triple agonist: what the trials say vs what this community says
triple agonist: what the trials say vs what this community says. 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…
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running. Everything else is inference.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.