kate.chem said:Read four things before the headline number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
VendorMark 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 12,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.74) over 3 years of follow-up[1].
These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.
Dr.RaviCardio 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.RaviCardio 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 metformin for T2DM prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from hyun_seoul — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.