Writing this once so I can stop repeating it across threads. It is about cardiovascular outcomes, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.
What is actually established
SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events in people with established cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity, without diabetes. The effect appeared earlier than the weight-loss curve can comfortably explain, which is the basis for arguing that some of the benefit is direct — anti-inflammatory and vascular — rather than purely a consequence of weight.
The condition it depends on
The qualification that SELECT enrolled a secondary-prevention population. Extrapolating a 20% relative reduction to a healthy 35-year-old with a BMI of 31 is not what that trial showed.
The practical version
Relative versus absolute is the distinction that gets lost: a 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit, and the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one.
What I am not sure about
So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: how much of the SELECT benefit is plausibly independent of the weight loss, and whether that distinction changes anything practical. Tell me what I have not thought of.
mona_PHX said:SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction…
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.
mona_PHX said:SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The "earlier than weight loss explains" argument is weaker than this thread makes it sound. Blood pressure and inflammatory markers move fast and are downstream of early weight loss, so the mechanism is not as cleanly separable as the summaries imply.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsAnswering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.
NurseKim_ATL said:Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.