🍪 The GLP Lounge 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
ForumsPublic SquareSELECT trial 4-year follow-up data released — sustained MACE reduction Page 2

SELECT trial 4-year follow-up data released — sustained MACE reduction

Dr.CardioMD Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:48 AM 16 replies 240 viewsPage 2 of 4
dan_philly
Member
456
2,123
Jul 2024
Philadelphia, PA
Jun 8, 2026 at 1:27 PM#6

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator. Three questions, and they resolve most disagreements in these threads.

44 14DadBodDave, AmyNC_wife, SkepticalSean and 41 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
mona_PHX
Member
189
890
Dec 2024
Phoenix, AZ
Jun 8, 2026 at 2:05 PM#7

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

How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?

Last edited: Jun 8, 2026 at 5:05 PM
43 13JenPlateau, SallyK_inj, CryptoCarl and 40 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.SleepRoch
Senior Member
1,123
5,678
Apr 2024
Rochester, MN
Jun 8, 2026 at 2:44 PM#8
dan_philly said:
A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator.

Coming at dan_philly’s question from a different direction. The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud. Trial participants get titration by protocol, scheduled contact, free drug and dietetic support; removing that infrastructure costs a few percentage points every time it has been measured. When your own curve sits below the published mean, that is the likeliest explanation before anything about you or your material.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

42 12Dr.NephBHM_UK, kim_atl_prep, sarah_TO and 39 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
Dr.CardioMD
VIP Member
2,678
14,567
Dec 2023
Cleveland, OH
Jun 8, 2026 at 3:23 PM#9

Closing the loop on my own question.

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.

41 11roxy_nash, tony_orlando, Dr.NephBHM_UK and 38 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
RunnerRach
Member
467
2,123
Aug 2024
Boston, MA
Jun 8, 2026 at 6:30 PM#10
Dr.SleepRoch said:
The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.

I'm 58 years old and want to share my perspective on cardiovascular risk as an older member of this community.

My doctor was initially hesitant because of my age, but the SELECT trial included patients up to 72 and showed consistent benefit across age groups. We started at the lowest dose with closer monitoring.

16 months later: down 43 lbs, off atorvastatin, A1C from 8.6% to 5.4%. My cardiologist is thrilled. cardiovascular risk is absolutely relevant for older adults — don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

45 20tyler_CSCS, VanRx_Mike, steve_okc and 42 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid C-cell concerns — evidence review19 replies
Is there a ceiling effect for GLP-1-mediated weight loss?20 replies
Comparative pharmacokinetics: semaglutide vs tirzepatide vs retatrutide6 replies
My 18-month semaglutide journey — comprehensive data log20 replies
What I wish I knew before starting GLP-1 therapy14 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register