🍪 CompoundTalk uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsClinical Trials & ResearchEfinopegdutide — what worked for you? Page 2

Efinopegdutide — what worked for you?

marcus_mpls Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 3:39 PM 14 replies 2,111 viewsPage 2 of 3
Dr.CardioMD
VIP Member
2,678
14,567
Dec 2023
Cleveland, OH
Aug 4, 2024 at 11:41 PM#6
JessicaH_TX said:
The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.

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.

50 20kim_atl_prep, sarah_TO, wendy_avl and 47 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
quinn_sf
Member
489
2,123
Jun 2024
San Francisco, CA
Aug 5, 2024 at 2:51 AM#7
marcus_mpls 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…

Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to:

  1. Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) — center of the diamond
  2. Confidence interval width — precision of the estimate
  3. I² statistic — heterogeneity across studies
  4. Individual study weights — are results driven by one large trial?
  5. Prediction interval — range of plausible true effects in future settings

The the trial evidence meta-analysis shows a pooled RR of 0.81 (95% CI 0.69-0.86), I²=54%. This is a robust and consistent effect.

Last edited: Aug 5, 2024 at 8:51 AM
49 19Dr.PathRoch, mona_PHX, andrew_nyc and 46 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
PharmacoVig_BOS
Senior Member
1,567
8,901
Feb 2024
Boston, MA
Aug 5, 2024 at 6:01 AM#8
Dr.CardioMD said:
I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.

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 MI incidence (HR 0.78) over 3 years of follow-up[1].

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

References:
[1] Registry-based cohort study, pre-print 2024.
48 18DataDave, Dr.GutHealth, amsterdam_pete and 45 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics

Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.

View Results
MikeKY_noInsulin
Member
267
1,234
Oct 2024
Louisville, KY
Aug 5, 2024 at 9:11 AM#9

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?

47 17amy_econ_NJ, bbq_ray_KC, oliver_london and 44 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
marcus_mpls
Member
234
1,123
Nov 2024
Minneapolis, MN
Aug 6, 2024 at 12:25 AM#10

Reporting back.

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.

Last edited: Aug 6, 2024 at 5:25 AM
21 19mona_PHX, andrew_nyc, Dr.EndoEP and 18 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

FLOW trial: semaglutide renal outcomes — NEJM publication review14 replies
SELECT trial: semaglutide 2.4mg cardiovascular outcomes — 4yr data9 replies
TRIUMPH program (retatrutide) — Phase 3 trial design and endpoints13 replies
Orforglipron ATTAIN trials — oral non-peptide GLP-1 agonist8 replies
CagriSema (amylin + semaglutide) — REDEFINE Phase 3 results20 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register