J Med. 2025;393(1):26-36. PubMed 40353578 ↗
  10. Aronne LJ, et al. Continued treatment with tirzepatide for maintenance of weight reduction in adults with obesity: the SURMOUNT-4 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2024;331(1):38-48. PubMed 38078870 ↗
  11. Nicholls SJ, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes with tirzepatide versus dulaglutide in type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-CVOT). N Engl J Med. 2025;393(24):2409-2420. PubMed 41406444 ↗
  12. Sattar N, et al. Estimating the true MACE benefits from tirzepatide in SURPASS-CVOT using an imputed placebo analysis of REWIND. Diabetes Care. 2026;49(10):1771-1778. PubMed 41940793 ↗
  13. Rodriguez PJ, et al. Discontinuation and reinitiation of dual-labeled GLP-1 receptor agonists among US adults with overweight or obesity. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(1):e2457349. PubMed 39888616 ↗
  14. Hwang JH, et al. Lifetime health effects and cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide and semaglutide in US adults. JAMA Health Forum. 2025;6(3):e245586. PubMed 40085108 ↗
  15. Jastreboff AM, et al. Once-monthly maridebart cafraglutide for the treatment of obesity - a phase 2 trial. N Engl J Med. 2025;393(9):843-857. PubMed 40549887 ↗

Informational article. It summarizes news, official statements and published studies; it is not medical or legal advice. Sources were checked on the publication date.

Keep reading

← All articles