The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Topic summary

Journal club: what we got wrong in an earlier session

This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 126, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
AL
aliquot_lineTL3Regular13 Jun 2026 · edited#3
f.pires, post #2: 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. Go to post

post #2 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

32 likes in reply to #2 1mo
AD
a.delgadoTL2 Moderator17 Jun 2026#10

Coming back to post #8, 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.

31 likes 1mo
SD
s.demirTL2 Moderator23 Jun 2026#23

This follows post #20 rather than contradicting it.

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.

30 likes 1mo
JD
j.dahlbergTL2 Moderator30 Jun 2026 · edited#40

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.

29 likes 28d
R
RidgewayTL3Regular6 Jul 2026 · edited#59

Worth separating two things that post #55 runs together.

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.

32 likes 22d
OB
owen.bradyTL4 Moderator9 Jul 2026#66
fr.translation_mo, post #5: 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. Go to post
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.

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.

31 likes in reply to #5 19d
PT
p.trevinoTL2 Moderator15 Jul 2026#86
k.pereira, post #82: 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. Go to post

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.

29 likes in reply to #82 13d
SC
sourced_claimsTL3Regular20 Jul 2026#101
a.delgado, post #10: Coming back to post #8, 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. Go to post

Coming back to post #99, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

30 likes in reply to #10 8d
K
KnowltonTL3Regular25 Jul 2026#118

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.

31 likes 3d

Read the full topic (126 posts)

Moved from Preprints by s.leclerc. Category placement is not obvious from outside and getting it wrong is expected. This topic will get better answers here. The move is recorded in the public log citing R7.

Suggested topics

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question
Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support…
KBLKSSJLB+120 132 13k 1d
[2026 update] Journal club: PIONEER 6 as a safety trial
Journal club: PIONEER 6 as a safety trial Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support of a claim I do not…
PPKAVJFBE+14 18 55k 5mo
Journal club: SURMOUNT-OSA and a hard endpoint in a soft field
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: SURMOUNT-OSA and a hard endpoint in a soft field Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) with SCALE ( N Engl J…
CIRCBPMN+47 51 617 16mo
Journal club: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal
Journal club: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) cited in support of a claim I do not…
ZNVDTTBMA+32 36 31k 3mo
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…
MDAWRMJDVR+118 132 12k 15mo

Related topics — sharing the tags number needed to treat, effect size, randomised trial

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither?
The question in the title: Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it before…
EKEPAKTWJD+71 80 38k 11mo
SURMOUNT-4 and what withdrawal data does and does not tell an individual
SURMOUNT-4 and what withdrawal data does and does not tell an individual — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023) with STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022)…
NSLMAADKA 4 42k 11mo
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) with…
FTJIRHAAP+32 37 574 5mo
Journal club: STEP 8 and the fairness of the comparator dose — a second dataset
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: STEP 8 and the fairness of the comparator dose — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med ,…
OLIADSRFDO+18 22 656 13h
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Session topic: SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016). Please…
SCTWJSMSH+38 42 863 22mo