Putting this up for argument rather than for agreement. I have read it twice and I am still not certain what it supports.
The glucagon co-agonists — survodutide, mazdutide, ecnoglutide — are all chasing the same idea: add energy expenditure to appetite suppression. The liver signal is where they look strongest, because hepatic fatty-acid oxidation responds to glucagon directly rather than as a consequence of weight loss.
Where I think it is weakest: the population was selected and supported in ways a real cohort is not, so I would read the effect size as a ceiling rather than an expectation.
What I am after is whether the liver signal is independent of weight loss or downstream of it, because that determines whether any of this is interesting for someone whose weight is already where they want it. Tell me what I have not thought of.
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.
TrialNerd_Beth said:The glucagon co-agonists — survodutide, mazdutide, ecnoglutide — are all chasing the same idea: add energy expenditure to appetite suppression.
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.
TrialNerd_Beth said:The glucagon co-agonists — survodutide, mazdutide, ecnoglutide — are all chasing the same idea: add energy expenditure to appetite suppression.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThis one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. Relative and absolute effects need reading together. A 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit; the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one, and press summaries almost always quote the relative number because it is bigger.
mike.trainer_LA said:Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.