is it normal to get injection-site soreness at week 72
is it normal to get injection-site soreness at week 72. Full detail below, and I have tried to keep the editorialising out of it.
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.
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.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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 standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
How fast was the escalation?
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
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.
It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors.
incretin_ivy is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
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.
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.
That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot host that and it should not want to.