[Discussion] cagri is the most underrated molecule in this space
Thinking out loud about this: cagri is the most underrated molecule in this space.
Nothing containing this compound is approved as a standalone product, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
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.
Sent a vial to Medutest because there was almost nothing on file for this compound. 97.6% against a claimed 97.0%, and I posted it because the log needs entries.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
phase 3 data will change most of what gets said here
phase 3 data will change most of what gets said here
Adding the standing caveat — nothing here is approved standalone and research material is not for human use.
Correction: that is the combination programme, not the monotherapy readout. Different arms, different numbers.
Yes. The combination is where the interesting effect sizes are, and the monotherapy arms read very differently.
nausea profile in the combination trials is the thing to read carefully
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.
nothing here is approved as a standalone product and research material is not for human use
Are you comparing against a GLP-1 monotherapy result? They are not comparable.
long-acting amylin is the whole point of the molecule
Independent purity data on this compound is sparse compared with the older molecules, simply because far fewer members have paid for testing. Sparse data means wide uncertainty, not a verdict.
The tolerability tables were more informative than the headline numbers, which is usually the case and never how it gets summarised.