This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Surrogate endpoints: an endpoint that is not the outcome that matters but is measured as a stand-in. HbA1c is a surrogate for long-term glucose control and the short-term complications it prevents. Weight loss is a surrogate for metabolic health and long-term outcomes. Surrogates are useful but not identical to the endpoint that matters.
Worth separating two things that post #28 runs together.
Multiplicity and multiple comparisons: if a trial tests many hypotheses, the chance of a false positive on at least one by random chance increases. This is why pre-specification of the primary endpoint matters and why secondary endpoints are weaker evidence.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Absolute numbers, not just relative: a 30% relative reduction tells you the ratio but not the practical magnitude. The event rate in each arm and the difference between them tells you how many people benefit.
post #34 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Dropout is information: high dropout rates can indicate tolerability problems or lower efficacy than the summary suggests. Where the analysis handled dropouts matters. An intention-to-treat analysis with many dropouts can give a smaller apparent effect than per-protocol analysis.
On post #32 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Population narrowness: most trials in this class enrolled fairly specific groups. Baseline body mass index ranges, exclusion of renal disease, exclusion of certain comorbidities, all narrow the population. Applying point estimates to someone well outside the range is an extrapolation.
Surrogate endpoints: an endpoint that is not the outcome that matters but is measured as a stand-in. HbA1c is a surrogate for long-term glucose control and the short-term complications it prevents. Weight loss is a surrogate for metabolic health and long-term outcomes. Surrogates are useful but not identical to the endpoint that matters.
Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones
On the subject in the title: Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022). Please read it before…
|
2 | 27k | 14mo | |
|
Run-in periods and the population they select
On the subject in the title: Run-in periods and the population they select Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019). Please read it before posting; the…
|
+130 | 142 | 7.3k | 1mo |
|
Follow-up: Open-label extensions: what survives and what does not
Open-label extensions: what survives and what does not — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023) with SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) and…
|
+22 | 26 | 397 | 16mo |
|
Second pass at: Reading a trial's population section before its results
Second pass at: Reading a trial's population section before its results Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) cited in…
|
4 | 9.5k | 10h | |
|
Interim analyses and stopping rules
Interim analyses and stopping rules Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support of a claim I do not think…
|
+25 | 29 | 35k | 16d |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coming back to: What the published dose-response for semaglutide actually looks like above 2.4 mg
The question in the title: What the published dose-response for semaglutide actually looks like above 2.4 mg I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I have seen LEADER ( N Engl J…
|
+23 | 27 | 9.9k | 1mo |
|
Reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press release
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Reading SURMOUNT-1 without the press release Everything below is what sits behind that. I have seen SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) cited in support of a claim I do not…
|
+103 | 121 | 7k | 7mo |
|
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) with SURPASS-4 ( Lancet ,…
|
+71 | 79 | 906 | 3mo |
|
Coming back to: The SOUL trial and oral semaglutide cardiovascular outcomes
The SOUL trial and oral semaglutide cardiovascular outcomes — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen LEADER ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support of a claim I do not…
|
+100 | 104 | 4.2k | 5mo |
|
Revisiting: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) with SURPASS-2 ( N…
|
+21 | 25 | 46k | 3mo |