[Lab] WXT reta — PeptideMeter came back 97.1% against a claimed 97.0%
Short version of the title, which is already short: WXT reta — PeptideMeter came back 97.1% against a claimed 97.0%. Longer version underneath.
Figures up front so nobody has to dig: 97.1% and 97.0%.
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.
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.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
- WXWXT source pageWuXi TIDES (WuXi AppTec Testing Division) · Wuxi · 92% here, rank 14 · shop at wuxitides.net →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Where the evidence actually stands, since every thread here assumes a different answer.
Phase 2 reported a large mean body weight change at 48 weeks across a few hundred participants with a slow, protocol-driven escalation. The effect size was striking. The confidence intervals were wide, the population was small, and the duration was under a year.
Phase 3 is running. Until it reports, everything else — including the ranking arguments this board loves — is extrapolation from a small study. That is not a criticism of the compound; it is a description of the evidence.
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
Sent a vial to Medutest out of curiosity. Result was 98.0% against a claimed 97.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
heart rate is the thing people report watching
heart rate is the thing people report watching
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
[removed by moderator]
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
Sceptical of the extrapolation.
titration_marshal is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
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.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot host that and it should not want to.
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.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members to follow and inventing one here is exactly what this board does not do.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
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.
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.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Watched heart rate on a wearable across twelve weeks because the threads said to. It moved a little and I have no idea whether that means anything.
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
- 1heart rate is the thing people report watching10 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy
- 2the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently6 comments in this branch · started by u/reta_and_regret