I have three data points across nine months, which I hope is enough to see a trend.
I can do the algebra. I am not confident about the conversion factors.
If there is a standard way to lay this out, I would rather learn that than invent one.
Can someone show the working rather than just the answer?
A hazard ratio from SUSTAIN-6 cannot be converted into an absolute risk reduction without the control-arm event rate, and that rate is the number people forget to carry across. The arithmetic: absolute reduction equals the control event rate minus the treated event rate, and the treated rate is approximately the control rate multiplied by the ratio. A hazard ratio of 0.80 against a 10 per cent control rate is a 2-point absolute reduction and a number needed to treat of 50; the same 0.80 against a 2 per cent control rate is 0.4 points and a number needed to treat of 250. Identical ratio, six-fold difference in what it is worth. Take the control-arm rate and the follow-up duration from the SUSTAIN-6 paper, not from the abstract, and do the subtraction yourself.
Start with the population. Cardiovascular benefit in established disease and cardiovascular benefit in primary prevention are different claims supported by different evidence.
Benefit appears to track exposure duration rather than switching on at a threshold, which is what you would expect from a mechanism working partly through weight, blood pressure and glycaemia rather than instead of them.
Systolic blood pressure falls by about three to six millimetres of mercury at the doses studied, most of it early and much of it attributable to weight loss rather than to a direct vascular effect.
SELECT is the trial to read for primary-prevention-adjacent populations without diabetes; SUSTAIN-6 and LEADER are the diabetes-population outcome trials for semaglutide and liraglutide respectively.
The caveat that matters: none of this is a reason for anyone to alter cardiovascular medication, and I am not in a position to advise on that.
Population, baseline risk, endpoint definition. In that order, then the effect size.
Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.
Shop standardsThe part that matters: blood pressure falls by a few millimetres of mercury in this class, which is small individually and not small across a population.
SELECT randomised people with established cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without diabetes to semaglutide 2.4 mg, and reported roughly a twenty per cent relative reduction in the primary composite. The absolute difference over about three years was on the order of one and a half percentage points.
Baseline risk decides how much the relative reduction is worth. The same twenty per cent applied to a one per cent annual risk and a five per cent annual risk produce very different absolute numbers.
A relative risk reduction quoted without the baseline risk is close to meaningless, and it is how most of these numbers travel.
Heart rate up a few beats, blood pressure down a few millimetres, events down about a fifth in high-risk populations. That is the honest summary.
The underlying point is that heart-rate increase and blood-pressure reduction both occur in this class, in opposite directions, and both are modest. Reading one without the other gives a misleading picture.
Resting heart rate rises by roughly two to four beats per minute across the class. The mechanism is not fully settled, the magnitude is consistent, and it has not translated into an adverse outcome signal in the trials that looked.
On the detail: the heart-failure question is separate again, and the evidence there is largely in the preserved-ejection-fraction population with obesity, where the trials measured symptoms and function rather than mortality.
Nothing here is medical advice. If cardiovascular risk is the actual question, it is a conversation for a clinician with your numbers in front of them.
Ask for the absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat. If a source will not give you both, it is selling something.
edited 20 Jul 2024 by Dr_Rosalind_Achebe — tightened the wording; no substantive change
What the outcome trials established is that the class does not increase cardiovascular risk and, in the higher-risk populations studied, reduces it. Those are two separate findings from the same programme.
Cardiovascular composites in this programme are typically cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke. When one component drives the result, that is worth knowing, because the components differ in how much they matter.
Read SELECT for the without-diabetes population and the earlier outcome trials for the with-diabetes one. They are not the same result.
Answer first: the cardiovascular signal in this class is a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events in populations already at elevated risk, not a general cardioprotective claim for everyone.
A twenty per cent relative reduction on a baseline three-year event rate of eight per cent is an absolute reduction of about one and a half points, which is a number-needed-to-treat somewhere in the region of sixty to seventy. Both framings are true and they read very differently.
The cardiovascular safety requirement for new glycaemic agents is why these trials exist at all: regulators required an outcome programme, and the benefit finding was in that sense an unexpected dividend.
The outcome trials are the evidence; the mechanism is still an argument. Cite the first, be careful with the second.
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.