[Readout] REDEFINE 1 and what CagriSema actually adds over sema alone
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: REDEFINE 1 and what CagriSema actually adds over sema alone.
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
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.
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.
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.
Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed. It had not, which was reassuring and worth checking.
Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.
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.
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?
The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me and they were in a supplementary table.
the appendix is where the interesting tables live
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.
Agreed on comparators. "Superior" means nothing until you know superior to what and at what dose.
Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.
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.
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
STEP is semaglutide obesity, SURMOUNT is tirzepatide obesity, they are not interchangeable
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase
- 1Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is…7 comments in this branch · started by u/first_hundred
- 2That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers…6 comments in this branch · started by u/kaia_cabrera