[Lab] WXT reta — PeptideMeter came back 97.7% against a claimed 97.0%
Short version of the title, which is already short: WXT reta — PeptideMeter came back 97.7% against a claimed 97.0%. Longer version underneath.
Pulling the figures out of the title: 97.7% and 97.0%. All of it is written down as it happened rather than reconstructed.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Watched heart rate on a wearable across twelve weeks because the threads said to. It moved a little and I have no idea whether that means anything.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
- WXWXT source pageWuXi TIDES (WuXi AppTec Testing Division) · Wuxi · 92% here, rank 14 · shop at wuxitides.net →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
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.
What do you think the glucagon component is adding, specifically?
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the intervals.
What do you think the glucagon component is adding, specifically?
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
The muscle cramps profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
Are you tracking heart rate at all?
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
heart rate is the thing people report watching
Careful with the rankings. A phase 2 result and a phase 3 result are not on the same evidential footing and cannot be listed in one table.
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
Correcting my own comment above: that figure was the 36-week interim, not the 48-week endpoint.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
- 1Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not…8 comments in this branch · started by u/helga_vermeulen
- 2What do you think the glucagon component is adding, specifically?6 comments in this branch · started by u/isabela_nilsen