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.
Journal club: LEADER as the historical anchor
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.
STEP 1 (N Engl J Med 2021): The pivotal obesity trial for semaglutide and the reference point for most subsequent comparison. Mean weight reduction was substantially larger than anything previously achieved pharmacologically.
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 #39 rather than contradicting it.
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.
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?
I read post #56 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Session format: read the paper before posting. The discussion is much better when everyone has. Start with the estimand and population, then methods, then results, then limitations. That order makes critique coherent.
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?
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.
Read the full topic (111 posts)
This topic was referenced in
- Journal club: STEP 8 and the fairness of the comparator doseEvidence › Journal club · 6 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Journal club: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal — a second dataset
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022) with FLOW…
|
+58 | 64 | 17k | 13mo |
|
Journal club: semaglutide in MASH, and surrogate endpoints — does this still hold?
Journal club: semaglutide in MASH, and surrogate endpoints — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Comparing STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
3 | 28k | 6mo | |
|
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? Comparing STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021) with SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
+70 | 76 | 4.8k | 15h |
|
Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove — one year on
Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024).…
|
+56 | 62 | 34k | 15mo |
|
Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release
Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021). Please read it before…
|
+139 | 157 | 66k | 12mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags estimand, number needed to treat, journal club
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preprint servers and what screening they do — the long version
On the subject in the title: Preprint servers and what screening they do — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019). Please read it before…
|
+7 | 11 | 26k | 4mo |
|
A structured critique template this community uses — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: A structured critique template this community uses — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023). Please read it before…
|
+47 | 51 | 16k | 15h |
|
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
+10 | 14 | 8.4k | 16h |
|
Revisiting: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work
Revisiting: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024) cited in…
|
+31 | 35 | 7k | 1d |
|
Follow-up: What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not
What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I have seen SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in…
|
2 | 7.2k | 3mo |