Revisiting: Journal club: SURMOUNT-OSA and a hard endpoint in a soft field posts 91–120
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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.
post #92 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
On post #90 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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 #94 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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 #96 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Picking up post #96: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Coming back to post #98, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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?
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.
post #102 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
On post #100 — 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.
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.
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.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
Coming back to post #108, 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.
On post #107 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
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.
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.
Picking up post #111: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
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 #115 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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 #115 rather than contradicting it.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
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.
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.