Second pass at: Journal club: LEADER as the historical anchor posts 61–82

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.

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.

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.

On post #60 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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 follows post #62 rather than contradicting it.

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.

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.

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.

Coming back to post #68, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.

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.

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.

Coming back to post #71, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.

Picking up post #71: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.