[Question] how do you actually verify glucagon
how do you actually verify glucagon, and I want the answer with the reasoning attached rather than just the conclusion. Where the evidence actually stands, since every thread here assumes a different answer. Phase 2 reported a large mean body weight change at 48 weeks across a few hundred participants with a slow,…
It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm is the genuinely novel component and it is the one with the least human outcome data behind it.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it precisely in a bigger population and catches what phase 2 was too small to see. Treating them as the same tier of evidence is the recurring error here.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
Has anyone posted an independent test on this compound recently?
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.