[Trial Data] STEP 1 vs SURMOUNT-1 side by side, with the caveats
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: STEP 1 vs SURMOUNT-1 side by side, with the caveats.
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.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
Retitled: the original quoted a diabetes endpoint as an obesity result.
Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.
This. Intention-to-treat versus completer analysis routinely moves the headline by several points.
What was the discontinuation rate?
SURPASS is the diabetes programme and reports glycaemic endpoints
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
the appendix is where the interesting tables live
Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.
Which trial, and which arm?
phase 2 finds a dose, phase 3 measures the effect
[removed by moderator]
SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.
Yes — the interval is the finding.
Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.
read the endpoint before you read the headline
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.
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.
That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.
- 1Retitled: the original quoted a diabetes endpoint as an obesity result.7 comments in this branch · started by u/trialwatch_theo
- 2Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail…6 comments in this branch · started by u/forest_plot_fiona