What did the placebo arm of SURMOUNT-OSA report for reflux?

Setup, so nobody has to ask: SURMOUNT-OSA · reflux.

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.

How should I read this, and where are the traps?

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.

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.

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.

SURMOUNT-1 reported mean weight reductions of approximately 15, 19 and 21 per cent at tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg respectively at 72 weeks[1].

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.

The papers are readable. Read the paper rather than the summary of the paper, especially where the summary is enthusiastic.

edited 15 Feb 2026 by felix_araya — added a caveat about sampling

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.

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.

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.

FLOW tested a composite renal endpoint — kidney failure, sustained 50 per cent eGFR decline, or renal or cardiovascular death — in type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease, and was stopped early for efficacy[1].

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.

Convert everything to an absolute effect before you compare two interventions. Relative effects are not comparable across different baseline risks.

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.

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.

SUSTAIN 6 was the original cardiovascular outcomes trial for semaglutide in type 2 diabetes and is the reference point for the class effect that SELECT later extended to a non-diabetic population[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.

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.

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.

None of this replaces a clinician who can see the whole picture, and the whole picture is usually where the answer is.