Setup, so nobody has to ask: SUSTAIN-6 · vomiting.
I have read the primary source rather than the summary, which has left me with more questions.
I understand the headline. I do not understand the footnotes, and the footnotes look important.
How should I read this, and where are the traps?
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.
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.
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.
SUSTAIN 6 was the original cardiovascular outcomes trial for semaglutide in type 2 diabetes and is the reference point for the class effect that SELECT later extended to a non-diabetic population[1].
One qualification: a trial that demonstrates an endpoint at a given dose has demonstrated it at that dose. Extrapolating the endpoint down the dose ladder is an assumption, not a finding.
None of this replaces a clinician who can see the whole picture, and the whole picture is usually where the answer is.
edited 19 Mar 2025 by a_lindgren — added the citation requested in comments
Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.
Shop standardsThis is a question about what the trial was designed to answer, and the honest response is that it was not designed to answer this.
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.
To be exact about it, 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].
The papers are readable. Read the paper rather than the summary of the paper, especially where the summary is enthusiastic.
More usefully, start with the population. The inclusion criteria of the trial determine what its result can be extrapolated to, and the extrapolation people want is usually to a population the trial excluded.
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read the confidence interval, read the estimand, and compute the absolute effect yourself. It takes two minutes and it changes how the result feels.
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.