Scholarlink

<p>We appreciate the thoughtful commentary by Drs. Dziewierz and Siudak regarding our study comparing tirzepatide versus semaglutide in post-CABG diabetic patients. While we acknowledge the inherent limitations of observational research, our propensity score matching achieved near-perfect balance across 40+ covariates (SMD = 0.033), including comprehensive medication proxies for diabetes control, lipid management, and blood pressure control. We observed consistent protective effects across multiple distinct outcome domains—cerebrovascular, cardiovascular, thrombotic, mortality, and healthcare utilization—with nine outcomes significant after Benjamini-Hochberg correction. The cerebrovascular benefit is particularly noteworthy given semaglutide’s neutral stroke effect in SELECT trial, suggesting differential GIP receptor-mediated neurovascular protection. SURPASS-CVOT, comparing tirzepatide to dulaglutide (not semaglutide) in general ASCVD populations, addresses a different clinical question and may lack power for post-CABG subgroup analysis. Our findings provide hypothesis-generating evidence for an understudied high-risk population, warranting further investigation in dedicated trials.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Response To “Superior Cerebrovascular Outcomes with Tirzepatide Versus Semaglutide: A Call for Cautious Interpretation of Observational Data”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月29日

查看全文
  • Mohammad H. Hussein,
  • Eman A. Toraih

摘要

We appreciate the thoughtful commentary by Drs. Dziewierz and Siudak regarding our study comparing tirzepatide versus semaglutide in post-CABG diabetic patients. While we acknowledge the inherent limitations of observational research, our propensity score matching achieved near-perfect balance across 40+ covariates (SMD = 0.033), including comprehensive medication proxies for diabetes control, lipid management, and blood pressure control. We observed consistent protective effects across multiple distinct outcome domains—cerebrovascular, cardiovascular, thrombotic, mortality, and healthcare utilization—with nine outcomes significant after Benjamini-Hochberg correction. The cerebrovascular benefit is particularly noteworthy given semaglutide’s neutral stroke effect in SELECT trial, suggesting differential GIP receptor-mediated neurovascular protection. SURPASS-CVOT, comparing tirzepatide to dulaglutide (not semaglutide) in general ASCVD populations, addresses a different clinical question and may lack power for post-CABG subgroup analysis. Our findings provide hypothesis-generating evidence for an understudied high-risk population, warranting further investigation in dedicated trials.