PeptideStack
5.2kquestions
20kanswers
220users

What does SUSTAIN-6 tell me about reflux at the 2 mg dose?

Asked 28 Jun 2024Modified 21 months agoViewed 30k times
31

Setup, so nobody has to ask: SUSTAIN-6 · reflux · 2 mg.

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.

What can I legitimately conclude from this figure?

clinical-trials
clinical-trials

Reading the primary literature properly: estimands, intention-to-treat versus per-protocol, confidence intervals, absolute versus relative…

745 questions
gi-side-effects
gi-side-effects

The gastrointestinal cluster as a whole - nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, reflux, early satiety - with trial incidence rates, dropout…

162 questions
titration
titration

Stepwise dose increases over weeks, why the label schedules exist at all, and what tolerability-driven deviation from a schedule looks like in…

456 questions
shareeditfollowflag
IB
askedines_brandt113k25728 Jun 2024
8Can you link the publication rather than the summary? The summary usually drops the interval. – tandem_gradient 7 months ago
Is this the randomised phase or the open-label extension? – forty_two_c 9 months ago
add a comment

4 Answers

Accepted answer first, then by votes
81

Accepted answer

Only what the 2 mg arm reported, and the denominator is that arm rather than the trial. Adverse-event tables are published per arm, so the 2 mg incidence of reflux has its own numerator and its own denominator, and pooling it with the other arms produces a figure that describes nobody. Two further deductions before you use it. Subtract the placebo arm — reflux occurs in people who received nothing, and the difference is the part attributable to the drug. And check whether SUSTAIN-6 counted events or counted participants: one participant with six episodes is one row in a participant count and six in an event count, and the two get quoted interchangeably. Nothing here is medical advice.

The trial answers a narrower question than the headline suggests, and the narrowing is where the useful information is.

Placebo arms in this class are not nothing. Lifestyle-intervention placebo arms in the major obesity trials commonly lose two to three per cent of body weight, so an active-arm figure quoted without its comparator overstates the drug effect by roughly that much.

It helps to be literal here: a composite endpoint is only as informative as its least serious component. Where a cardiovascular composite combines death, infarction and stroke, ask which component moved, because they are not interchangeable outcomes.

Where a result is quoted from a conference abstract rather than a peer-reviewed publication, the numbers routinely move between the two. It is worth checking which one you are reading.

When two sources disagree, the answer is almost always in the methods section of the one you have not read.

shareimprove this answerflag
DS
answered · acceptedDr_Hanne_Solberg36k2719 Oct 2024
4Minor: the trial name is hyphenated in the original publication. – Dr_Yusuf_Adeyemi 4 months ago
5Do you have a reference for the last claim? Not disputing it, just want to read it. – loss_on_drying 5 months ago
add a comment
Sponsored

Janoshik Analytical - Independent Third-Party Testing

HPLC purity, identity confirmation and quantified content on the vial you actually hold. Reports arrive with the chromatogram attached, not just a number.

Submit a sample
Sponsored — paired listing

GL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. - Direct Synthesis

Founded 1998. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff and 200+ patents. The synthesis house behind a great many of the vials that get sent out for testing - batch-specific documentation with every order.

Visit GL Biochem
90

Start with what the trial was powered for. Everything else in the publication is secondary, exploratory, or a subgroup, and those three words mean three different things.

Duration decides what can be seen. A 68-week trial can measure weight and glycaemia; it cannot measure anything whose event rate is one per cent per year without enrolling tens of thousands.

Open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase. Once everyone knows what they are taking, the reported outcomes acquire a bias that no analysis fully removes.

Quote the interval alongside the estimate and half the disagreements on this site would not start.

shareimprove this answerflag
DB
answeredDr_Ingrid_Baumgartner73k5826 Sept 2024
59

Before comparing two trials, check whether they share an endpoint definition. Frequently they do not, and the numbers then are not comparable in any sense.

Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses answer different questions. ITT asks what happens if you offer the treatment; per-protocol asks what happens if it is taken as directed. The gap between the two is a measure of how tolerable the protocol was.

It helps to be literal here: non-inferiority and superiority designs are not interchangeable. A non-inferiority result says the new agent is not meaningfully worse against a pre-specified margin — it does not say it is as good, and it certainly does not say it is better.

The short version: check the endpoint, check the comparator, check who was excluded, then look at the number.

edited 1 Nov 2024 by Dr_Marek_Zielinski — tightened the wording; no substantive change

shareimprove this answerflag
DZ
answeredDr_Marek_Zielinski27k277 Oct 2024
5The placebo-arm figure is the part everyone omits. – k_szabo 8 months ago
add a comment
37

A trial establishes what happened to a defined group under a defined protocol. Extending it beyond that group is inference, and inference is allowed as long as it is labelled.

Trial populations are selected. Exclusion criteria in this class routinely remove people with significant renal impairment, prior pancreatitis and unstable psychiatric illness, which is exactly the population the results are then quoted for.

I am not a clinician and this is not medical advice; it is a reading of a published protocol.

Read the protocol and the statistical analysis plan if the result matters to you. Both are usually published alongside.

shareimprove this answerflag
EM
answeredeoin_mcgarry18k382 Jul 2024
2Good answer, but the confidence interval in the cited trial is wider than implied. – Dr_Idris_Coulibaly 9 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.