GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of [Results] 81 weeks on 12.5mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring — 29 comments in the full submission. View in context.
2.9k
c/trialwatch·submitted 9 months ago by u/aurel_mwangi

[Results] 81 weeks on 12.5mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring

Trial Databranch of 9 comments

Right, the TRIUMPH question again, but with numbers this time. I have 11 data points over 28 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign. The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am…

Read the full submission and all 29 comments →

This branch

9 comments, started 9 months ago
u/week_four_wall173 points·9 months ago

Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.

replysharereportpermalink
u/draw_up_dizzy82 points·8 months ago

off-label use data is different from approved-indication data

replysharereportpermalink
u/aurel_mwangiOP250 points·8 months ago

Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.

replysharereportpermalink
u/marit_laurent151 points·8 months ago

Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing.

Adding to this: hazard ratio is doing more work than the comment implies.

replysharereportpermalink
u/line_demir56 points·8 months ago

the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the endpoint endpoints

replysharereportpermalink
[deleted]62 points·8 months ago

[deleted]

replysharereportpermalink
u/ferran_dahlberg137 points·8 months ago·edited

the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story

replysharereportpermalink
u/britta_boateng32 points·8 months ago

This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.

replysharereportpermalink
u/arne_ilunga17 points·8 months ago

This is correct.

Disagree on that part. 96.8% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

About c/trialwatch

Clinical trial reading group. New readouts, protocol amendments, endpoint definitions, dropout handling, and the difference between a press release and a publication. Absolute risk reduction and number-needed-to-treat are house dialect here.

34kmembers
95submissions
Nov 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
More in c/trialwatch
c/trialwatch rules
  1. Press-release-only posts must be flaired Press Release until a publication exists.
  2. Give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body.
  3. Relative risk reduction alone is not a result. Show the absolute numbers.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Full rules and how they are enforced →
Moderators
u/trialwatch_theou/forest_plot_fionau/hazard_ratio_halu/renal_outcomes_r
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.

Full disclaimer →