reading triple agonist threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
Something I keep coming back to: reading triple agonist threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly. 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. Nothing containing this compound is approved…
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
This. The phase 2 result was genuinely large and it was also 48 weeks in a few hundred people.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
Yes — the glucagon arm is what makes it a different proposition rather than a stronger version of the others.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of fatigue to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running. Everything else is inference.
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?