Why do two papers on SURMOUNT-2 report different headline figures?

I have the full paper rather than the abstract, and the supplementary appendix.

I understand the observation; what I do not understand is the mechanism behind it.

I have read the two review articles that come up first and both assert this without a citation to a primary source.

Can someone derive this rather than assert it?

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.

Estimated average glucose from HbA1c: eAG in mg/dL = 28.7 × A1c − 46.7, or in mmol/L, 1.59 × A1c − 2.59. An A1c of 6.5 per cent is therefore about 140 mg/dL or 7.8 mmol/L. The relationship is a population regression, so an individual can sit well off the line.

Relative to absolute, worked

The last two rows describe the same finding. Only one of them is used in headlines.

In practice, 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.

SELECT reported a hazard ratio of 0.80 (95% CI 0.72–0.90) for the primary composite major adverse cardiovascular event endpoint with semaglutide 2.4 mg in overweight or obese adults with established cardiovascular disease and without diabetes[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.

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

In practice, 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 early fall in estimated glomerular filtration rate on treatment is haemodynamic rather than structural. Reduced intraglomerular pressure lowers the filtration rate acutely and preserves the glomerulus chronically — the same pattern seen with renin-angiotensin blockade and with SGLT2 inhibition. A dip of a few millilitres per minute in the first weeks, followed by a shallower long-term slope, is the desired trajectory, not a warning sign.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The relevant detail is that 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.

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].

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

The relevant detail is that 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.

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.

STEP 1 reported a mean weight change of approximately −14.9 per cent with semaglutide 2.4 mg versus −2.4 per cent with placebo at 68 weeks[1]; the difference between the figures quoted from this trial in different places is an estimand difference.

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 17 Nov 2024 by Dr_Colm_Fitzhenry — added the citation requested in comments

Worth being precise here: 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.

Worth being explicit that this is interpretation of published data and not medical advice. Laboratory results belong in a conversation with whoever ordered them.

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