This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
SURMOUNT-OSA (N Engl J Med 2024): Tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnoea, using an objective physiological endpoint. Notable because soft endpoints are avoided. Two parallel trials addressed the confounder directly.
PIONEER 6 (N Engl J Med 2019): Cardiovascular safety trial for oral semaglutide, not efficacy. Non-inferiority for safety was met. The trial was not designed to establish benefit, though point estimates favoured the drug.
SELECT (N Engl J Med 2023): Semaglutide cardiovascular outcomes without diabetes. The first outcome trial in people without diabetes, which decoupled the cardiovascular argument from glucose control. Read the absolute numbers, not just the relative reduction.
Worth separating two things that post #92 runs together.
SURMOUNT-1 (N Engl J Med 2022): Tirzepatide obesity trial. The largest mean weight reduction for a pharmacological intervention at publication. Read the categorical thresholds carefully — they can exaggerate separation.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
post #98 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
On post #96 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
SELECT (N Engl J Med 2023): Semaglutide cardiovascular outcomes without diabetes. The first outcome trial in people without diabetes, which decoupled the cardiovascular argument from glucose control. Read the absolute numbers, not just the relative reduction.
Critical appraisal template: (1) What did the trial set out to estimate? (2) Could the design answer that question? (3) Was the population sufficiently similar to your population to apply the results? (4) What was the absolute effect, not just the relative one? (5) What are the two strongest criticisms available?
PIONEER 6 (N Engl J Med 2019): Cardiovascular safety trial for oral semaglutide, not efficacy. Non-inferiority for safety was met. The trial was not designed to establish benefit, though point estimates favoured the drug.
I read post #102 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
FLOW (N Engl J Med 2024): Semaglutide renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Stopped early for efficacy. Component-by-component analysis is essential because the components differ in how patient-important they are.
Picking up post #104: that is the part I would want checked first.
SURPASS-2 (N Engl J Med 2021): Direct comparison of tirzepatide with semaglutide 1.0 mg. The 1.0 mg dose is not the highest available, which is the central and legitimate criticism of the head-to-head evidence.
Coming back to post #106, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
SURMOUNT-OSA (N Engl J Med 2024): Tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnoea, using an objective physiological endpoint. Notable because soft endpoints are avoided. Two parallel trials addressed the confounder directly.
post #108 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Worth separating two things that post #106 runs together.
SOUL (N Engl J Med 2025): Oral semaglutide cardiovascular outcomes. Extends the cardiovascular evidence to the oral formulation. Note that oral bioavailability is lower and more variable than injectable.
Coming back to post #109, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
TRIUMPH (ongoing): Retatrutide phase 3. No results yet. Nothing should be attributed to it because it has not finished. When it does, this discussion will return to it.
Picking up post #109: that is the part I would want checked first.
FLOW (N Engl J Med 2024): Semaglutide renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Stopped early for efficacy. Component-by-component analysis is essential because the components differ in how patient-important they are.
SURMOUNT-1 (N Engl J Med 2022): Tirzepatide obesity trial. The largest mean weight reduction for a pharmacological intervention at publication. Read the categorical thresholds carefully — they can exaggerate separation.
SURMOUNT-OSA (N Engl J Med 2024): Tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnoea, using an objective physiological endpoint. Notable because soft endpoints are avoided. Two parallel trials addressed the confounder directly.
This follows post #113 rather than contradicting it.
SOUL (N Engl J Med 2025): Oral semaglutide cardiovascular outcomes. Extends the cardiovascular evidence to the oral formulation. Note that oral bioavailability is lower and more variable than injectable.
Worth separating two things that post #113 runs together.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
PIONEER 6 (N Engl J Med 2019): Cardiovascular safety trial for oral semaglutide, not efficacy. Non-inferiority for safety was met. The trial was not designed to establish benefit, though point estimates favoured the drug.
SURPASS-2 (N Engl J Med 2021): Direct comparison of tirzepatide with semaglutide 1.0 mg. The 1.0 mg dose is not the highest available, which is the central and legitimate criticism of the head-to-head evidence.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.