Novo Nordisk CagriSema Phase 3 results — amylin + GLP-1

sophie_paris said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

Dr.SurgeonPGH said:

The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.

One concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.