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

Concretely: 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Where a result is quoted from a conference abstract rather than a peer-reviewed publication, the numbers routinely move between the two. It is worth checking which one you are reading.

The caveat is that trial evidence is about licensed product administered under supervision. None of it transfers automatically to research-grade material of unverified content.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

The honest answer here is that the published evidence supports part of the claim and is silent on the rest, and it is worth being precise about which part is which.

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.

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.