Severity grading, and the gap between a grade and an experience

The number most often quoted about this drug class is that around forty-four per cent of participants on the highest semaglutide dose in the pivotal obesity trial reported nausea. It is a real figure and it is routinely misused. In the same trial, seventeen per cent of the placebo group reported nausea, which tells you something about how much ordinary gastrointestinal discomfort a population reports when asked weekly and given a form. The drug-attributable excess is the difference between the two, and it is meaningful without being the number in the headline.

The STEP 1 gastrointestinal rows, in full

The pivotal semaglutide obesity trial randomised 1,961 adults to 2.4 mg weekly or placebo for sixty-eight weeks. Gastrointestinal disorders were reported by around seventy-four per cent of the active arm and about forty-eight per cent of placebo. Within that, nausea was reported by roughly forty-four per cent against seventeen per cent, diarrhoea by about thirty-two per cent against sixteen, vomiting by about twenty-five per cent against seven, and constipation by roughly twenty-three per cent against ten.¹

Three features of that table are routinely lost. The placebo rates are high, which is what happens when a large population is asked systematically about gut symptoms every few weeks. The events were predominantly graded mild or moderate. And discontinuation attributable to gastrointestinal events ran to about four and a half per cent of the active arm, against under one per cent on placebo.

The gap between three-quarters of participants reporting a gastrointestinal event and four and a half per cent stopping because of one is the most informative thing in the table. Most of this effect profile is endured rather than disabling, and any account that quotes the first figure without the second is describing something other than what happened.

Incidence by dose in the tirzepatide programme

In the seventy-two-week tirzepatide obesity trial, nausea was reported by approximately twenty-five per cent at 5 mg, thirty-three per cent at 10 mg and thirty-one per cent at 15 mg, against about ten per cent on placebo. Diarrhoea ran between nineteen and twenty-three per cent across the dose range against about nine per cent, vomiting between eight and twelve per cent against under two, and constipation between seventeen and eighteen per cent against about six.²

The dose-relationship is present but not monotonic in every term, which is characteristic of adverse-event data at this sample size and a useful reminder that these figures carry confidence intervals nobody prints. Discontinuation for adverse events ran between four and seven per cent across doses against under three per cent on placebo.

Comparing across programmes is a trap. The semaglutide and tirzepatide obesity trials differed in duration, population, escalation schedule and adverse-event collection detail, and the apparent difference in nausea incidence between them is not a clean molecular comparison. The only defensible head-to-head tolerability comparisons in this class come from trials that randomised both molecules, and there are few of them.³

What an adverse-event percentage is a percentage of

A number in an adverse-event table counts participants who reported at least one episode of a coded term at any point during the treatment period. It says nothing about how many episodes, how long they lasted, or how bad they were beyond a three-level severity grade defined by interference with usual activity.

This construction has predictable consequences. A cumulative figure over sixty-eight weeks is the union of many short episodes and cannot be read as a prevalence. Two populations with identical percentages can have entirely different lived experiences. And severity grading captures function rather than distress, so an episode of severe nausea that did not stop somebody working is graded moderate.

None of this is a criticism of the trials, which followed standard practice and reported it transparently. It is a caution about a specific and common misreading: that a forty-four per cent nausea figure describes a state rather than an event count. The published tolerability analyses that break events down by timing and duration are considerably more informative than the summary tables, and are cited far less often.⁴

When the events happen

Gastrointestinal events in this class are concentrated in the escalation phase. Reported incidence rises in the days following a dose increase, declines over the subsequent weeks at an unchanged dose, and rises again at the next increment. Analyses that plot event onset against week show a series of peaks aligned to the escalation schedule rather than a flat burden across the trial.⁴

Two things follow. The first is that the escalation phase is where discontinuation risk lives, which means the tolerability problem in this class is largely a titration problem. The second is that a symptom appearing eight months into stable dosing should not be attributed to the drug by default, because that is not where the drug-attributable events cluster.

There is a corollary that patients find useful and are rarely told. The worst week of a given dose is usually the first one. A person who has been unwell for four days after an increase is, on the published pattern, at the point where things typically begin to improve rather than at the beginning of a permanent state. That is a statement about a population and not a promise about an individual, and we put it that way deliberately.

Who stops, and why the trial figures understate it

Discontinuation for adverse events ran to roughly four and a half per cent on top-dose semaglutide and between four and seven per cent across the tirzepatide dose range, against one to three per cent on placebo. The great majority of those discontinuations were gastrointestinal and the great majority occurred during escalation.¹²

Those figures should be read as a floor. Trial participants receive weekly contact, free product, a nurse who can be telephoned, and an investigator with a strong interest in retention, and they are pre-selected by their willingness to enter a trial. Real-world persistence data for this class is markedly worse, with a substantial proportion of people no longer filling prescriptions at twelve months, for reasons that combine tolerability with cost and supply.

The Journal draws one inference. If most intolerance-driven discontinuation happens during escalation, and escalation practice is the least evidence-based part of the treatment course, then the largest available improvement in outcomes in this class is probably not a new molecule. It is a better answer to the titration question, which nobody has run a trial to obtain.⁵

When the symptom is not the molecule

Everything above assumes the vial contains the compound at the stated strength and nothing else of consequence. For licensed product that is a fair assumption. For research-grade material it is a hypothesis, and it bears directly on symptom interpretation, because a person cannot reason about tolerability if the exposure is unknown.

Three failure modes produce gastrointestinal symptoms that will be misattributed. Peptide content below the labelled figure means a person is at a lower dose than they believe, and escalating on that basis produces a larger real step than intended. Content above the labelled figure does the reverse. And bacterial endotoxin, which is not detected by any purity assay, produces systemic symptoms including nausea, chills and malaise that look nothing like a specification failure on paper.

The four independent services this market relies on — Janoshik, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate — report purity routinely and content and endotoxin less consistently. Several vendors, among them WXT, SSA, CPC and SWB, now publish per-batch reports; several do not. The Journal has argued in Analytics that content and endotoxin should be standard reported fields, and the tolerability case is the strongest argument for it we know.

The record that makes a symptom interpretable

Nearly every question a person asks about a gastrointestinal symptom on this treatment turns on information that is easy to record and hard to recall. What the current dose is. What date the current dose began. Whether the symptom is better, worse or the same than it was seven days ago. Whether fluids are being kept down. And whether anything else changed in the same week — a new vial, a new supplier, a new medication, an illness.

With that, a clinician can distinguish a first-week escalation effect from something else, can tell whether the trajectory is the expected improving one, and can attribute a change in tolerability to a change in material rather than to the drug. Without it, the consultation runs on recollection, and recollection about nausea is unusually poor.

We make no claim that a diary improves outcomes; that has not been tested and we would be sceptical of a trial claiming it. The narrower claim is that it converts an anecdote into a datum, and a substantial part of what this market believes about tolerability is currently anecdote reported at scale.

How the Journal reports adverse-event figures

Four conventions govern the numbers here. Incidence is quoted with the comparator arm alongside it, always, because a drug figure without a placebo figure is uninterpretable in a symptom domain with a high background rate. Figures are identified as cumulative participant incidence rather than prevalence. Where a figure comes from a pooled analysis or a post-hoc tolerability paper rather than a primary publication, we say so. And observational associations are labelled as such and never described in causal language.

Where we report practice rather than evidence — which in the management sections is most of it — the text states that the recommendation rests on mechanism or on transfer from another population. We would rather publish a short list of supported measures and a labelled longer list of reasonable ones than a single confident list that conceals the difference.

Nothing in this file is medical advice. The Journal does not diagnose, does not recommend medicines or doses, and cannot assess an individual. Several compounds discussed are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use in any jurisdiction. Symptoms that are severe, persistent or worsening warrant assessment by a clinician who can examine the person concerned.

A short glossary of terms that get swapped

Nausea: the sensation preceding or in place of vomiting; a symptom. Vomiting: forceful expulsion of gastric contents; a sign. Retching: the effort without the expulsion. Early satiety: fullness disproportionate to volume consumed. Dyspepsia: upper abdominal discomfort, often used loosely to include all of the above.

Gastroparesis: a clinical diagnosis of delayed gastric emptying with characteristic symptoms and no mechanical obstruction. It is not a synonym for drug-induced emptying delay, and the two are conflated constantly. Ileus: failure of propulsion without mechanical obstruction. Obstruction: mechanical blockage.

Incidence: proportion of a population experiencing at least one event in a period. Prevalence: proportion affected at a point in time. Adverse-event tables report the first and are read as the second. Adjudicated: reviewed against predefined criteria by a committee blinded to treatment, which is a materially stronger standard than a reported term.

On the perioperative question we intend to keep reporting rather than editorialising, with one exception. The evidence is unsettled and the disclosure obligation is not. Anyone taking one of these compounds who is scheduled for sedation or anaesthesia should say so, including — especially including — where the compound came from outside conventional supply. Clinicians who make that disclosure feel costly are part of the risk.