intent-to-treat vs per-protocol explains half the arguments on this site
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles. The claim: STEP matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 8 months without either producing anything. What would actually settle it is 9 people measuring the same thing…
Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.
STEP 1 readout: 97.2% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 43 weeks to accept.
STEP 1 readout: 97.4% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
Small correction: the trial was 2 weeks, not 11. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
Small correction: the trial was 2 weeks, not 11.
Adding to this: TRIUMPH is doing more work than the comment implies.
Not to be pedantic but hazard ratio and FLOW are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
Not to be pedantic but STEP and TRIUMPH are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.