[Question] how do you actually verify SURPASS
how do you actually verify SURPASS. I would rather ask a basic question now than get this wrong quietly for two months.
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.
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.
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Do you have the publication or the press release?
Added the trial identifier to the title so this thread is findable in two years.
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.
Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.
Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.
Push back: an open-label extension tells you about the people who stayed. That is a different question.
intention to treat versus completers changes the number substantially
the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline
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.
FLOW was kidney outcomes and it is the one nobody quotes
Disagree — that figure is from the diabetes programme and you are quoting it as an obesity endpoint.