PIONEER 6 cardiovascular safety, read as a safety trial rather than an efficacy one — does this still hold?

Everything in post #2 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

The gastrointestinal tolerability profile of the oral formulation is broadly similar in character to the injectable, which supports the effects being systemic rather than local irritation.

The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.

PIONEER 6 was a cardiovascular safety trial for oral semaglutide, not an efficacy trial. Non-inferiority for safety was demonstrated. The point estimates favoured the drug but the trial was not designed to establish benefit.

I would treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.

Adding what did not work for me on PIONEER 6 cardiovascular safety, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.

Building on post #22 rather than restating it.

Orforglipron is a small molecule rather than a peptide, which changes almost everything about how it is made, stored and analysed. Comparing it to oral semaglutide as though they were the same pharmaceutical problem is a category error.

Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.

I read post #24 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Anyone comparing published oral and injectable efficacy should check whether the comparison is within one trial or across two. Across two, the populations differ and the comparison is weak.

Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.