Dr.RenalNash said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
Pushing back on Dr.RenalNash here. Two drugs, two side-effect profiles, one price. The efficiency argument only works if the tolerability really is better than dose-escalating a single agent, and I have not seen that demonstrated head to head.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator. Three questions, and they resolve most disagreements in these threads.
MikeFit_NJ said:Two drugs, two side-effect profiles, one price.
Coming at MikeFit_NJ’s question from a different direction. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?
Closing the loop on my own question.
Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.