[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.…
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?