three years of CagriSema threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
three years of CagriSema threads, summarised so you do not have to read them. I have gone back and forth on this for months.
Combination and monotherapy arms must be read separately. Efficacy and tolerability both differ substantially between them and summaries routinely blur the two.
Amylin is co-secreted with insulin and acts on satiety and gastric emptying through its own receptor complexes. An amylin analogue is therefore not a variant of an incretin agonist — it is a different signalling axis.
The engineering problem was duration: native amylin is short-acting and aggregation-prone. A long-acting analogue suitable for weekly administration is what makes the combination clinically interesting.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Dosing intuitions from the GLP-1 boards do not transfer. Different receptor family, different exposure-response, and no published schedule for members to reason from.
Small fix — amylin analogue, not a GLP-1 analogue. The whole mechanism argument changes on that word.
Kept a log purely because so few people are logging this one. It is one person and it is not data.
Left up. Thin evidence base, honestly labelled, which is the standard here.
Left up.
Disagreeing with this line: that figure is from a combination arm and is being quoted as monotherapy.
Monotherapy arm or combination arm?
Do you have the publication or a summary of it?
Sent a vial to Janoshik because there was almost nothing on file for this compound. 98.7% against a claimed 98.0%, and I posted it because the log needs entries.