PeptideStack
5.2kquestions
20kanswers
220users

Is ferritin worth drawing at baseline before starting oral semaglutide?

Asked 12 Jul 2024Modified 22 months agoViewed 17k times
23

Conditions: ferritin · oral semaglutide.

The failure mode I am trying to avoid is making this decision emotionally.

I have twelve months in view and I would like the plan to survive that long.

What should I decide now, and what should I defer?

bloodwork
bloodwork

Laboratory monitoring: which panels are worth ordering, sensible intervals, reference-range versus optimal-range arguments, and how to read a…

284 questions
harm-reduction
harm-reduction

Reducing avoidable risk where a decision has already been made: independent verification before use, sterility practice, dose arithmetic checked…

445 questions
a1c
a1c

Glycated haemoglobin as a ninety-day glycaemic average: what a change of half a point means, why it lags, and the conditions under which it…

108 questions
shareeditfollowflag
BB
askedbac_or_bust37k13812 Jul 2024
8Small correction: the units in the third paragraph should be micrograms, not milligrams. – bea_castellanos 2 months ago
Do you have a reference for the last claim? Not disputing it, just want to read it. – Dr_Rosalind_Achebe 3 months ago
add a comment

5 Answers

Accepted answer first, then by votes
33

Accepted answer

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.

Headline results, principal programmes

TrialAgentnDurationPrimary result
STEP 1Semaglutide 2.4 mg1,96168 wk−14.9 % vs −2.4 % weight
STEP 2Semaglutide 2.4 mg, T2DM1,21068 wk−9.6 % vs −3.4 % weight
SURMOUNT-1Tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg2,53972 wk−15 / −19 / −21 % weight
SURMOUNT-4Tirzepatide, withdrawal67088 wkContinued loss vs substantial regain
SELECTSemaglutide 2.4 mg17,604~40 moMACE HR 0.80 (0.72–0.90)
FLOWSemaglutide 1.0 mg, CKD3,533~3.4 yrRenal composite reduced; stopped early
SURMOUNT-OSATirzepatide, OSA46952 wkAHI reduced with and without PAP

Worth being precise here: 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.

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].

The limitation is that surrogate endpoints and hard endpoints have come apart before in metabolic medicine, so a favourable biomarker is a reason for optimism rather than a conclusion.

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

shareimprove this answerflag
TW
answered · acceptedtamsin_wray13k178 Aug 2024
This is the answer I was looking for three months ago. – Dr_Wren_Halliday 9 months ago
The arithmetic checks out. I ran the same numbers and got the same result. – vialroom 31 days ago
add a comment
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich - Certified Reference Materials

Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.

Shop standards
11

Concretely, 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 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.

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

edited 24 Aug 2024 by Dr_Fatima_Belkacem — reworded for clarity after a comment

shareimprove this answerflag
DB
answeredDr_Fatima_Belkacem52k13819 Aug 2024
7

On the detail: 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.

The rodent thyroid C-cell findings that generated the labelled warning appear to be species-specific: rodent C-cells express GLP-1 receptors at high density, human C-cells at very low density, and human calcitonin data across large trial populations has not reproduced the signal. A family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or MEN2 is nonetheless a genuine contraindication rather than a theoretical one.

Specifically, creatinine is a muscle-derived metabolite, so a substantial loss of lean mass lowers serum creatinine and mathematically raises estimated GFR without anything happening to the kidney. If you have lost twenty kilograms, your creatinine-based eGFR is flattering you. Cystatin C is not muscle-dependent and is the measure to use when the two disagree.

SURMOUNT-4 randomised participants after an open-label lead-in to continued tirzepatide or placebo, and the withdrawal arm regained a substantial proportion of the lost weight over the following year[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.

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

shareimprove this answerflag
TM
answeredtobias_maartens94k25817 Jul 2024
5

It helps to be literal here: a single laboratory value is a point on a noisy curve. What you want is a trend across at least three draws under comparable conditions, and "comparable" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

HbA1c is a weighted average, not a flat one: roughly half the signal comes from the most recent month. That is why a value drawn six weeks after a change already reflects most of the effect, and why a value drawn during rapid haematological turnover reflects something other than glycaemia.

The papers are readable. Read the paper rather than the summary of the paper, especially where the summary is enthusiastic.

shareimprove this answerflag
VF
answeredvial_five15k2828 Jul 2024
The distinction between purity and content cannot be repeated often enough here. – juliette_farnese 2 months ago
add a comment
4

More usefully, 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.

Estimated average glucose from HbA1c: eAG in mg/dL = 28.7 × A1c − 46.7, or in mmol/L, 1.59 × A1c − 2.59. An A1c of 6.5 per cent is therefore about 140 mg/dL or 7.8 mmol/L. The relationship is a population regression, so an individual can sit well off the line.

SELECT reported a hazard ratio of 0.80 (95% CI 0.72–0.90) for the primary composite major adverse cardiovascular event endpoint with semaglutide 2.4 mg in overweight or obese adults with established cardiovascular disease and without diabetes[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.

edited 22 Sept 2024 by Dr_Hanne_Solberg — added a caveat about sampling

shareimprove this answerflag
DS
answeredDr_Hanne_Solberg40k3822 Sept 2024
This matches what I was told by a laboratory, for whatever that is worth. – Dr_Hanne_Solberg 2 months ago
Minor: the trial name is hyphenated in the original publication. – samir_bennani 4 months ago
add a comment

Your answer

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.

Not medical advice. Research-use-only compounds are not approved for human use.