The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Evidence · Journal club · continued

Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? posts 61–77

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.

PM
physio_marchettiTL2Physiotherapist9 Jul 2026#61
j.erdogan, post #50: 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. Go to post

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.

29 likes in reply to #50 19d
MN
m.nascimentoTL210 Jul 2026#62
CL
coldchain_liuTL3Regular11 Jul 2026#63

Picking up post #60: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

2 likes 17d
AI
a.ilungaTL2 Moderator12 Jul 2026#64

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.

9 likes 16d
LE
logbook_erinTL3Regular13 Jul 2026#65
g.tamm, post #47: post #46 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. 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. Go to post

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.

0 likes in reply to #47 15d
AP
au.pereiraTL2 Moderator14 Jul 2026 · edited#66
m.nascimento, post #62: 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. Go to post

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

0 likes in reply to #62 13d
MM
maintenance_modeTL3Regular16 Jul 2026#67

This follows post #64 rather than contradicting it.

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.

5 likes 12d
FD
f.danquahTL2 Moderator17 Jul 2026#68

I read post #66 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.

14 likes 11d
RV
r.venkatesanTL318 Jul 2026#69
PK
p.krastevTL2 Moderator19 Jul 2026#70

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.

30 likes 9d
NK
n.kravchenkoTL2 Moderator20 Jul 2026#71
j.erdogan, post #50: 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. Go to post

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.

20 likes in reply to #50 8d
WN
w.novakTL3Regular22 Jul 2026#72

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.

9 likes 6d
PO
p.ostergaardTL2 Moderator23 Jul 2026 · edited#73

Worth separating two things that post #69 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.

2 likes 5d
CL
customs_ledgerTL3Regular24 Jul 2026#74
c.delgado, post #3: 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. Go to post

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.

0 likes in reply to #3 4d
ND
n.duarteTL2 Moderator25 Jul 2026#75
e.kuipers, post #45: 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. Go to post

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.

27 likes in reply to #45 3d
CC
crossref_checkTL3Wiki editor26 Jul 2026#76

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.

13 likes 2d
KA
k.asanteTL2 Moderator27 Jul 2026#77

On post #73 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

4 likes 15h

Suggested topics

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Journal club: FLOW and the renal composite, component by component
On the subject in the title: Journal club: FLOW and the renal composite, component by component Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it before posting;…
ACNNZLHEAW+84 91 18k 2y
Journal club: STEP-HFpEF and symptom endpoints — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Journal club: STEP-HFpEF and symptom endpoints — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023) with STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021) and…
EDCRFKTVIA+11 15 4k 10mo
Journal club: PIONEER 6 as a safety trial
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: PIONEER 6 as a safety trial Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024). Please read it before posting; the…
SCMONMWSH+14 18 262 5mo
Journal club: LEADER as the historical anchor
Journal club: LEADER as the historical anchor Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Comparing STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) with SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) and…
AKACRIGKR+103 110 8.1k 2h
Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal
On the subject in the title: Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have seen SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023) cited in support of a claim I do not think it…
LAMRZHOJI+110 122 46k 1d

Related topics — sharing the tags randomised trial, risk of bias, effect size

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Criticising the method without criticising the authors
Criticising the method without criticising the authors Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) cited in support of a claim…
KBZOKOJMTV+55 61 60k 15mo
How to read a forest plot, properly, from scratch
The question in the title: How to read a forest plot, properly, from scratch I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it before…
SCPDBJRMYM+73 81 17k 7mo
SURPASS-2 and the comparator dose question that will not go away
SURPASS-2 and the comparator dose question that will not go away — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024). Please read it before…
EFWNFWCLJF+101 111 1.5k 18mo
Coming back to: Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals
Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Comparing SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024)…
TDIBB 2 65 22mo
Revisiting: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) with SURPASS-2 ( N…
AHGJTCVMS+21 25 46k 3mo