roxy_nash said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
roxy_nash said:...regarding the trial evidence...
I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:
A recent meta-analysis of 22 RCTs (n=18,900) found that the trial evidence was associated with a consistent effect size across diverse patient populations[1].
The NNT was 20, which is comparable to statins for secondary prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.
Following on from Dr.LipidDallas — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
labquiet_amy said:roxy_nash said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
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 12,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced MI incidence (HR 0.78) over 3 years of follow-up[1].
These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.
[1] Registry-based cohort study, pre-print 2024.
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemClosing 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.
Dr.BariatricHTX said:Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…
Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to:
- Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) — center of the diamond
- Confidence interval width — precision of the estimate
- I² statistic — heterogeneity across studies
- Individual study weights — are results driven by one large trial?
- Prediction interval — range of plausible true effects in future settings
The the trial evidence meta-analysis shows a pooled RR of 0.82 (95% CI 0.69-0.82), I²=40%. This is a robust and consistent effect.