[Discussion] we are measuring SURPASS at the wrong time and calling it noise
Genuinely asking, not being difficult.
Everyone in c/compounding repeats that hazard ratio is important. I believe it, but I have never seen anyone show why, and when I search I get 11 threads of people agreeing with each other.
Is there a paper? Is there a measurement? Or is this one of those things that is true because it has been repeated since 2023?
I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
best — the order this archive was captured in
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
SURMOUNT-4 discontinuation arm showed regain. That is the reality of a chronic disease treatment, not a failure.
Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.
Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing.
Disagree on that part. 99.2% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 58 weeks to accept.
This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
- 1The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a…4 comments in this branch · started by u/nightowl_injector