Dr.GutHealth said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

Pushing back on Dr.GutHealth here. 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.

SaraMom3 said:

I keep finding that the number in the press summary and the number in the paper are not the same number, and the difference is always in the same…

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational studies can provide useful evidence.

A recent PSM study of 25,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.74) over 5 years of follow-up[1].

These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.

Dr.AddMedPHL said:

I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.

Dr.AddMedPHL said:

...regarding the trial evidence...

I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:

A recent meta-analysis of 22 RCTs (n=18,900) found that the trial evidence was associated with a consistent effect size across diverse patient populations[1].

The NNT was 20, which is comparable to antihypertensives for stroke reduction. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.

Following on from SandraNC_45 — and this may be the naive question:

How long did you give it before you decided it was working?

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have. That was reassuring rather than otherwise.