Dr.GastroMayo said:Read four things before the headline number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.
Dr.MetabolicMD said:I keep finding that the number in the press summary and the number in the paper are not the same number, and the difference is always in the same…
Dr.MetabolicMD said:...regarding the trial evidence...
I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:
A recent meta-analysis of 15 RCTs (n=12,300) found that the trial evidence was associated with a clinically meaningful effect size across diverse patient populations[1].
The NNT was 12, which is comparable to metformin for T2DM prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.
TrialTracker_MD said:I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.
Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational studies can provide useful evidence.
A recent PSM study of 12,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.74) over 3 years of follow-up[1].
These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from tyler_CSCS — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.