reading endpoint threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
Genuinely asking, not being difficult.
Everyone in c/compounding repeats that hazard ratio is important. I believe it, but I have never seen anyone show why, and when I search I get 23 threads of people agreeing with each other.
Is there a paper? Is there a measurement? Or is this one of those things that is true because it has been repeated since 2023?
I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with SURPASS, not with what you concluded.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
SELECT reported a SURMOUNT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
Disagree.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the STEP endpoints
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
STEP 1 readout: 95.1% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is SELECT. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
- 1Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with SURPASS, not with what…6 comments in this branch · started by u/sanne_laurent
- 2Mechanistically the bit that matters is SELECT. It explains most of the…4 comments in this branch · started by u/hazard_ratio_hal