Does anyone else feel like they are in a secret club now

Dr.NateNeph said:

Read four things before the headline number.

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

SaraMom3 said:

I keep finding that the number in the press summary and the number in the paper are not the same number, and the difference is always in the same…

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational studies can provide useful evidence.

A recent PSM study of 25,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced MI incidence (HR 0.78) over 5 years of follow-up[1].

These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.

labquiet_amy said:

I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.

labquiet_amy said:

...regarding the trial evidence...

I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:

A recent meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (n=8,400) found that the trial evidence was associated with a significant effect size across diverse patient populations[1].

The NNT was 8, which is comparable to metformin for T2DM prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.

Following on from MariaRD — and this may be the naive question:

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

Closing the loop on my own question.

Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.