Numbers first: TRIUMPH-1 · early satiety · 50 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?
Put another way, 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.
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.
| Quantity | Value | Derivation |
|---|---|---|
| Control-arm event rate | 8.0 % | From the trial table, not the abstract |
| Hazard ratio | 0.80 | Reported |
| Treated event rate | 6.4 % | 8.0 × 0.80 |
| Absolute risk reduction | 1.6 pp | 8.0 − 6.4 |
| Number needed to treat | 63 | 1 ÷ 0.016 |
| Relative risk reduction | 20 % | 1 − 0.80 |
The last two rows describe the same finding. Only one of them is used in headlines.
Stated carefully, 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.
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].
Worth being explicit that this is interpretation of published data and not medical advice. Laboratory results belong in a conversation with whoever ordered them.
The papers are readable. Read the paper rather than the summary of the paper, especially where the summary is enthusiastic.
edited 27 Oct 2024 by rania_haddad — corrected a unit error in the worked example
Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.
Browse resultsTo be exact about it, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The underlying point is that 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.
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.
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.
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 27 Oct 2024 by vialroom — added a caveat about sampling
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.
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.
Convert everything to an absolute effect before you compare two interventions. Relative effects are not comparable across different baseline risks.
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.