reading FLOW threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles.
The claim: FLOW matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 10 months without either producing anything.
What would actually settle it is 3 people measuring the same thing the same way. I have started; my numbers are below. They lean one way but not strongly enough for me to declare victory.
If you have data, post the data. If you have an opinion, flair it as an opinion.
best — the order this archive was captured in
SELECT reported a TRIUMPH hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
Adding to this: hazard ratio is doing more work than the comment implies.
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
Disagree on that part. 96.8% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
the 15 week readout is different from the 40 week readout
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the endpoint endpoints
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
SELECT reported a SELECT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
- 1SELECT reported a TRIUMPH hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what…9 comments in this branch · started by u/annika_fonseca
- 2the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the endpoint endpoints5 comments in this branch · started by u/naomi_ekstrom