PeptideStack
5.2kquestions
20kanswers
220users

What did the placebo arm of ATTAIN-1 report for dizziness?

Asked 29 Nov 2024Modified 17 months agoViewed 45k times
27

Conditions: ATTAIN-1 · dizziness.

The figures are clear enough; the question is what they mean and what they do not.

I can supply the numbers if the specifics change the answer.

What would I need in addition before this supported a decision?

clinical-trials
clinical-trials

Reading the primary literature properly: estimands, intention-to-treat versus per-protocol, confidence intervals, absolute versus relative…

745 questions
harm-reduction
harm-reduction

Reducing avoidable risk where a decision has already been made: independent verification before use, sterility practice, dose arithmetic checked…

472 questions
shareeditfollowflag
OK
askedoona_kekkonen13k1729 Nov 2024
8Is that the primary endpoint or a secondary one? They get quoted interchangeably. – plate_count_9k 8 months ago
Do you have the population it was measured in? The figure moves a lot between them. – kofi_mensah 10 months ago
add a comment

5 Answers

Accepted answer first, then by votes
53

Accepted answer

The ATTAIN-1 placebo arm is the only thing that makes its treatment arm interpretable, and it is the row nobody quotes. Symptoms reported under placebo in these programmes are not rare, because the population is being asked about them weekly and would have had some of them regardless. The attributable figure is the treated rate minus the placebo rate, and that difference is routinely a fraction of the headline. Two cautions on the subtraction: the arms must have been assessed the same way, and a discontinuation for an event removes that participant from later time points in both arms, which flatters whichever arm loses more people.

The trial answers a narrower question than the headline suggests, and the narrowing is where the useful information is.

Duration decides what can be seen. A 68-week trial can measure weight and glycaemia; it cannot measure anything whose event rate is one per cent per year without enrolling tens of thousands.

Headline results, principal programmes

TrialAgentnDurationPrimary result
STEP 1Semaglutide 2.4 mg1,96168 wk−14.9 % vs −2.4 % weight
STEP 2Semaglutide 2.4 mg, T2DM1,21068 wk−9.6 % vs −3.4 % weight
SURMOUNT-1Tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg2,53972 wk−15 / −19 / −21 % weight
SURMOUNT-4Tirzepatide, withdrawal67088 wkContinued loss vs substantial regain
SELECTSemaglutide 2.4 mg17,604~40 moMACE HR 0.80 (0.72–0.90)
FLOWSemaglutide 1.0 mg, CKD3,533~3.4 yrRenal composite reduced; stopped early
SURMOUNT-OSATirzepatide, OSA46952 wkAHI reduced with and without PAP

Specifically, open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase. Once everyone knows what they are taking, the reported outcomes acquire a bias that no analysis fully removes.

Meta-analyses in this area are dominated by whichever trial contributed the most participants, so read the forest plot rather than the summary estimate.

Be careful about generalising from a trial population to yourself. The exclusion criteria are usually the most informative page in the supplement.

The short version: check the endpoint, check the comparator, check who was excluded, then look at the number.

shareimprove this answerflag
HV
answered · acceptedh_villanueva70k4810 Feb 2025
8Thank you — this is the answer I was looking for. – sian_llewellyn 4 months ago
Adding that the endpoint definition differs between the two trials being compared here. – marcus_thorbjorn 5 months ago
add a comment
Sponsored

Janoshik Analytical - Independent Third-Party Testing

HPLC purity, identity confirmation and quantified content on the vial you actually hold. Reports arrive with the chromatogram attached, not just a number.

Submit a sample
Sponsored — paired listing

GL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. - Direct Synthesis

Founded 1998. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff and 200+ patents. The synthesis house behind a great many of the vials that get sent out for testing - batch-specific documentation with every order.

Visit GL Biochem
19

Answer first: read the primary endpoint, the comparator and the population before you read the effect size. Almost every argument on this site about a trial is really an argument about one of those three.

Placebo arms in this class are not nothing. Lifestyle-intervention placebo arms in the major obesity trials commonly lose two to three per cent of body weight, so an active-arm figure quoted without its comparator overstates the drug effect by roughly that much.

Non-inferiority and superiority designs are not interchangeable. A non-inferiority result says the new agent is not meaningfully worse against a pre-specified margin — it does not say it is as good, and it certainly does not say it is better.

One qualification: absence of a signal in a trial of this size is not evidence of absence for a rare event. It is evidence that the event is rarer than the trial could detect.

When two sources disagree, the answer is almost always in the methods section of the one you have not read.

shareimprove this answerflag
DV
answeredDr_Bram_Verhoeven84k24822 Feb 2025
3Which population was that figure from? It moves a lot between the trials. – tobias_maartens 3 months ago
add a comment
14

A trial establishes what happened to a defined group under a defined protocol. Extending it beyond that group is inference, and inference is allowed as long as it is labelled.

A composite endpoint is only as informative as its least serious component. Where a cardiovascular composite combines death, infarction and stroke, ask which component moved, because they are not interchangeable outcomes.

Trial populations are selected. Exclusion criteria in this class routinely remove people with significant renal impairment, prior pancreatitis and unstable psychiatric illness, which is exactly the population the results are then quoted for.

The cardiovascular outcome programme in this class runs to several large randomised trials — LEADER for liraglutide, SUSTAIN-6 and SELECT for semaglutide, REWIND for dulaglutide — and they are the reason the class is discussed as more than a weight intervention.

Quote the interval alongside the estimate and half the disagreements on this site would not start.

shareimprove this answerflag
HV
answeredh_villanueva70k4819 Jan 2025
13

Look at the discontinuation rate alongside the efficacy figure. A large effect in the two thirds who stayed is a different result from a large effect in everyone.

Confidence intervals matter more than point estimates when two trials disagree. Two studies reporting fifteen and twenty per cent whose intervals overlap heavily have not disagreed about anything.

I am not a clinician and this is not medical advice; it is a reading of a published protocol.

If a claim cannot be traced to a named trial with a named endpoint, treat it as a claim rather than as evidence.

shareimprove this answerflag
WC
answeredwren_calloway23k3828 Dec 2024
6Thank you for separating the surrogate from the outcome. That distinction gets lost constantly. – forty_two_c 3 months ago
5Minor: the trial name is hyphenated in the original publication. – tandem_gradient 1 months ago
add a comment
10

Before comparing two trials, check whether they share an endpoint definition. Frequently they do not, and the numbers then are not comparable in any sense.

Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses answer different questions. ITT asks what happens if you offer the treatment; per-protocol asks what happens if it is taken as directed. The gap between the two is a measure of how tolerable the protocol was.

Read the protocol and the statistical analysis plan if the result matters to you. Both are usually published alongside.

edited 21 Feb 2025 by Dr_Ilse_Vandenberg — clarified the distinction between purity and content

shareimprove this answerflag
DV
answeredDr_Ilse_Vandenberg113k24830 Jan 2025
6Worth flagging that this changed with the 2025 publication, so older answers are out of date. – w_okoye 2 months ago
add a comment

Your answer

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.

Not medical advice. Research-use-only compounds are not approved for human use.