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.
Second pass at: Journal club: LEADER as the historical anchor
Worth separating two things that post #20 runs together.
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.
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.
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.
Coming back to post #46, 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?
This follows post #53 rather than contradicting it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read the full topic (82 posts)
This topic was referenced in
- Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can proveEvidence › Journal club · 65 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Journal club: how we handle discontinuation in obesity trials — what changed since
Journal club: how we handle discontinuation in obesity trials — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it…
|
+14 | 18 | 35k | 8mo |
|
Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal — does this still hold?
The question in the title: Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I have seen SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet ,…
|
+60 | 66 | 12k | 16mo |
|
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: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal — a second dataset
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022) with FLOW…
|
+58 | 64 | 17k | 13mo |
|
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? Comparing STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021) with SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) and…
|
+118 | 132 | 12k | 15mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags randomised trial, journal club, effect size
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it
Posting this under the heading it deserves: The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024). Please read it…
|
+96 | 119 | 17k | 3mo |
|
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since
On the subject in the title: A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it…
|
+3 | 7 | 125 | 8mo |
|
What is genuinely unknown about long-term amylin agonism
What is genuinely unknown about long-term amylin agonism — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Comparing STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022) with SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med…
|
+83 | 91 | 46k | 1d |
|
Second pass at: Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind
Second pass at: Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021). Please…
|
+39 | 44 | 632 | 14mo |
|
Heterogeneity as information rather than as a nuisance
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Heterogeneity as information rather than as a nuisance Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015). Please read it before…
|
+88 | 95 | 1.2k | 6mo |