GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Archived. This submission is more than a year old. Votes and new comments are closed, and some of the advice in it may have been superseded — check the community wiki for the current version.
8.2k
c/trialwatch·posted 2 years ago by u/pancreatitis_scare

TRIUMPH — 13 things I got wrong before I got it right

Trial Data Cold Box ×1 Clean Column ×2 Receipts ×2

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.

9,123 up / 920 down91% upvoted29 commentsid 16eybf21 Jan 2024

29 comments

19 in this archive, depth 5

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/milan_villalobos798 points·2 years ago

The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.

replysharereportpermalink
u/nightowl_injector497 points·2 years ago

The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.

replysharereportpermalink
u/pancreatitis_scareOP238 points·2 years ago

Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rania_salinas173 points·2 years ago

the 4 week readout is different from the 6 week readout

replysharereportpermalink
u/ewan_tulloch88 points·2 years ago

the 19 week readout is different from the 17 week readout

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_vermeulen30 points·2 years ago

off-label use data is different from approved-indication data

replysharereportpermalink
u/ferran_dahlberg341 points·2 years ago

This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.

replysharereportpermalink
u/cold_chromatogram31-12 points·2 years ago

STEP 1 readout: 99.3% mean weight loss, absolute numbers matter. Spread around that mean is enormous.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rulebook_rachaelmod · c/meta159 points·2 years ago

Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.

replysharereportpermalink
u/ines_castellanos69 points·2 years ago

absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide

replysharereportpermalink
u/nhs_waitlist_nUK16 points·2 years ago

absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

replysharereportpermalink
u/iman_castellanos5 points·2 years ago·edited

event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone

replysharereportpermalink
u/pancreatitis_scareOP3 points·2 years ago

Small correction: the trial was 7 weeks, not 34. Does not change your point but people will quote it.

replysharereportpermalink
u/yusuf_ramos129 points·2 years ago

This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hazard_ratio_halMOD77 points·2 years ago

This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.

replysharereportpermalink
u/cesar_ivaturi61 points·2 years ago·edited

This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes.

Disagree on that part. 98.3% and 98.4% on the same vial is normal.

replysharereportpermalink
u/pancreatitis_scareOP42 points·2 years ago

Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.

replysharereportpermalink
u/gastric_emptying_g62 points·2 years ago·edited

Is that absolute or relative risk reduction?

replysharereportpermalink
u/ahmed_iyer38 points·2 years ago

Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?

replysharereportpermalink
Permalinked branches
Deep branches get their own page so a single reply chain can be linked and read on its own.
About c/trialwatch

Clinical trial reading group. New readouts, protocol amendments, endpoint definitions, dropout handling, and the difference between a press release and a publication. Absolute risk reduction and number-needed-to-treat are house dialect here.

34kmembers
95submissions
Nov 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
More in c/trialwatch
c/trialwatch rules
  1. Press-release-only posts must be flaired Press Release until a publication exists.
  2. Give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body.
  3. Relative risk reduction alone is not a result. Show the absolute numbers.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Full rules and how they are enforced →
Moderators
u/trialwatch_theou/forest_plot_fionau/hazard_ratio_halu/renal_outcomes_r
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.

Full disclaimer →