roxy_nash 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…
That holds for the injectable. The oral formulation has different absorption behaviour and the dose numbers are not interchangeable, which is worth saying out loud because people quote them as if they were.
Dr.NutriCornell said:The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.
roxy_nash 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…
Pushing back on roxy_nash here. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. 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.