What does SELECT tell me about early satiety at the 4 mg dose?

Details up front: SELECT · early satiety · 4 mg.

This is presented as though it settles something, and I am not convinced it does.

I have two documents that appear to disagree, which is what prompted this.

Which parts of this are informative and which are decoration?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

edited 11 Dec 2024 by p_mkhize — removed a claim I could not source

Worth being precise here: 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

In practice, 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.

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].

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.

Worth being precise here: 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.

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.