phase 2 — 18 things I got wrong before I got it right
phase 2 — 18 things I got wrong before I got it right. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
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.
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.
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
Correcting my own comment above: that figure was the 36-week interim, not the 48-week endpoint.
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.
Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
Are you tracking heart rate at all?
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.
- 1What do you think the glucagon component is adding, specifically?8 comments in this branch · started by u/careful_gradient_notes
- 2Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not…6 comments in this branch · started by u/marit_laurent