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.
Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release
post #32 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
I read post #39 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
post #54 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Coming back to post #146, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Read the full topic (158 posts)
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Journal club: what we got wrong in an earlier session
On the subject in the title: Journal club: what we got wrong in an earlier session Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022). Please read it before posting; the…
|
+114 | 125 | 2.5k | 23h |
|
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 |
|
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Comparing SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) with STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022)…
|
3 | 11k | 9h | |
|
Journal club: semaglutide in MASH, and surrogate endpoints
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: semaglutide in MASH, and surrogate endpoints Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015) with SURMOUNT-2 (…
|
+24 | 28 | 17k | 15h |
|
Journal club: FLOW and the renal composite, component by component
On the subject in the title: Journal club: FLOW and the renal composite, component by component Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it before posting;…
|
+84 | 91 | 18k | 2y |
Related topics — sharing the tags journal club, estimand, randomised trial
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Revisiting: What SELECT changed about how semaglutide is discussed, and what it did not
Revisiting: What SELECT changed about how semaglutide is discussed, and what it did not Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J…
|
2 | 1.9k | 5mo | |
|
Sample size intuition for a personal experiment
On the subject in the title: Sample size intuition for a personal experiment Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it before posting; the discussion is…
|
4 | 62k | 18mo | |
|
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 |
|
[2026 update] Confounding by indication, explained with a concrete example
Confounding by indication, explained with a concrete example Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) cited in support of a…
|
+103 | 116 | 22k | 5mo |
|
Follow-up: Is "synergy" the right word for the combination data?
Is "synergy" the right word for the combination data? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) cited in support of a…
|
2 | 41k | 14mo |