I have three data points across nine months, which I hope is enough to see a trend.
This should be a straightforward calculation and I keep getting two different answers.
The numbers are arbitrary; the method is what I am after.
Can someone show the working rather than just the answer?
A hazard ratio from SURMOUNT-3 cannot be converted into an absolute risk reduction without the control-arm event rate, and that rate is the number people forget to carry across. The arithmetic: absolute reduction equals the control event rate minus the treated event rate, and the treated rate is approximately the control rate multiplied by the ratio. A hazard ratio of 0.80 against a 10 per cent control rate is a 2-point absolute reduction and a number needed to treat of 50; the same 0.80 against a 2 per cent control rate is 0.4 points and a number needed to treat of 250. Identical ratio, six-fold difference in what it is worth. Take the control-arm rate and the follow-up duration from the SURMOUNT-3 paper, not from the abstract, and do the subtraction yourself.
Answering this properly needs the absolute risk reduction rather than the relative one, because the relative figure is stable across risk strata and the absolute figure is not.
SELECT randomised people with established cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without diabetes to semaglutide 2.4 mg, and reported roughly a twenty per cent relative reduction in the primary composite. The absolute difference over about three years was on the order of one and a half percentage points.
| Quantity | Value | Derivation |
|---|---|---|
| Control-arm event rate | 8.0 % | From the trial table, not the abstract |
| Hazard ratio | 0.80 | Reported |
| Treated event rate | 6.4 % | 8.0 × 0.80 |
| Absolute risk reduction | 1.6 pp | 8.0 − 6.4 |
| Number needed to treat | 63 | 1 ÷ 0.016 |
| Relative risk reduction | 20 % | 1 − 0.80 |
The last two rows describe the same finding. Only one of them is used in headlines.
In practice, resting heart rate rises by roughly two to four beats per minute across the class. The mechanism is not fully settled, the magnitude is consistent, and it has not translated into an adverse outcome signal in the trials that looked.
SELECT is the trial to read for primary-prevention-adjacent populations without diabetes; SUSTAIN-6 and LEADER are the diabetes-population outcome trials for semaglutide and liraglutide respectively.
The caveat that matters: none of this is a reason for anyone to alter cardiovascular medication, and I am not in a position to advise on that.
Population, baseline risk, endpoint definition. In that order, then the effect size.
edited 4 Jan 2026 by t_oyelaran — updated for the 2026 guidance change
Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.
Shop standardsThe relevant distinction is between a trial that measured cardiovascular safety and one powered to demonstrate benefit. Several early trials did the first and are quoted as though they did the second.
Systolic blood pressure falls by about three to six millimetres of mercury at the doses studied, most of it early and much of it attributable to weight loss rather than to a direct vascular effect.
It helps to be literal here: cardiovascular composites in this programme are typically cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke. When one component drives the result, that is worth knowing, because the components differ in how much they matter.
Heart-rate elevation in this class is documented consistently enough across agents that it should be treated as a class effect rather than as a finding about any one molecule.
A relative risk reduction quoted without the baseline risk is close to meaningless, and it is how most of these numbers travel.
Heart rate up a few beats, blood pressure down a few millimetres, events down about a fifth in high-risk populations. That is the honest summary.
Heart-rate increase and blood-pressure reduction both occur in this class, in opposite directions, and both are modest. Reading one without the other gives a misleading picture.
Baseline risk decides how much the relative reduction is worth. The same twenty per cent applied to a one per cent annual risk and a five per cent annual risk produce very different absolute numbers.
Benefit appears to track exposure duration rather than switching on at a threshold, which is what you would expect from a mechanism working partly through weight, blood pressure and glycaemia rather than instead of them.
The cardiovascular safety requirement for new glycaemic agents is why these trials exist at all: regulators required an outcome programme, and the benefit finding was in that sense an unexpected dividend.
Nothing here is medical advice. If cardiovascular risk is the actual question, it is a conversation for a clinician with your numbers in front of them.
Ask for the absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat. If a source will not give you both, it is selling something.
The short version: real effect, modest absolute size, largest in those with the highest baseline risk — which is the ordinary shape of a cardiovascular result.
A twenty per cent relative reduction on a baseline three-year event rate of eight per cent is an absolute reduction of about one and a half points, which is a number-needed-to-treat somewhere in the region of sixty to seventy. Both framings are true and they read very differently.
These are trial populations on licensed product. Research-grade material of unverified content is not the thing that was studied.
Read SELECT for the without-diabetes population and the earlier outcome trials for the with-diabetes one. They are not the same result.
Start with the population. Cardiovascular benefit in established disease and cardiovascular benefit in primary prevention are different claims supported by different evidence.
The heart-failure question is separate again, and the evidence there is largely in the preserved-ejection-fraction population with obesity, where the trials measured symptoms and function rather than mortality.
Where a cardiovascular claim is made for an agent with no completed outcome trial, the honest statement is that the class evidence is suggestive and the agent-specific evidence does not yet exist.
The outcome trials are the evidence; the mechanism is still an argument. Cite the first, be careful with the second.
edited 3 Feb 2026 by Dr_Ilse_Vandenberg — tightened the wording; no substantive change
Ask PeptideStack is a static archive. Posting is closed, but the norms are worth stating: answer the question that was asked, show your working, cite the trial or the certificate, and say plainly where the evidence runs out.