SELECT: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1
Quick one. Canada here.
SURPASS works very differently where I live than in the threads that dominate the front page, and I keep seeing people confidently given advice that simply does not apply outside the US.
Specifics: the route I used took 13 weeks and cost roughly what I expected. The admin was worse than the cost. The thing that would have saved me the most time was knowing which document to ask for at the start.
Happy to answer questions from anyone in the same jurisdiction.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
STEP 1 readout: 98.0% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 65 weeks to accept.
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
SELECT reported a SELECT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
Small correction: the trial was 11 weeks, not 15. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
Adding to this: SURMOUNT is doing more work than the comment implies.
Is that absolute or relative risk reduction?
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
the 24 week readout is different from the 28 week readout
This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the SURPASS endpoints
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the FLOW endpoints
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
STEP 1 readout: 98.3% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.
SURMOUNT-4 discontinuation arm showed regain. That is the reality of a chronic disease treatment, not a failure.
Small correction: the trial was 22 weeks, not 24. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
- 1Is that absolute or relative risk reduction?9 comments in this branch · started by u/gastric_emptying_g
- 2Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.7 comments in this branch · started by u/nightowl_injector