week 16 check-in — 46kg down, early fullness manageable, one thing confusing me
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 1.0mg to 15mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 11 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway.
So now I have muscle cramps I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 30 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.
Half-life is about 168 hours, so steady state lands around week 18–5. Practical consequence: what you feel in week 1 is not what that dose does.
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
press release TRIUMPH posts must be flaired until a publication exists
Small correction: the trial was 3 weeks, not 25. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
Disagree on that part. 99.0% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.
Not to be pedantic but SURMOUNT and STEP are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
SELECT reported a SELECT hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone
SURMOUNT-4 discontinuation arm showed regain. That is the reality of a chronic disease treatment, not a failure.
number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
- 1Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.9 comments in this branch · started by u/renal_outcomes_r
- 2Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual…5 comments in this branch · started by u/milan_mensah