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.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
post #68 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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?
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 #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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This topic was referenced in
- Journal club: SELECT, absolute risk, and how it was reportedEvidence › Journal club · 2 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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;…
|
+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…
|
+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…
|
+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…
|
+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…
|
+110 | 122 | 46k | 1d |
Related topics — sharing the tags randomised trial, risk of bias, effect size
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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…
|
+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…
|
+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…
|
+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)…
|
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…
|
+21 | 25 | 46k | 3mo |