Gastrointestinal tolerability and weight reduction associated with tirzepatide in adults with obesity or overweight with and without type 2 diabetes in the <scp>SURMOUNT</scp> ‐1 to ‐4 trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This analysis evaluated whether gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea (N/V/D) and dyspepsia were associated with weight reduction with tirzepatide across the SURMOUNT-1 to -4 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SURMOUNT-1 to -4 were global Phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of tirzepatide among participants with obesity or overweight with or without type 2 diabetes (T2D). Participants were randomly assigned to receive once weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide or placebo. This post hoc analysis investigated weight change at the primary endpoint from baseline among participants who self-reported no N/V/D, any N/V/D or nausea alone. Mediation analyses evaluated the contribution of N/V/D and dyspepsia on weight reduction. Time to first use of antidiarrheal and antiemetic usage was reported by time intervals. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between participants who reported N/V/D and those who did not. More participants reported GI AEs in the tirzepatide treatment arms (27.8%-72.8%) than with placebo (12.2%-32.5%). Most GI AEs were non-serious and occurred during dose escalation. Between 1.0% and 10.5% of tirzepatide-treated participants discontinued treatment due to GI AEs. Weight reduction with tirzepatide was similar among participants reporting no nausea, nausea alone, or any N/V/D. Mediation analyses suggested that N/V/D and dyspepsia were associated with up to 3.1% of total weight reduction. When required, first use of antidiarrheal and antiemetic medication was most commonly reported during dose escalation. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, GI AEs appeared to contribute slightly to the weight reduction seen with tirzepatide in participants with obesity or overweight with or without T2D.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".