Read the primary source rather than the write-up and the two do not agree, so here is what is actually in it.
SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events in people with established cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity, without diabetes. The effect appeared earlier than the weight-loss curve can comfortably explain, which is the basis for arguing that some of the benefit is direct — anti-inflammatory and vascular — rather than purely a consequence of weight.
Where I think it is weakest: the subgroup findings are the part I trust least — with enough subgroups something is always significant, and these were not all pre-registered.
What would genuinely help is knowing how much of the SELECT benefit is plausibly independent of the weight loss, and whether that distinction changes anything practical. Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
Dr.CardioMD said:SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction…
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.
Dr.CardioMD said:SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction…
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The "earlier than weight loss explains" argument is weaker than this thread makes it sound. Blood pressure and inflammatory markers move fast and are downstream of early weight loss, so the mechanism is not as cleanly separable as the summaries imply.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsShort answer first, then the reasoning. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.
sarah.morrison said:Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion.
Second this.