dose escalation — my 2-week log, condensed into one table
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: dose escalation — my 2-week log, condensed into 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.
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.
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.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
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.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
The fatigue profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older molecules, simply because fewer members have paid for it. Fewer results means wider uncertainty, not a verdict.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of sulphur burps to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
This. The phase 2 result was genuinely large and it was also 48 weeks in a few hundred people.
Sent a vial to Medutest out of curiosity. Result was 97.2% against a claimed 97.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
heart rate is the thing people report watching
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
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.
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
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.
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
- 1This. The phase 2 result was genuinely large and it was also 48 weeks in a…9 comments in this branch · started by u/divya_bakken
- 2Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only…8 comments in this branch · started by u/isabela_nilsen