Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.
Relative versus absolute is the distinction that gets lost: a 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit, and the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one.
What I am trying to establish is how much of the SELECT benefit is plausibly independent of the weight loss, and whether that distinction changes anything practical.
Practical detail welcome, however dull — the duller the better.
Short answer first, then the reasoning. Relative and absolute effects need reading together. A 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit; the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one, and press summaries almost always quote the relative number because it is bigger.
PharmD_Rodriguez said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsNurseKim_ATL said:Prescribed on cardiovascular grounds rather than for weight, and almost everything written for patients assumes the opposite.
Mine went the same way, slower. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly.
Lp(a) and cardiovascular risk: a nuance that matters. Unlike most lipid markers, Lp(a) is 90%+ genetically determined and doesn't really change with weight loss or GLP-1 therapy.
My Lp(a) has remained at 53 nmol/L across all time points. If yours is elevated (>50 nmol/L), you need additional risk mitigation strategies regardless of your GLP-1 response. Don't assume your medication is covering all cardiovascular risk factors.