[Discussion] glucagon is doing more work than we give it credit for
glucagon is doing more work than we give it credit for. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down.
Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure and with hepatic effects. That is a mechanistic story with strong preclinical support and limited phase 2 human data.
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.
Increases in heart rate have been reported across this receptor class. The magnitude and clinical significance are exactly what phase 3 is powered to establish.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.
GLP-1 and GIP agonism cover appetite and insulin secretion in ways that are now reasonably well characterised. Glucagon receptor agonism is the third leg and it is associated with increased energy expenditure and with effects on hepatic fat.
Mechanistically that is why this compound reads as a different proposition rather than a stronger version of a dual agonist. Clinically, the size and durability of that difference in humans is precisely what is not yet established, and anyone telling you otherwise is filling a gap with confidence.
What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, nothing on this board is medical advice.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
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, protocol-driven escalation. The effect size was striking. The confidence intervals were wide, the population was small, and the duration was under a year.
Phase 3 is running. Until it reports, everything else — including the ranking arguments this board loves — is extrapolation from a small study. That is not a criticism of the compound; it is a description of the evidence.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use, and that is a statement of fact rather than a disclaimer.
Yes — the glucagon arm is what makes it a different proposition rather than a stronger version of the others.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
This. The phase 2 result was genuinely large and it was also 48 weeks in a few hundred people.
- 1Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research…6 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy