[Discussion] the endpoint advice in here is 5 years out of date
Right, the TRIUMPH question again, but with numbers this time. I have 15 data points over 14 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…
the 10 week readout is different from the 16 week readout
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
press release SURMOUNT posts must be flaired until a publication exists
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
Adding to this: TRIUMPH is doing more work than the comment implies.
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the FLOW endpoints
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data