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?
2.9k
c/trialwatch·posted 9 months ago by u/aurel_mwangi

[Results] 81 weeks on 12.5mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring

Trial Data Receipts ×7 Sourced ×2 Long Haul ×2

Right, the TRIUMPH question again, but with numbers this time.

I have 11 data points over 28 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 describing showed up at week 70, not week 24. People give up long before the interesting part.

Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.

3,491 up / 628 down85% upvoted29 commentsid 4yrmwd1 Nov 2025

29 comments

21 in this archive, depth 4

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/draw_up_dizzy282 points·9 months ago·edited

I am going to push back on this slightly.

replysharereportpermalink
u/aurel_mwangiOP201 points·8 months ago

SURMOUNT-4 discontinuation arm showed regain. That is the reality of a chronic disease treatment, not a failure.

replysharereportpermalink
u/aurel_mwangiOP-31 points·8 months ago

event rates are more informative than hazard ratios alone

replysharereportpermalink
u/tb500_tangent1 point·8 months ago

number-needed-to-treat is the house dialect

replysharereportpermalink
u/bastian_ekstrom84 points·9 months ago

I am going to push back on this slightly.

Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.

replysharereportpermalink
u/trialwatch_theotrial nerd293 points·8 months ago·edited

This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.

replysharereportpermalink
u/week_four_wall173 points·9 months ago

Every time this gets posted it hits the front page and every time someone has to re-explain it.

replysharereportpermalink
u/draw_up_dizzy82 points·8 months ago

off-label use data is different from approved-indication data

replysharereportpermalink
u/aurel_mwangiOP250 points·8 months ago

Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing. Phase 3 trials are harder. Do not anchor on phase 2 readouts.

replysharereportpermalink
u/marit_laurent151 points·8 months ago

Phase 2 TRIUMPH looked amazing.

Adding to this: hazard ratio is doing more work than the comment implies.

replysharereportpermalink
u/line_demir56 points·8 months ago

the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the endpoint endpoints

replysharereportpermalink
[deleted]62 points·8 months ago

[deleted]

replysharereportpermalink
u/ferran_dahlberg137 points·8 months ago·edited

the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story

replysharereportpermalink
u/britta_boateng32 points·8 months ago

This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.

replysharereportpermalink
u/arne_ilunga17 points·8 months ago

This is correct.

Disagree on that part. 96.8% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.

replysharereportpermalink
u/sofia_wikstrom101 points·9 months ago

This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.

replysharereportpermalink
u/cesar_ivaturi61 points·9 months ago

SELECT reported a TRIUMPH hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hazard_ratio_halstats42 points·8 months ago

Not to be pedantic but SURMOUNT and endpoint are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.

replysharereportpermalink
u/milos_trevino75 points·8 months ago

You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rania_salinas18 points·8 months ago·edited

off-label use data is different from approved-indication data

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_kuusela0 points·8 months ago

I am going to push back on this slightly.

replysharereportpermalink
Permalinked branches
Deep branches get their own page so a single reply chain can be linked and read on its own.
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

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.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.