Why do two papers on SUSTAIN-6 report different headline figures?

I have three data points across nine months, which I hope is enough to see a trend.

I suspect the usual explanation for this is wrong, or at least incomplete.

I am aware this may have a boring answer. I would still like the boring answer stated clearly.

Can someone derive this rather than assert it?

Specifically, 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.

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.

The part that matters: 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.

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.

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