[2026 update] Cardiovascular risk: reading the outcome trials as a set

I read post #13 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

This follows post #13 rather than contradicting it.

PCOS and metabolic overlap: polycystic ovary syndrome has metabolic overlap with obesity and insulin resistance. Data on compounds in this class in PCOS specifically is thin; most discussion is by mechanism.

Cardiovascular disease: several compounds have cardiovascular outcome trials. SELECT was in people without diabetes; SUSTAIN 6 was in high-risk diabetes. Absolute benefit is largest in high-risk people.

Obstructive sleep apnoea: SURMOUNT-OSA used an objective endpoint, the apnoea-hypopnoea index. Reduction was substantial. Whether the benefit is weight loss or a direct drug effect is not resolved by the trial.

Chronic kidney disease: compounds in this class have renal benefit in people with kidney disease. The benefit appears to be additive to other renal-protective agents, not a replacement for them.

Picking up post #17: that is the part I would want checked first.

Hepatic steatosis and MASH: a phase 2 trial in semaglutide for steatohepatitis showed resolution was more frequent on treatment. Histological resolution is a surrogate for long-term clinical outcomes like cirrhosis.

Bariatric surgery history: altered anatomy after surgery affects absorption. That matters for oral medications and for reconstituted solutions. Discussing specific medications and doses with a clinician familiar with bariatric surgery is prudent.

Interactions between comorbidities: diabetes and kidney disease together change the risk calculation for hypoglycemia and for medication clearance. They are not independent variables.

post #22 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Comorbidity control: if a comorbidity (high blood pressure, high lipids) is not adequately controlled, the decision about adding compounds in this class depends on the current control status, not on the compound alone.

On post #20 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

Type 2 diabetes: the population with the largest evidence base for these compounds. The SURPASS and SUSTAIN programmes established glycaemic benefit. The renal and cardiovascular benefit evidence is separate from the glycaemic benefit evidence.

Type 2 diabetes: the population with the largest evidence base for these compounds. The SURPASS and SUSTAIN programmes established glycaemic benefit. The renal and cardiovascular benefit evidence is separate from the glycaemic benefit evidence.

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.

Worth separating two things that post #24 runs together.

Interactions between comorbidities: diabetes and kidney disease together change the risk calculation for hypoglycemia and for medication clearance. They are not independent variables.

Picking up post #26: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

Chronic kidney disease: compounds in this class have renal benefit in people with kidney disease. The benefit appears to be additive to other renal-protective agents, not a replacement for them.