What does STEP 1 tell me about dizziness at the 10 mg dose?

Stated plainly: STEP 1 · dizziness · 10 mg.

I would like help reading this properly rather than being told what conclusion to reach.

I have the full report including the method section, so I can quote specifics if that helps.

What can I legitimately conclude from this figure?

Specifically, 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.

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

edited 21 Oct 2025 by jo_vandeberg — added a caveat about sampling

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.

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.

Worth being precise here: 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.

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.

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

It helps to be literal 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

STEP 1 reported a mean weight change of approximately −14.9 per cent with semaglutide 2.4 mg versus −2.4 per cent with placebo at 68 weeks[1]; the difference between the figures quoted from this trial in different places is an estimand difference.

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.

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