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?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of FLOW got published and nobody in here is talking about eGFR slope — 14 comments in the full submission. View in context.
-59
c/trialwatch·submitted 3 days ago by u/renal_outcomes_r

FLOW got published and nobody in here is talking about eGFR slope

Readoutbranch of 6 comments

FLOW (Perkovic et al., N Engl J Med , 2024) reported a hazard ratio of 0.76 for the composite kidney endpoint in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. The front page spent a week on a weight-loss thread. The part I want to argue about is the eGFR slope. A slower rate of decline is not a headline…

Read the full submission and all 14 comments →

This branch

6 comments, started 2 days ago
u/hazard_ratio_halstats356 points·2 days ago

Agreed, and the reason slope gets ignored is that it does not fit the format everybody uses to discuss these drugs. A hazard ratio is a single quotable number. A slope is a rate, and a rate needs a timeframe to mean anything.

Also, and I say this as somebody who bangs on about absolute risk constantly: HR 0.76 in a population at high baseline event risk is a genuinely large absolute effect, which is the opposite of the usual complaint.

replysharereportpermalink
u/renal_outcomes_rOPnephro-curious187 points·2 days ago

yes — this is one of the trials where the relative number understates rather than overstates, because the baseline risk is so high.

replysharereportpermalink
u/nnt_nate154 points·1 days ago

which makes it one of the few readouts where I do not have to demand the number needed to treat, because it is small enough to be obviously worth it.

replysharereportpermalink
u/forest_plot_fionastats121 points·1 days ago

and the confidence interval is narrow, which for a composite endpoint in a CKD population is not guaranteed.

replysharereportpermalink
u/kaplan_meier_kim96 points·1 days ago

watch where the curves separate too. early separation on a kidney endpoint is more surprising than early separation on weight.

replysharereportpermalink
u/renal_outcomes_rOPnephro-curious84 points·20 hr ago

that is the figure i keep going back to. it is earlier than i would have predicted.

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

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
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.
Moderators
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.