genuine question about glucagon that I am slightly embarrassed to ask
genuine question about glucagon that I am slightly embarrassed to ask. I would rather ask a basic question now than get this wrong quietly for two months.
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.
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.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
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.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
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.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
Cosigning the escalation point. Almost every difficult report on this board is from somebody who went up quickly.
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
Sent a vial to Medutest out of curiosity. Result was 98.2% against a claimed 97.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, nothing on this board is medical advice.
Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, nothing on this board is medical advice.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, nothing on this board is medical advice.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.