[Question] TRIUMPH — what am I missing here
TRIUMPH — what am I missing here. If this has been answered properly somewhere, link me and I will delete.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
The fatigue profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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 thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
hugo_pires is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. That is not a legal formality on this board — it is why there is so little independent data, why the escalation schedules people post are invented, and why nobody here can answer a dosing question.
What this board can usefully do is read the published trials carefully, log independent purity results, and be honest about how thin the evidence base is. Everything else belongs somewhere with a clinician in it.
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
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.
Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older molecules, simply because fewer members have paid for it. Fewer results means wider uncertainty, not a verdict.
Correcting my own comment above: that figure was the 36-week interim, not the 48-week endpoint.
Correcting my own comment above: that figure was the 36-week interim, not the 48-week endpoint.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
The phase 2 readout ran to 48 weeks in a few hundred participants with a slow escalation. Both the size and the duration matter when people quote the headline number.
Went up slowly, deliberately, because everything on this board says the escalation is where trouble lives. Uneventful so far and I am not going to pretend that is a finding.
- 1comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things11 comments in this branch · started by u/reflux_report
- 2the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently6 comments in this branch · started by u/sena_teixeira