The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Evidence digest · maintained document

STEP 1 — trial digest

Maintainers: bias_variance, k.brandl_de Last updated 26 April 2026 Next review due 29 September 2026 388 words · 6 revisions
Sourced from a discussion. This document was promoted out of Adjudicated events and why the definition matters — the long version, in Trials. That topic links back here, and corrections raised there flow into this page.

STEP 1 (N Engl J Med 2021): Does semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly reduce body weight in adults with obesity and no diabetes?

Citation and design

FieldValue
TrialSTEP 1
InterventionSemaglutide 2.4 mg weekly
PublicationN Engl J Med, 2021 (first author Wilding)
DesignDouble-blind, placebo-controlled, 68 weeks
PopulationAdults with overweight or obesity without diabetes

This digest summarises the trial and the criticisms our journal club considered material. It is not a substitute for the paper, and where the two differ the paper is right.

The question it set out to answer

Does semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly reduce body weight in adults with obesity and no diabetes?

Stating the question before the result is a house convention. A great many arguments about this trial are actually arguments about what it was for.

What it found

The pivotal obesity trial for semaglutide and the reference point for almost every subsequent comparison in the class.

The magnitude of mean weight reduction was substantially larger than anything previously achieved pharmacologically in this population, which is why the trial changed the field rather than merely adding to it.

Discontinuation for gastrointestinal reasons was a meaningful minority and the profile was consistent with the rest of the class.

The trial was conducted with a lifestyle intervention in both arms, which means the placebo arm was not a no-treatment arm.

Criticisms the journal club considered material

  1. The estimand matters: results reported under a treatment-policy framing include people who stopped, and the number quoted in secondary coverage is frequently the one that does not.
  2. The enrolled population was narrower than the population now asking about the drug, particularly regarding baseline body mass index and comorbidity.
  3. 68 weeks is a long trial and a short exposure for a condition managed over decades.

These are criticisms of the design and of how the result is used, not of the investigators. Sessions that lose that distinction get moderated.

How it is misused

The two recurring misuses of this trial in general discussion are quoting the relative effect without the absolute one, and extending the result to a population the trial did not enrol. Both are easy to correct and both keep happening.

Where a number appears in secondary coverage without an estimand attached, assume it is whichever version is larger and check the paper.

Maintenance

Digests are reviewed when new analyses of the same trial are published, and at the review date shown above regardless. If a secondary publication changes the picture, raise it in journal club rather than editing the digest directly, so the change is discussed before it lands.

Revision history

2026-04-26titration_diaryAnnual review: checked every figure against its source. Two rounded values tightened.
2026-01-14NLoughranCorrected a unit label in the second table — it read mg where it should have read mg/mL.
2025-11-02dietitian_hollisAdded the worked example that the review thread asked for.
2025-09-18outline_firstAdded cross-references to the two topics that most often ask this question.
2025-04-27mira.patelCitation sweep: two references did not support the sentences attached to them and have been replaced.
2025-01-02q.zhao_qaInitial promotion from the source topic. Structure taken from the marked solution.

Every edit to a maintained document records its author and a note explaining the change. An edit without a note may be reverted by any wiki editor under R9, and the revert is logged. Disagreements about content belong on the source topic rather than in the revision history (R10).

Related documents

  • STEP 2 — trial digestSTEP 2 (Lancet 2021): What weight reduction does semaglutide 2.4 mg achieve in people who also have type 2 diabetes?
  • STEP 3 — trial digestSTEP 3 (JAMA 2021): What does semaglutide add on top of intensive behavioural therapy?
  • STEP 4 — trial digestSTEP 4 (JAMA 2021): What happens if you stop after reaching the maintenance dose?
  • STEP 8 — trial digestSTEP 8 (JAMA 2022): How does weekly semaglutide compare directly with daily liraglutide?
  • SUSTAIN 6 — trial digestSUSTAIN 6 (N Engl J Med 2016): Is semaglutide cardiovascular-safe in high-risk type 2 diabetes, and is there benefit?