[Paper] ATTAIN-1 — an oral pill with no food restrictions is a bigger deal than the % suggests
Something I keep coming back to: ATTAIN-1 — an oral pill with no food restrictions is a bigger deal than the % suggests.
Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Left up and flaired Trial Data. The publication is linked rather than the coverage, which is what we ask for.
Discontinuation rates are a tolerability result. A trial with a strong efficacy number and heavy discontinuation is telling you two things and people only quote one.
Absolute or relative risk reduction?
open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
Not convinced. Cross-trial comparison between two programmes with different populations and designs is not a comparison.
Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.
The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.
Disagree — that figure is from the diabetes programme and you are quoting it as an obesity endpoint.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.
Push back: an open-label extension tells you about the people who stayed. That is a different question.
Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.
discontinuation rate is a result, not a footnote
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
Agreed. Half the arguments on this site are two people quoting different trials at each other without noticing.
registry entry, protocol, publication — three different documents
Correcting myself upthread: I gave the completer figure and labelled it intention-to-treat.
SURPASS is the diabetes programme and reports glycaemic endpoints
Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.
Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed. It had not, which was reassuring and worth checking.
the appendix is where the interesting tables live
What did the confidence interval look like?
What did the confidence interval look like?
This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.
- 1Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at…10 comments in this branch · started by u/line_demir
- 2Left up and flaired Trial Data. The publication is linked rather than the…9 comments in this branch · started by u/trialwatch_theo