reading SURPASS threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
Genuinely asking, not being difficult.
Everyone in c/compounding repeats that hazard ratio is important. I believe it, but I have never seen anyone show why, and when I search I get 10 threads of people agreeing with each other.
Is there a paper? Is there a measurement? Or is this one of those things that is true because it has been repeated since 2023?
I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose.
Disagree on that part. 97.4% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
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
off-label use data is different from approved-indication data
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 17–5. Practical consequence: what you feel in week 1 is not what that dose does.
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 17–5.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 45 weeks to accept.
Not to be pedantic but FLOW and hazard ratio are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
STEP, SURMOUNT, SURPASS, SELECT, FLOW, TRIUMPH — read the appendix
SELECT reported a TRIUMPH hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
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
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
- 1The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.6 comments in this branch · started by u/britta_boateng
- 2nope. mine was the opposite.6 comments in this branch · started by u/rt_shift_reggie