How do I convert the SELECT hazard ratio into an absolute risk reduction?

This is a question about interpretation, not about whether to act — I will take action questions elsewhere.

Please show the division. I want to check my own against yours.

I would like the general form as well as the specific number, so I can apply it again.

How many significant figures are actually justified here?

It helps to be literal here: 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 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.

In practice, 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.

SURMOUNT-OSA reported reductions in the apnoea-hypopnoea index with tirzepatide in adults with obesity and moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnoea, both with and without concurrent positive airway pressure therapy[1].

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

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.

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.

It helps to be literal here: 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.

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.

Specifically, 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.

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].

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.

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.

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.

Worth being explicit that this is interpretation of published data and not medical advice. Laboratory results belong in a conversation with whoever ordered them.

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.