help me understand SURMOUNT, I have read the wiki twice
The title is the whole question — help me understand SURMOUNT, I have read the wiki twice — but here is why I am asking.
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.
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.
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
check who the comparator was before you compare anything
Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.
a mean is not a promise
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
a mean is not a promise
Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.
STEP is semaglutide obesity, SURMOUNT is tirzepatide obesity, they are not interchangeable
This. Intention-to-treat versus completer analysis routinely moves the headline by several points.
This.
This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.
What did the confidence interval look like?
registry entry, protocol, publication — three different documents
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me and they were in a supplementary table.
Left up and flaired Trial Data. The publication is linked rather than the coverage, which is what we ask for.
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.
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.
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
- 1check who the comparator was before you compare anything12 comments in this branch · started by u/hub_ops