SUSTAIN-6 to SELECT — what worked for you?

LabKate said:

Worth knowing that the injection site changes very little.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.

LabKate said:

Worth knowing that the injection site changes very little.

Continuous metabolic monitoring dashboard for cardiovascular risk — I track everything in a spreadsheet and here's the month-over-month trend for my key markers:

Weight: consistent downtrend, -2.0 lbs/week average
Fasting glucose (finger stick): stable at 87 mg/dL
Blood pressure (home): 115/73 average
Resting heart rate: 67 bpm (down from 83)
Waist circumference: down 17 inches total

The resting heart rate improvement correlates with cardiovascular fitness gains. Everything is moving in the right direction.

LabKate said:

Worth knowing that the injection site changes very little.

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.

NNT calculation for cardiovascular risk clinical endpoints: NNT = 1/ARR (absolute risk reduction).

From SELECT trial: MACE at 39 months — 6.5% semaglutide vs 8.0% placebo. ARR = 1.5%. NNT = 67 over 3.3 years.

Compare to established therapies:

These NNTs are clinically meaningful and comparable to accepted cardiovascular interventions.

pat_auckland said:

NNT calculation for cardiovascular risk clinical endpoints: NNT = 1/ARR (absolute risk reduction).

Mine went the same way, slower.