Journal club: the CagriSema phase 2 combination paper — a second dataset posts 61–80
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
This follows post #59 rather than contradicting it.
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.
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.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
On post #63 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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.
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.
post #70 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
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 #72, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
post #74 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #72 runs together.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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.
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.
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.
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?
This topic was referenced in
- Journal club: STEP 3 and the intensive behavioural therapy floor — does this still hold?Evidence › Journal club · 2 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Journal club: STEP 3 and the intensive behavioural therapy floor
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: STEP 3 and the intensive behavioural therapy floor Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015) with STEP 4 (…
|
+6 | 10 | 13k | 28d |
|
Journal club: indirect comparison between two programmes, defended and attacked
Journal club: indirect comparison between two programmes, defended and attacked Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Comparing SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016)…
|
+122 | 131 | 5.2k | just now |
|
Journal club: is percentage weight change the right endpoint?
Journal club: is percentage weight change the right endpoint? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Comparing SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) with SURMOUNT-OSA (…
|
+116 | 120 | 23k | 3mo |
|
Follow-up: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024). Please read it…
|
+80 | 91 | 10k | 11mo |
|
Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove
On the subject in the title: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022). Please read it before…
|
+61 | 65 | 2k | 13mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags journal club, estimand, effect size
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) with SURPASS-4 ( Lancet ,…
|
+71 | 79 | 906 | 3mo |
|
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 |
|
Journal club: SELECT, absolute risk, and how it was reported
Journal club: SELECT, absolute risk, and how it was reported 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). Please read…
|
2 | 52k | 1mo | |
|
What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly
The question in the title: What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Comparing FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) with SURMOUNT-OSA…
|
+106 | 113 | 4.8k | 17mo |
|
Pooling trials with different estimands — what changed since
Pooling trials with different estimands — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021) with SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) and finding…
|
+57 | 64 | 12k | 7mo |