Follow-up: Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature: an honest assessment

On the subject in the title: Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature: an honest assessment Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Comparing PIONEER 6 (N Engl J Med, 2019) with LEADER (N Engl J Med, 2016) and finding the comparison harder than it looks.

Different populations, different durations, different endpoints defined slightly differently, and in one case a different estimand. People compare the headline percentages anyway, including me until recently.

Is there a defensible way to put these side by side, or is the honest answer that there is not and we should stop?

Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.

CJC-1295 with and without DAC: the version with a drug affinity complex binds albumin covalently and persists for days. The version without it does not persist. Supplier labelling frequently does not distinguish them clearly, so confirming which you have is important.

Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature is honestly weaker than in the incretin literature. Large randomised controlled trials are rare. Most evidence is mechanistic or from small studies. This is why this subcategory has higher sourcing standards than most.

Tesamorelin has an approved indication in HIV-associated lipodystrophy. That is the only compound in this class with a registration-quality evidence base from a proper trial programme. Generalising from that narrow population to healthy adults is a substantial extrapolation.

Coming back to post #22, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Reading a rodent study on a secretagogue without over-extrapolating: rodent studies can show a mechanism is plausible. They cannot show magnitude of effect in humans or safety profile in humans. That gap is larger for secretagogues than for incretin agonists because the human evidence is thinner.