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 · Journal club

Journal club: indirect comparison between two programmes, defended and attacked — one year on

B
BuchholzTL2Member29 Mar 2025#1

Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: indirect comparison between two programmes, defended and attacked — one year on Everything below is what sits behind that.

Comparing SURPASS-2 (N Engl J Med, 2021) with SURMOUNT-1 (N Engl J Med, 2022) 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?

4 likes 16mo
ZN
z.nakamuraTL2 Moderator9 Apr 2025#2

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

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.

8 likes 16mo
EM
e.mikkelsenTL2Member16 Apr 2025 · edited#3

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.

26 likes 15mo
ET
e.tammTL2 Moderator23 Apr 2025#4

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.

0 likes 15mo
LM
lyophil_marginTL329 Apr 2025#5
MY
m.yildizTL2 Moderator5 May 2025#6
e.mikkelsen, post #3: 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. Go to post

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.

12 likes in reply to #3 15mo
KF
k.farrugiaTL3Regular10 May 2025#7

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.

0 likes 15mo
RO
r.oyelaranTL2 Moderator16 May 2025#8

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.

0 likes 14mo
FR
figure_reviewTL2Member21 May 2025#9

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.

7 likes 14mo
JM
j.marchettiTL2 Moderator26 May 2025#10

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.

18 likes 14mo
JS
j.solbergTL2 Moderator31 May 2025#11

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?

10 likes 14mo
KB
k.bettencourtTL2Member5 Jun 2025#12

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

3 likes 14mo
SR
s.radichTL2 Moderator9 Jun 2025#13
j.solberg, post #11: 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? Go to post

Worth separating two things that post #9 runs together.

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.

0 likes in reply to #11 14mo
TW
t.waldenstrmTL2Member14 Jun 2025#14
figure_review, post #9: 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. Go to post

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.

30 likes in reply to #9 13mo
EK
ew.kuuselaTL2 Moderator19 Jun 2025#15

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.

15 likes 13mo
B
BuchholzTL2Member23 Jun 2025#16

Picking up post #13: 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.

6 likes 13mo
GD
g.danquahTL228 Jun 2025#17
SS
s.stavrianosTL2Member2 Jul 2025#18

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.

0 likes 13mo
HE
h.eriksenTL2 Moderator6 Jul 2025#19

I read post #17 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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?

21 likes 13mo
ZL
z.laurentTL2 Moderator10 Jul 2025#20

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.

9 likes 13mo
JM
j.mwangiTL4 Moderator15 Jul 2025#21
j.solberg, post #11: 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? Go to post

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.

13 likes in reply to #11 12mo
EK
e.kuuselaTL2 Moderator19 Jul 2025#22
Buchholz, post #16: Picking up post #13: 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. Go to post

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.

27 likes in reply to #16 12mo
JC
j.castellanosTL2 Moderator23 Jul 2025#23

post #22 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

0 likes 12mo
CR
c.ramosTL2 Moderator27 Jul 2025#24

Worth separating two things that post #20 runs together.

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

4 likes 12mo
RI
retention_indexTL2Analytical chemist31 Jul 2025#25

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.

19 likes 12mo
JV
j.vogelTL2 Moderator4 Aug 2025#26
e.kuusela, post #22: 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. Go to post

Coming back to post #24, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.

0 likes in reply to #22 12mo
C
chromatogramTL4Analytical chemist8 Aug 2025#27

post #26 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

2 likes 12mo
MA
m.adeyemiTL2 Moderator12 Aug 2025 · edited#28

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.

8 likes 12mo
LF
l.ferreiraTL2 Moderator16 Aug 2025#29
j.mwangi, post #21: 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. Go to post

This follows post #26 rather than contradicting it.

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.

5 likes in reply to #21 11mo
ES
e.silvaTL2 Moderator20 Aug 2025#30

I read post #28 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

14 likes 11mo