how much of what we believe about cagrilintide actually comes from CagriSema threads
how much of what we believe about cagrilintide actually comes from CagriSema threads. If this has been answered properly somewhere, link me and I will delete.
The tolerability tables were more informative than the headline numbers, which is usually the case and never how it gets summarised.
Read the combination paper twice before saying anything here. The monotherapy and combination arms tell genuinely different stories.
Carried an assumption over from the tirzepatide board and was corrected within an hour. Deserved.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The honest state of the evidence on this board, since somebody should write it down.
Published clinical data exists and is genuinely interesting, particularly in combination. Independent purity data from members is thin — a handful of results across the whole site, against hundreds for the older molecules. Nothing containing this compound is approved as a standalone product, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
What follows practically: buy small if you buy at all, test what you get and post the result, and treat confident rankings against established compounds as the extrapolation they are. The board gets better as the log fills, and right now the log is nearly empty.
Disagree — you are quoting a combination arm as though it were monotherapy. Those are different results.
Kept a log purely because so few people are logging this one. It is one person and it is not data.
[removed by moderator]
nothing here is approved as a standalone product and research material is not for human use
REDEFINE is the combination programme
Right, and the tolerability data in the combination arms is the part worth reading properly rather than summarising.
Correcting myself upthread: I gave the 22-week figure and the paper reports 68 weeks.
amylin and GLP-1 are not redundant pathways
Bought small deliberately because the evidence base is thin. That felt like the only defensible approach.
Yes. Anyone reading this board should hold their conclusions loosely until phase 3 reports.
Left up. Thin evidence base, honestly labelled, which is the standard here.
How many separate lots has anyone here tested?
Small fix — amylin analogue, not a GLP-1 analogue. The whole mechanism argument changes on that word.
Complementary mechanisms are the rationale for pairing: satiety signalling alongside incretin signalling, rather than more agonism at the same receptor.
Are you comparing against a GLP-1 monotherapy result? They are not comparable.
Which trial and which readout?
Is there any independent purity data on this compound that you have seen?
Combination and monotherapy arms must be read separately. Efficacy and tolerability both differ substantially between them and summaries routinely blur the two.
- 1The honest state of the evidence on this board, since somebody should write…10 comments in this branch · started by u/ledger_mod
- 2Yes. Anyone reading this board should hold their conclusions loosely until…8 comments in this branch · started by u/pavel_halvorsen