Follow-up: Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature: an honest assessment

On the subject in the title: Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature: an honest assessment Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Comparing PIONEER 6 (N Engl J Med, 2019) with LEADER (N Engl J Med, 2016) and finding the comparison harder than it looks.

Different populations, different durations, different endpoints defined slightly differently, and in one case a different estimand. People compare the headline percentages anyway, including me until recently.

Is there a defensible way to put these side by side, or is the honest answer that there is not and we should stop?

Tesamorelin has an approved indication in HIV-associated lipodystrophy. That is the only compound in this class with a registration-quality evidence base from a proper trial programme. Generalising from that narrow population to healthy adults is a substantial extrapolation.

post #2 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Pulsatile secretion matters because growth hormone is secreted in pulses, not continuously. A single post-dose growth hormone level is nearly uninterpretable. Assessing this class properly requires serial sampling or an integrated measure like IGF-1, and almost nothing published online does either.

Worth separating two things that post #3 runs together.

IGF-1 as a surrogate: it is a better integrated measure than a spot growth hormone level and it is still a surrogate, with all the caveats that come with surrogates. Stable or rising IGF-1 is not the same as "this is working" in any health-related sense.

Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.

CJC-1295 with and without DAC: the version with a drug affinity complex binds albumin covalently and persists for days. The version without it does not persist. Supplier labelling frequently does not distinguish them clearly, so confirming which you have is important.

Reading a rodent study on a secretagogue without over-extrapolating: rodent studies can show a mechanism is plausible. They cannot show magnitude of effect in humans or safety profile in humans. That gap is larger for secretagogues than for incretin agonists because the human evidence is thinner.

On post #4 — 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.

This follows post #6 rather than contradicting it.

Secretagogues and glucose tolerance: there is a mechanistic concern that sustained growth hormone elevation might impair glucose tolerance. The clinical relevance of this concern in practice is not well established.

I read post #8 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Why this subcategory is stricter about sourcing than most: the evidence base is weaker and that is precisely why documentation quality matters more. A supplier page that clearly identifies the compound and the purity is more valuable for secretagogues than for incretin agonists where the evidence base is stronger.

Worth separating two things that post #7 runs together.

What a well-designed human trial of a secretagogue would look like: randomised, placebo-controlled, adequate sample size, IGF-1 as primary outcome, muscle and strength as secondary outcomes, adequate follow-up duration. Very few secretagogue trials meet that description.

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.

Development history is more informative than speculation: ipamorelin was investigated clinically for post-operative ileus and was not taken forward to registration. That it was not brought to market tells you something about the cost-benefit calculation that any amount of forum enthusiasm does not.

Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature is honestly weaker than in the incretin literature. Large randomised controlled trials are rare. Most evidence is mechanistic or from small studies. This is why this subcategory has higher sourcing standards than most.