the hazard ratio thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down
STEP. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/orforglipron is downstream of it. Titration speed, early fullness, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort STEP out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 8 months. My eGFR was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the FLOW endpoints
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
SELECT reported a hazard ratio hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the SURPASS endpoints
the 20 week readout is different from the 16 week readout
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
STEP 1 readout: 98.6% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
STEP 1 readout: 98.0% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 39 weeks to accept.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the SURMOUNT endpoints
the 24 week readout is different from the 32 week readout
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
press release hazard ratio posts must be flaired until a publication exists
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
- 1dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations11 comments in this branch · started by u/marit_laurent
- 2This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.9 comments in this branch · started by u/cesar_ivaturi