What does STEP 1 report at the 15 mg dose level?

Setup, so nobody has to ask: STEP 1 · 15 mg.

I would like help reading this properly rather than being told what conclusion to reach.

I have the full report including the method section, so I can quote specifics if that helps.

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.

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.

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.

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

The relevant detail is that 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.

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.

The underlying point is that 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-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].

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.

edited 10 Nov 2024 by w_okoye — clarified the distinction between purity and content

Concretely, start with the population. The inclusion criteria of the trial determine what its result can be extrapolated to, and the extrapolation people want is usually to a population the trial excluded.

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.

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].

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

More usefully, the confidence interval is the informative part. A point estimate with an interval spanning no effect is a different object from the same point estimate with a tight interval, and the abstract presents them identically.

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.

The caveat is the population. Trial participants were screened, monitored and supported; the effect size in an unmonitored setting is not the trial effect size, and it is not obvious in which direction the difference runs.

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