18 months in and TRIUMPH is still the thing I get wrong
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud.
The advice on TRIUMPH in this community changed substantially around the start of last year, and nobody went back and updated the older posts. So depending on which thread the search engine hands you, you get two contradictory answers with the same confidence.
I have listed what I think the current consensus is below. Correct me — that is the point of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
SURMOUNT-4 discontinuation arm showed regain. That is the reality of a chronic disease treatment, not a failure.
SELECT reported a TRIUMPH hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with SURPASS, not with what you concluded.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
SELECT reported a SURMOUNT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
SURMOUNT-4 discontinuation arm showed regain. That is the reality of a chronic disease treatment, not a failure.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
- 1SELECT reported a SURMOUNT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what…8 comments in this branch · started by u/sanne_laurent
- 2number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect4 comments in this branch · started by u/milos_vanhecke