🍪 CompoundTalk uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsPublic SquareSELECT trial 4-year follow-up data released — sustained MACE reduction

SELECT trial 4-year follow-up data released — sustained MACE reduction

Dr.CardioMD Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:48 AM 16 replies 240 viewsPage 1 of 4
Dr.CardioMD
VIP Member
2,678
14,567
Dec 2023
Cleveland, OH
Jun 8, 2026 at 11:48 AM#1

Read the primary source rather than the write-up and the two do not agree, so here is what is actually in it.

SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events in people with established cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity, without diabetes. The effect appeared earlier than the weight-loss curve can comfortably explain, which is the basis for arguing that some of the benefit is direct — anti-inflammatory and vascular — rather than purely a consequence of weight.

Where I think it is weakest: the subgroup findings are the part I trust least — with enough subgroups something is always significant, and these were not all pre-registered.

What would genuinely help is knowing how much of the SELECT benefit is plausibly independent of the weight loss, and whether that distinction changes anything practical. Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.

Note on sourcing:
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
49 19kim_atl_prep, sarah_TO, wendy_avl and 46 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
sarah.morrison
VIP Member
3,212
14,567
Jan 2024
California
Online
Jun 8, 2026 at 11:55 AM#2
Dr.CardioMD said:
SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction…

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.

Last edited: Jun 8, 2026 at 12:55 PM
48 18roxy_nash, tony_orlando, Dr.NephBHM_UK and 45 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
BariatricNurseD
Senior Member
1,678
7,234
Feb 2024
Dallas, TX
Online
Jun 8, 2026 at 12:02 PM#3
Dr.CardioMD said:
SELECT is the trial that changed the framing of this class, because it was an outcome trial rather than a weight trial: about a 20% relative reduction…

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The "earlier than weight loss explains" argument is weaker than this thread makes it sound. Blood pressure and inflammatory markers move fast and are downstream of early weight loss, so the mechanism is not as cleanly separable as the summaries imply.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

47 17josh_phd_bmore, roxy_nash, tony_orlando and 44 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics

Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.

View Results
VendorMark
Senior Member
3,456
14,567
Jan 2024
Texas
Online
Jun 8, 2026 at 12:09 PM#4

Short answer first, then the reasoning. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.

Last edited: Jun 8, 2026 at 2:09 PM
46 16Dr.PeteFamMed, claudia_zurich, nancy_portland and 43 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
tom_AK
New Member
28
112
Jan 2026
Anchorage, AK
Jun 8, 2026 at 12:48 PM#5
sarah.morrison said:
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion.

Second this.

45 15Dr.RaviCardio, jennifer_SEA, tyler_CSCS and 42 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid C-cell concerns — evidence review19 replies
Is there a ceiling effect for GLP-1-mediated weight loss?20 replies
Comparative pharmacokinetics: semaglutide vs tirzepatide vs retatrutide6 replies
My 18-month semaglutide journey — comprehensive data log20 replies
What I wish I knew before starting GLP-1 therapy14 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register