triple agonist: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1
triple agonist: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1. Numbers below. Ask me the boring questions, they are the useful ones. 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.…
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.
Careful with the rankings.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
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.
discount_math_dm is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of food noise to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.