three years of SELECT threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
Right, the SURMOUNT question again, but with numbers this time. I have 2 data points over 30 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…
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
press release SELECT posts must be flaired until a publication exists
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with SURPASS, not with what you concluded.
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.