How comparable are dulaglutide and cagrilintide on the evidence available?

Setup, so nobody has to ask: dulaglutide · cagrilintide.

I suspect the honest answer is that it depends, in which case I would like to know on what.

Assume I can obtain either option without difficulty, so availability is not the deciding factor.

Under what conditions does the answer flip?

It helps to be literal here: this is a question about what the trial was designed to answer, and the honest response is that it was not designed to answer this.

The early fall in estimated glomerular filtration rate on treatment is haemodynamic rather than structural. Reduced intraglomerular pressure lowers the filtration rate acutely and preserves the glomerulus chronically — the same pattern seen with renin-angiotensin blockade and with SGLT2 inhibition. A dip of a few millilitres per minute in the first weeks, followed by a shallower long-term slope, is the desired trajectory, not a warning sign.

A fasting lipid panel drawn during rapid weight loss reads oddly for a mechanical reason: mobilised adipose tissue delivers free fatty acids to the liver, and hepatic triglyceride export rises. Triglycerides can transiently increase while the person is doing exactly the right thing. Draw the panel when weight has been stable for a few weeks if you want an interpretable number.

SURMOUNT-1 reported mean weight reductions of approximately 15, 19 and 21 per cent at tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg respectively at 72 weeks[1].

I would resist reading a subgroup finding as a result. Subgroups in these trials were not powered, and a striking subgroup in a large trial is the expected consequence of multiplicity.

None of this replaces a clinician who can see the whole picture, and the whole picture is usually where the answer is.

In practice, the hazard ratio is the relative effect. What changes decisions is the absolute effect, and converting between them requires the event rate in the control arm, which is usually in the same table and rarely in the abstract.

Liver enzymes are a poor surrogate for hepatic histology in both directions: substantial steatohepatitis with normal transaminases is common, and modest enzyme elevation with minimal fibrosis is common. If the question is fibrosis, the answer comes from a non-invasive score such as FIB-4 or a stiffness measurement, not from ALT.

The underlying point is that absolute risk reduction, worked: if the control-arm event rate is 8.0 per cent over the follow-up period and the hazard ratio is 0.80, the treated rate is approximately 6.4 per cent, the absolute risk reduction is 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat is 1 ÷ 0.016 ≈ 63 over that period. A 20 per cent relative reduction and a number needed to treat of 63 are the same finding stated two ways, and only one of them sounds impressive.

FLOW tested a composite renal endpoint — kidney failure, sustained 50 per cent eGFR decline, or renal or cardiovascular death — in type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease, and was stopped early for efficacy[1].

If the trend across three draws is flat, the difference between draws one and two was noise. Most of what people react to is noise.

The confidence interval is the informative part. A point estimate with an interval spanning no effect is a different object from the same point estimate with a tight interval, and the abstract presents them identically.

ApoB and LDL-C disagree because they measure different things: LDL-C is the cholesterol mass carried in the LDL fraction, ApoB is a count of atherogenic particles. Small dense particles carry less cholesterol each, so a person with many small particles has a concordantly higher ApoB than their LDL-C suggests. When they disagree, ApoB is the better risk marker.

The PIONEER programme established oral semaglutide’s efficacy and the constraints on its administration, and the bioavailability figure of roughly one per cent is what drives the fasting and water-volume requirements[1].

Read the confidence interval, read the estimand, and compute the absolute effect yourself. It takes two minutes and it changes how the result feels.

Read the estimand before the effect size. Almost every apparent contradiction between two published figures from the same trial resolves once you notice that one is a trial-product estimand and the other is a treatment-policy estimand.

A network meta-analysis can rank agents that were never compared directly, but only under a transitivity assumption — that the trials being linked are similar enough in population, duration and endpoint definition for the indirect comparison to hold. In this field that assumption is often visibly violated, which is why indirect rankings should be read as hypotheses.

The caveat is the population. Trial participants were screened, monitored and supported; the effect size in an unmonitored setting is not the trial effect size, and it is not obvious in which direction the difference runs.

Convert everything to an absolute effect before you compare two interventions. Relative effects are not comparable across different baseline risks.