my hs-CRP moved and I cannot work out whether FLOW is why
Right, the SURMOUNT question again, but with numbers this time. I have 23 data points over 10 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign. The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am…
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
Small correction: the trial was 13 weeks, not 6. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
[deleted]
SELECT reported a SURMOUNT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
Disagree on that part. 98.0% and 98.1% on the same vial is normal.
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
Adding to this: SELECT is doing more work than the comment implies.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
press release hazard ratio posts must be flaired until a publication exists
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
That is net peptide content, not purity.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 73 weeks to accept.
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
Phase 2 or phase 3?
the 18 week readout is different from the 27 week readout