[Discussion] can we stop arguing about TRIUMPH until somebody posts a number
Question in the title, detail here: can we stop arguing about TRIUMPH until somebody posts a number.
Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards. Completer analyses only those who finished. The second is systematically more flattering and both are legitimate if labelled.
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
Cardiovascular outcome trials are powered for events, not for weight, and are typically run in a different population with different inclusion criteria. Reading a weight number out of one is reading a secondary endpoint.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?
Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.
trial populations get support that nobody on this board gets
[removed by moderator]
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
The registered protocol is public. Comparing the registered primary endpoint with the reported one is a two-minute check and it is how outcome switching gets caught.
Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.
A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two trials with overlapping intervals have not disagreed, whatever their point estimates look like next to each other.
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
Why comparing across trials almost never works, with the specific failure modes.
Different populations: an obesity programme and a diabetes programme enrol different people with different baseline characteristics. Different endpoints: body weight change, glycaemic control and cardiovascular events are not convertible. Different durations: 68 weeks and 72 weeks are not the same, and the curves have not flattened by either.
Different analysis populations: one paper reports intention-to-treat, another emphasises completers. Different support: some trial designs include structured lifestyle contact that no member of this board receives.
Stack those and the "X beats Y" tables that circulate here are comparing five things at once and attributing the difference to the molecule.
What did the confidence interval look like?
That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.
Do you have the publication or the press release?
- 1A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two…7 comments in this branch · started by u/hugo_norgaard