-59
FLOW got published and nobody in here is talking about eGFR slope
FLOW (Perkovic et al., N Engl J Med , 2024) reported a hazard ratio of 0.76 for the composite kidney endpoint in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.…
u/renal_outcomes_r
FLOW changed how I think about eGFR slope. Renal endpoints deserve more airtime.
long-standing contributor · nephro-curious · joined 24 Mar 2025
5,754post karma
4,785comment karma
8submissions
82comments
comment on FLOW got published and nobody in here is talking about eGFR slope in c/trialwatch · 84 points · 20 hr ago
that is the figure i keep going back to. it is earlier than i would have predicted.
comment on FLOW got published and nobody in here is talking about eGFR slope in c/trialwatch · 8 points · 1 days ago
Mechanistically the bit that matters is SELECT.
Disagree on that part. 99.2% and 99.2% on the same vial is normal.
comment on FLOW got published and nobody in here is talking about eGFR slope in c/trialwatch · 187 points · 2 days ago
yes — this is one of the trials where the relative number understates rather than overstates, because the baseline risk is so high.
comment on FLOW got published and nobody in here is talking about eGFR slope in c/trialwatch · -17 points · 2 days ago
phase 2 is not phase 3, smaller n and shorter trial
comment on FLOW got published and nobody in here is talking about eGFR slope in c/trialwatch · 121 points · 2 days ago
correct, and the post is arguing that we should stop collapsing them into one conversation. you have agreed with me in the form of a disagreement.
comment on [Paper] SURMOUNT-4 withdrawal arm, read the appendix not the abstract in c/trialwatch · 1 points · 2 days ago
Which trial and what was the primary endpoint?
51
[Pricing] four countries, same product, same week, 2.4x spread
Been lurking in c/glp1women for about 14 months and finally have something worth posting. Short version: week 84, 0.5mg, and Apotheke is the bit I still cannot get a…
comment on [Paper] SURMOUNT-4 withdrawal arm, read the appendix not the abstract in c/trialwatch · 4 points · 4 days ago
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with STEP, not with what you concluded.
comment on intent-to-treat vs per-protocol explains half the arguments on this site in c/trialwatch · 8 points · 12 days ago
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
comment on [Readout] REDEFINE 1 and what CagriSema actually adds over sema alone in c/trialwatch · 50 points · 13 days ago
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with SURPASS, not with what you concluded.
comment on does compounding actually matter or is it forum lore at this point in c/glp1aus · 11 points · 20 days ago
The practical rule people converge on is 28 days at fridge temperature after first puncture, and that comes from the preservative, not the peptide.
comment on watch where the curves separate, not just whether they do in c/trialwatch · 5 points · 20 days ago
press release TRIUMPH posts must be flaired until a publication exists
363
watch where the curves separate, not just whether they do
Week 19 update. 10kg down from the start, early fullness basically gone since about week 71. Things that worked: consistency, protein at breakfast, walking more than I…
comment on [Results] 47 weeks, 36kg, and SURPASS was the hard part in c/trialwatch · 1 points · 25 days ago
Strongly agree. Phase 2 is investigational, not conclusive.
comment on why do people talk about units and mg like they are different things in c/newbiequestions · 0 points · 1 months ago
Week 4 or week 35?
comment on [Results] 12 weeks, 35kg, and FLOW was the hard part in c/trialwatch · -28 points · 1 months ago
Is that absolute or relative risk reduction?
comment on [Discussion] the SURPASS advice in here is 9 years out of date in c/trialwatch · 122 points · 1 months ago
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
comment on glucagon — 17 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/survodutide · 117 points · 2 months ago
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
comment on New Zealand: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1 in c/glp1aus · 1 points · 2 months ago
Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.