Started this morning and already overthinking everything

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

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

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.

hannah_MT said:

My own curve sits about four points below the published mean and I spent two months assuming that meant something was wrong with me or with my…

hannah_MT said:

...regarding the trial evidence...

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

A recent meta-analysis of 18 RCTs (n=15,600) found that the trial evidence was associated with a robust effect size across diverse patient populations[1].

The NNT was 15, which is comparable to antihypertensives for stroke reduction. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.

NurseKim_ATL said:

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

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 18,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced MI incidence (HR 0.78) over 4 years of follow-up[1].

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

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

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

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.