STEP 1 and STEP 4 are two different questions. The first asks what happens when treatment is added; the second asks what happens when it is withdrawn after a run-in. Quoting the first as evidence about maintenance is the commonest misreading of the programme.
Comparing the STEP programme populations: who was actually enrolled Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on comparing the STEP programme populations, because they get bundled and then argued about as one thing.
The first is descriptive: what has actually been observed, by whom, and how. The second is causal: why. I am asking about the first only.
Semaglutide versus liraglutide in STEP 8: semaglutide produced greater weight reduction and the discontinuation rates differed. But the trial was open-label for the dosing schedule, which admits expectation effects. Weekly versus daily itself is part of the comparison, not a confounding variable to be removed.
I would want a second opinion before relying on that.
STEP 1 and STEP 4 are two different questions. The first asks what happens when treatment is added; the second asks what happens when it is withdrawn after a run-in. Quoting the first as evidence about maintenance is the commonest misreading of the programme.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What the published dose-response for semaglutide actually looks like above 2.4 mg — a second dataset
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What the published dose-response for semaglutide actually looks like above 2.4 mg — a second dataset Two things I would like separated before…
|
+112 | 130 | 2.2k | 16mo |
|
Second pass at: Semaglutide and alcohol: what is actually documented
Second pass at: Semaglutide and alcohol: what is actually documented Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers…
|
+15 | 19 | 4.4k | 13mo |
|
What SELECT changed about how semaglutide is discussed, and what it did not
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What SELECT changed about how semaglutide is discussed, and what it did not I was wrong about SELECT in a thread last spring and I would like to…
|
+120 | 132 | 2k | 14mo |
|
Molecular mass of semaglutide and why the figure differs between sources
Molecular mass of semaglutide and why the figure differs between sources — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about a…
|
+101 | 110 | 12k | 16h |
|
Molecular mass of semaglutide and why the figure differs between sources — does this still hold?
Molecular mass of semaglutide and why the figure differs between sources — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Putting the numbers in…
|
+94 | 102 | 14k | 19mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reverse causation in a cohort study of weight and outcome
On the subject in the title: Reverse causation in a cohort study of weight and outcome Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on reverse causation. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and…
|
+10 | 14 | 11k | 7mo |
|
When a dose reduction is the correct response to a side effect — a second dataset
When a dose reduction is the correct response to a side effect — a second dataset I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Posting a small dataset on dose…
|
+10 | 14 | 42k | 2mo |
|
SURMOUNT-4 and what withdrawal data does and does not tell an individual — one year on
Posting this under the heading it deserves: SURMOUNT-4 and what withdrawal data does and does not tell an individual — one year on Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to disagree carefully…
|
+122 | 136 | 48k | 9mo |
|
Second pass at: A pooled estimate that changed when one trial was added
On the subject in the title: Second pass at: A pooled estimate that changed when one trial was added Working notes rather than a conclusion. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on pooled…
|
+26 | 30 | 22k | 1mo |
|
Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Splitting a weekly dose in two: the pharmacokinetic argument against — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. I have read the maintained page…
|
+138 | 148 | 1.8k | 2y |