[Results] 26 weeks on 1.7mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring
26 weeks on 1.7mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring. Full detail below, and I have tried to keep the editorialising out of it.
To save the first four comments: 26 weeks and 1.7mg.
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
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.
That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot host that and it should not want to.
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
Standing note on this board: unapproved compound, phase 2 data, and no titration plans for other members. That is the whole ruleset.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own 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.
Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the intervals.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
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.
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
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?
- 1Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure…8 comments in this branch · started by u/nikhil_lindqvist