Short answer first, then the reasoning. 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.

PharmD_Rodriguez said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

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 stroke risk (HR 0.82) over 5 years of follow-up[1].

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

SarahChen_PharmD said:

My own curve sits about four points below the published mean and I spent two months assuming that meant something was wrong with me or with my…

Can confirm the pattern SarahChen_PharmD describes. The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud. Trial participants get titration by protocol, scheduled contact, free drug and dietetic support; removing that infrastructure costs a few percentage points every time it has been measured. When your own curve sits below the published mean, that is the likeliest explanation before anything about you or your material.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly.

SarahChen_PharmD said:

...regarding the trial evidence...

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

A recent meta-analysis of 15 RCTs (n=12,300) found that the trial evidence was associated with a clinically meaningful effect size across diverse patient populations[1].

The NNT was 12, which is comparable to statins for secondary prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.