Modern cardiovascular medicine rests on a foundation of large randomized trials. Most of what cardiologists do today gets justified by reference to specific studies, often published in the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet. This article walks through the landmark trials shaping current practice across lipid management, blood pressure control, antiplatelets, GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, revascularization, dietary therapy, and heart failure.<\/p>\n
At TrimRx, we believe that understanding your options is the first step toward a more manageable health journey, and you can take the free assessment quiz if you’re ready to see whether a personalized program is a fit for you.<\/p>\n
SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Cardiovascular Outcomes in People with Overweight or Obesity) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial published by Lincoff and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine in November 2023.<\/strong> The trial enrolled 17,604 adults aged 45 or older with established cardiovascular disease (prior MI, prior stroke, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease) and BMI 27 or higher. Patients with diabetes at baseline were excluded.<\/p>\n Quick Answer: SELECT 2023 NEJM (n=17,604) showed semaglutide 2.4mg cut MACE 20% in non-diabetic adults with CVD plus BMI 27+<\/p>\n Participants were randomized to semaglutide 2.4mg once weekly or placebo, on top of guideline-directed medical therapy. The mean follow-up was 39.8 months.<\/p>\n The primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke) occurred in 6.5% of the semaglutide group versus 8.0% of placebo (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.90, p<0.001). The 20% relative risk reduction translates to a number needed to treat of about 67 over 3.3 years to prevent one event.<\/p>\n SELECT was the first cardiovascular outcomes trial of a weight loss medication to show benefit in non-diabetic patients. It led to FDA approval in March 2024 of semaglutide 2.4mg for cardiovascular risk reduction in adults with established CVD and obesity. The trial extended GLP-1 cardiovascular protection beyond the diabetes population that had been the focus of prior trials.<\/p>\n LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients with high CV risk.<\/strong> Marso and colleagues published it in NEJM in 2016.<\/p>\n The trial randomized 9,340 adults with type 2 diabetes and either established CVD (about 80% of participants) or significant CV risk factors to liraglutide 1.8mg daily or placebo. Median follow-up was 3.8 years.<\/p>\n The primary 3-point MACE outcome occurred in 13.0% of liraglutide patients versus 14.9% on placebo (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97, p=0.01 for superiority). Cardiovascular death dropped 22% (HR 0.78, p=0.007). All-cause mortality dropped 15%.<\/p>\n LEADER established that GLP-1 receptor agonists could provide cardiovascular protection beyond glucose lowering. The trial drove subsequent guideline updates favoring GLP-1 RAs in T2D with established CVD.<\/p>\n SUSTAIN 6 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of semaglutide once weekly in T2D patients with high CV risk.<\/strong> Marso and colleagues published it in NEJM in 2016 alongside LEADER.<\/p>\n The trial randomized 3,297 T2D patients to semaglutide 0.5 or 1.0mg weekly versus placebo. Median follow-up was 2.1 years. Despite being designed as a non-inferiority trial for safety, semaglutide demonstrated superiority for the primary endpoint.<\/p>\n The primary 3-point MACE outcome occurred in 6.6% of semaglutide patients versus 8.9% on placebo (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.95, p=0.02). Stroke dropped 39% (HR 0.61). Diabetic retinopathy complications were modestly higher with semaglutide (HR 1.76).<\/p>\n SUSTAIN 6 set up the eventual SELECT trial design and supported semaglutide’s cardiovascular profile.<\/p>\n REWIND (Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of dulaglutide in T2D published by Gerstein and colleagues in The Lancet in 2019.<\/strong><\/p>\n The trial randomized 9,901 T2D patients to dulaglutide 1.5mg weekly or placebo with median follow-up of 5.4 years. Importantly, only about 31% of participants had established CVD at baseline, making REWIND the first major GLP-1 trial dominated by primary prevention patients.<\/p>\n The primary 3-point MACE outcome occurred in 12.0% of dulaglutide patients versus 13.4% on placebo (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.99, p=0.026). The benefit appeared similar across patients with and without prior CVD, suggesting GLP-1 cardiovascular benefit extends to primary prevention in T2D.<\/p>\n EMPA-REG OUTCOME tested empagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, in T2D patients with established CVD.<\/strong> Zinman and colleagues published it in NEJM in 2015. The trial randomized 7,020 T2D patients to empagliflozin 10 or 25mg daily versus placebo. Median follow-up was 3.1 years.<\/p>\n The primary 3-point MACE outcome occurred in 10.5% of empagliflozin patients versus 12.1% on placebo (HR 0.86, p=0.04). The eye-catching finding was a 38% reduction in cardiovascular death (HR 0.62) and a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The trial transformed SGLT2 inhibitors from glucose-lowering drugs into cardiovascular drugs.<\/p>\n DAPA-HF (McMurray 2019 NEJM) tested dapagliflozin in 4,744 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction 40% or below).<\/strong> About 45% of participants had T2D at baseline.<\/p>\n The primary outcome (worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death) occurred in 16.3% of dapagliflozin patients versus 21.2% on placebo (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.85, p<0.001). The benefit appeared similar in patients with and without diabetes.<\/p>\n EMPEROR-Reduced (Packer 2020 NEJM) confirmed similar results with empagliflozin in 3,730 HFrEF patients. The trials together established SGLT2 inhibitors as a fourth pillar of HFrEF therapy.<\/p>\n STEP-HFpEF (Kosiborod et al., NEJM 2023) tested semaglutide 2.4mg in 529 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and BMI 30 or higher (no diabetes).<\/strong> The trial ran 52 weeks.<\/p>\n Semaglutide improved the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score 7.8 points more than placebo and 6-minute walk distance 20.3 meters more. Body weight dropped 13.3% versus 2.6%. CRP and NT-proBNP both decreased more in the semaglutide arm.<\/p>\n The trial established GLP-1 therapy as effective for the substantial subset of HFpEF patients with obesity, a previously underserved population.<\/p>\n SUMMIT (Packer et al., NEJM 2024) tested tirzepatide in 731 patients with HFpEF and BMI 30+.<\/strong> The trial measured a composite of cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure events alongside KCCQ symptom scores and 6-minute walk distance.<\/p>\n Tirzepatide reduced the primary composite by 38% (HR 0.62, p=0.026). KCCQ scores and 6-minute walk distance both improved meaningfully. Body weight dropped 11.6 percentage points more on tirzepatide than placebo.<\/p>\n SUMMIT extended the GLP-1\/GIP cardiovascular evidence base into HFpEF and provided support for tirzepatide use in this population pending broader CV outcome data.<\/p>\n ISCHEMIA (Maron et al., NEJM 2020) was a landmark trial of invasive versus conservative management in stable coronary artery disease.<\/strong> The trial randomized 5,179 patients with moderate-to-severe ischemia on stress testing to invasive strategy (catheterization with revascularization plus optimal medical therapy) or conservative strategy (optimal medical therapy with catheterization reserved for failure of medical therapy). Median follow-up was 3.2 years.<\/p>\n The primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) occurred in 13.3% of the invasive group versus 15.5% of the conservative group (p=0.34). The difference wasn’t statistically significant.<\/p>\n Symptom-based outcomes favored the invasive strategy. Patients with daily or weekly angina at baseline had meaningful symptom improvement with revascularization.<\/p>\n ISCHEMIA reinforced earlier COURAGE trial findings (Boden 2007 NEJM) that PCI doesn’t extend life over optimal medical therapy in stable CAD without high-risk features. The combined evidence has shaped the current guideline emphasis on optimal medical therapy first.<\/p>\n COURAGE (Boden et al., NEJM 2007) randomized 2,287 patients with stable angiographically confirmed CAD to PCI plus optimal medical therapy or optimal medical therapy alone.<\/strong> Over median 4.6 years, the primary composite of death and nonfatal MI occurred in 19.0% versus 18.5% of patients (p=0.62).<\/p>\n COURAGE was the first major trial showing PCI didn’t improve survival in stable CAD with optimal medical therapy. It changed practice patterns and laid the groundwork for ISCHEMIA.<\/p>\n PREDIMED (Estruch et al., NEJM 2013, re-analyzed and republished 2018) was a landmark dietary trial.<\/strong> The study randomized 7,447 high-cardiovascular-risk adults in Spain to one of three diets: Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil, Mediterranean diet with mixed nuts, or low-fat control diet. Median follow-up was 4.8 years.<\/p>\n The primary outcome (composite of MI, stroke, or CV death) occurred in 3.8% of the olive oil group, 3.4% of the nuts group, and 4.4% of the control. Both Mediterranean groups had about 30% relative risk reduction versus control (HR 0.69 olive oil, 0.72 nuts, both p<0.05).<\/p>\n Stroke alone showed the largest reduction. PREDIMED is the largest randomized dietary trial with hard CV endpoints and remains the foundation of Mediterranean diet recommendations for CV prevention.<\/p>\n FOURIER (Sabatine et al., NEJM 2017) tested evolocumab (a PCSK9 inhibitor) in 27,564 patients with established CVD on statin therapy.<\/strong> The trial randomized to evolocumab 140mg every 2 weeks or 420mg monthly versus placebo. Median follow-up was 2.2 years.<\/p>\n LDL dropped from median 92 mg\/dL at baseline to 30 mg\/dL on evolocumab. The primary composite (CV death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization) occurred in 9.8% of evolocumab patients versus 11.3% of placebo (HR 0.85, p<0.001).<\/p>\n FOURIER established that further LDL lowering below already-low statin levels continues to reduce events, with no apparent floor for LDL benefit.<\/p>\n ODYSSEY OUTCOMES (Schwartz et al., NEJM 2018) tested alirocumab in 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome on intensive statin therapy.<\/strong> The trial used a treat-to-target dosing approach aiming for LDL 25-50 mg\/dL.<\/p>\n The primary composite of CHD death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina occurred in 9.5% of alirocumab patients versus 11.1% of placebo (HR 0.85, p<0.001). All-cause mortality also dropped (HR 0.85).<\/p>\n The trial confirmed PCSK9 inhibitor benefit in post-ACS patients and supported aggressive LDL lowering in this very high-risk group.<\/p>\n Key Takeaway: FOURIER 2017 NEJM (n=27,564) found evolocumab cut MACE 15% on top of statin therapy<\/p>\n CLEAR Outcomes (Nissen et al., NEJM 2023) tested bempedoic acid in 13,970 statin-intolerant high-cardiovascular-risk patients.<\/strong> The trial randomized to bempedoic acid 180mg daily or placebo. Median follow-up was 3.4 years.<\/p>\n LDL dropped from baseline 139 mg\/dL to 107 mg\/dL on bempedoic acid. The primary 4-point MACE composite occurred in 11.7% of bempedoic acid patients versus 13.3% of placebo (HR 0.87, p=0.004).<\/p>\n CLEAR Outcomes filled a meaningful gap by demonstrating an oral non-statin LDL-lowering drug could reduce events in patients who genuinely couldn’t tolerate statins.<\/p>\n SPRINT (2015 NEJM) randomized 9,361 high-cardiovascular-risk adults to systolic BP target below 120 versus below 140 mmHg.<\/strong> The trial enrolled patients aged 50+ with at least one CV risk factor but excluded diabetes and prior stroke.<\/p>\n After median 3.3 years, the primary composite (MI, ACS, stroke, HF, or CV death) occurred in 5.2% of the intensive group versus 6.8% of standard target (HR 0.75, p<0.001). All-cause mortality dropped 27%.<\/p>\n SPRINT changed BP targets in much of the world toward more aggressive control, particularly in older high-risk adults. The trial used research-grade automated BP measurements that some experts argue produce lower readings than typical office measurements, complicating direct application to office practice.<\/p>\n FLOW (Perkovic et al., NEJM 2024) tested semaglutide 1.0mg in 3,533 type 2 diabetics with chronic kidney disease.<\/strong> The primary outcome was kidney failure, but cardiovascular endpoints were prespecified secondary outcomes.<\/p>\n The primary composite of major kidney events occurred 24% less often on semaglutide. CV death dropped 29%. Major CV events dropped 18%. All-cause mortality dropped 20%.<\/p>\n FLOW reinforced GLP-1 benefit across populations with kidney disease, an area where many cardiovascular drugs have been less rigorously studied.<\/p>\n STEP 1 (Wilding et al., NEJM 2021) tested semaglutide 2.4mg for weight loss in 1,961 adults with obesity and no diabetes.<\/strong> Mean weight loss at 68 weeks was 14.9% versus 2.4% on placebo. The trial established the dosing and weight loss profile that became Wegovy\u00ae and the basis for SELECT.<\/p>\n SURMOUNT-1 (Jastreboff et al., NEJM 2022) randomized 2,539 adults with obesity (no diabetes) to tirzepatide 5mg, 10mg, or 15mg weekly versus placebo.<\/strong> At 72 weeks, mean weight loss was 15.0%, 19.5%, and 20.9% respectively versus 3.1% on placebo. The 15mg group had 57% of patients losing 20% or more body weight.<\/p>\n SURMOUNT-1 established tirzepatide as the most effective approved obesity drug. While not powered for cardiovascular endpoints, blood pressure dropped 7-8 mmHg systolic, A1C dropped, and lipid markers improved. The dedicated CVOT trial SURPASS-CVOT will test whether these surrogate improvements translate into reduced events.<\/p>\n CANTOS (Ridker et al., NEJM 2017) randomized 10,061 post-MI patients with hs-CRP above 2 mg\/L to canakinumab (anti-IL-1\u03b2 monoclonal antibody) versus placebo.<\/strong> The drug doesn’t change lipids. After 3.7 years, MACE dropped 15% (HR 0.85) at the 150mg dose with the largest CRP reduction.<\/p>\n CANTOS proved inflammation is a treatable cardiovascular target independent of lipids. The trial didn’t make canakinumab a routine CVD drug because of cost and infection risk, but it opened the door for newer anti-inflammatory approaches like low-dose colchicine.<\/p>\n LoDoCo2 (Nidorf et al., NEJM 2020) randomized 5,522 patients with chronic coronary disease to colchicine 0.5mg daily or placebo.<\/strong> Over median 28.6 months, MACE dropped 31% (HR 0.69, p<0.001). The trial added an inexpensive anti-inflammatory option with strong outcome data for secondary prevention.<\/p>\n The COLCOT trial (Tardif 2019 NEJM) had shown similar benefit in post-MI patients. FDA approved colchicine 0.5mg for cardiovascular risk reduction in 2023 based on these data.<\/p>\n JUPITER (Ridker et al., NEJM 2008) randomized 17,802 apparently healthy adults with LDL below 130 mg\/dL but elevated hs-CRP above 2 mg\/L to rosuvastatin 20mg or placebo.<\/strong> The trial stopped early after median 1.9 years for clear benefit: MACE dropped 44% (HR 0.56). All-cause mortality dropped 20%.<\/p>\n JUPITER expanded statin primary prevention indications to include adults with elevated inflammation despite normal LDL. The trial influenced subsequent guideline updates incorporating hs-CRP as a risk-enhancing factor.<\/p>\n EARLY TAVR (Genereux et al., NEJM 2024) randomized 901 asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis to early TAVR versus clinical surveillance.<\/strong> After median 3.8 years, the primary composite of death, stroke, or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization occurred in 26.8% of early TAVR versus 45.3% of surveillance (HR 0.50, p<0.001).<\/p>\n EARLY TAVR shifted the calculus on intervention timing in asymptomatic severe AS, where guidelines previously recommended waiting for symptoms. The trial supports earlier intervention in selected patients, particularly those with very high gradients or rapid progression.<\/p>\n REDUCE-AMI (Yndigegn et al., NEJM 2024) randomized 5,020 patients with MI and preserved ejection fraction (LVEF 50% or higher) to long-term beta-blocker therapy or no beta-blocker.<\/strong> Over median 3.5 years, the primary composite of death or new MI occurred at the same rate in both arms (HR 0.96, not significant).<\/p>\n REDUCE-AMI questioned the long-standing practice of routine beta-blocker therapy for all post-MI patients. For the substantial subset with normal EF, the trial suggests beta-blockers may not extend benefit beyond the early post-MI period, potentially simplifying long-term regimens.<\/p>\n TrimRX clinicians use trial-based evidence to guide treatment decisions.<\/strong> Patients with established CVD plus obesity who meet SELECT criteria get evidence-based cardiovascular protection from semaglutide. Patients with HFpEF and obesity benefit from STEP-HFpEF and SUMMIT data. Patients with type 2 diabetes plus high CV risk match LEADER, SUSTAIN 6, REWIND, and FLOW populations. The trial evidence isn’t abstract; it determines which patients benefit from which therapies.<\/p>\n Misconceptions about treatment can delay good decisions. Here are three worth correcting before you make any choices about your care.<\/p>\n Myth:<\/strong> If your cholesterol is normal, you don’t have heart disease risk. Fact:<\/strong> LDL is one factor. ApoB, Lp(a), inflammation markers, blood pressure, glucose, weight, and family history all matter. The ASCVD risk calculator integrates these into a 10-year risk estimate.<\/p>\n Myth:<\/strong> Heart attack symptoms are obvious. Fact:<\/strong> Women, diabetics, and older adults often have atypical presentations: jaw pain, back pain, nausea, sudden fatigue without chest pain. Up to 64 percent of women’s heart attacks present atypically. If something feels wrong, get evaluated.<\/p>\n Myth:<\/strong> GLP-1 medications are just for weight loss. Fact:<\/strong> The SELECT trial (2023) showed semaglutide reduced major cardiovascular events by 20 percent in patients with established cardiovascular disease and obesity, with no diabetes required. The cardiovascular benefit is independent of glucose control.<\/p>\n Managing your metabolic health shouldn’t be a journey you take alone. The science behind GLP-1 medications offers a new level of hope for people facing heart disease and the related challenges that come with it. By addressing root hormonal and metabolic causes, these treatments provide a path toward more stable energy, better cardiovascular health, and improved quality of life.<\/p>\n At TrimRx, we’re committed to providing an empathetic and transparent experience. We understand the frustrations of traditional healthcare: the long waits, the unclear costs, and the lack of personalized care. Our platform is designed to put you back in control of your health. By combining clinical expertise with modern technology, we help you access the treatments you need while providing the 24\/7 support you deserve.<\/p>\n Our program includes:<\/p>\n Sustainable health is about more than a number on a scale or a single lab result. It’s about feeling empowered in your own body. Whether you’re starting to research your options or ready to take the next step with a free assessment, we’re here to guide you with science-backed, personalized care.<\/p>\n Bottom line:<\/strong> TrimRx provides a streamlined, medically supervised path to access the latest advancements in heart disease and weight management, all from the comfort of home.<\/p>\n PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) hosts citations and abstracts for nearly all major cardiovascular trials. Most NEJM and Lancet papers have full text available through institutional access; the abstracts and editorials are usually free. ClinicalTrials.gov maintains trial registry data.<\/p>\n Trial populations have specific inclusion criteria that don’t always match individual patients. Discuss your specific risk profile with your doctor. Generally, when patients fit the trial population, the relative benefits apply. Absolute benefits vary based on baseline risk.<\/p>\n Relative risk reduction is the percentage drop in event rate (20% in SELECT). Absolute risk reduction is the percentage point drop (1.5% in SELECT, from 8.0% to 6.5%). Number needed to treat (NNT) is 100 divided by absolute risk reduction. SELECT NNT was about 67 over 3.3 years.<\/p>\n In 2023-2024, SELECT, STEP-HFpEF, SUMMIT, FLOW, and CLEAR Outcomes have all driven meaningful practice changes. SELECT changed FDA labeling for semaglutide. SGLT2 inhibitor trials over the prior decade transformed heart failure care.<\/p>\n Look for randomized controlled design, large sample size (thousands of patients), publication in major peer-reviewed journals (NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, Circulation), pre-specified primary endpoints, and intention-to-treat analysis. Industry-funded trials are common in cardiology but the major journals require strict reporting standards.<\/p>\n Different GLP-1 drugs have different pharmacology, dose ranges, and trial populations. Liraglutide, semaglutide, and dulaglutide showed clear CV benefit. Lixisenatide and exenatide once-weekly showed neutral results. The differences likely relate to drug duration of action, receptor binding, and trial design.<\/p>\n Disclaimer:<\/strong> This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or condition. Individual results may vary. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before starting any weight loss program or medication.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Modern cardiovascular medicine rests on a foundation of large randomized trials.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":76504,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_flyrank_wpseo_metadesc":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-semaglutide"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trimrx.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76505","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trimrx.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trimrx.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trimrx.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trimrx.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76505"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/trimrx.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76505\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":76763,"href":"https:\/\/trimrx.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76505\/revisions\/76763"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trimrx.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/76504"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trimrx.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trimrx.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trimrx.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Primary Outcome<\/h3>\n
Why It Mattered<\/h3>\n
What Did the LEADER Trial Show?<\/h2>\n
LEADER Results<\/h3>\n
What Did SUSTAIN 6 Show?<\/h2>\n
SUSTAIN 6 Results<\/h3>\n
What Did REWIND Demonstrate?<\/h2>\n
REWIND Results<\/h3>\n
What Is EMPA-REG OUTCOME?<\/h2>\n
EMPA-REG Results<\/h3>\n
What Did DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced Show?<\/h2>\n
DAPA-HF Results<\/h3>\n
What Did STEP-HFpEF Show?<\/h2>\n
STEP-HFpEF Results<\/h3>\n
What Is the SUMMIT Trial?<\/h2>\n
SUMMIT Results<\/h3>\n
What Did the ISCHEMIA Trial Reveal?<\/h2>\n
ISCHEMIA Results<\/h3>\n
What Did COURAGE Show?<\/h2>\n
What Did PREDIMED Demonstrate?<\/h2>\n
PREDIMED Results<\/h3>\n
What Did FOURIER Show?<\/h2>\n
FOURIER Results<\/h3>\n
What Did ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Show?<\/h2>\n
ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Results<\/h3>\n
What Is CLEAR Outcomes?<\/h2>\n
CLEAR Outcomes Results<\/h3>\n
What Did the SPRINT Trial Show?<\/h2>\n
SPRINT Results<\/h3>\n
What About the FLOW Trial?<\/h2>\n
FLOW Results<\/h3>\n
What Did STEP 1 Show for Weight Loss?<\/h2>\n
What Did SURMOUNT-1 Show for Tirzepatide?<\/h2>\n
What Did CANTOS Prove About Inflammation?<\/h2>\n
What Did LoDoCo2 Show?<\/h2>\n
What About JUPITER and Primary Prevention Statins?<\/h2>\n
What Did EARLY TAVR Add?<\/h2>\n
What Did REDUCE-AMI Show About Beta-blockers?<\/h2>\n
How Does This Evidence Apply to TrimRx Patients?<\/h2>\n
Myth vs. Fact: Setting the Record Straight<\/h2>\n
The Path Forward with TrimRx<\/h2>\n
\n
FAQ<\/h2>\n
How Do I Find the Original Trial Papers?<\/h3>\n
Are These Trial Results Applicable to Me?<\/h3>\n
What’s the Difference Between Relative and Absolute Risk Reduction?<\/h3>\n
Which Trials Have Changed Practice the Most Recently?<\/h3>\n
How Do I Know If a Study Is Reliable?<\/h3>\n
Why Aren’t All GLP-1 Cardiovascular Benefits Equal?<\/h3>\n