how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from SURMOUNT threads
Asking properly rather than in a comment on somebody else’s thread: how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from SURMOUNT threads. Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight. The discontinuation numbers were the most…
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.
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
Cosigning on discontinuation. It is a result about tolerability and it gets buried every time.
read the endpoint before you read the headline
intention to treat versus completers changes the number substantially
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation.
alcohol_aversion is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.
Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.
That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.