[Results] 38 weeks, 6kg, and satiety was the hard part
38 weeks, 6kg, and satiety was the hard part. Posting the boring middle of the process, because the internet is full of the start and the end and nothing else.
Pulling the figures out of the title: 38 weeks and 6kg. All of it is written down as it happened rather than reconstructed.
The tolerability tables were more informative than the headline numbers, which is usually the case and never how it gets summarised.
Went looking for independent results on this and found a handful across the whole site. That is the honest state of the evidence.
Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Combination and monotherapy arms must be read separately. Efficacy and tolerability both differ substantially between them and summaries routinely blur the two.
Which trial and which readout?
Asked a question here that turned out to be based on a mechanism confusion. Three people untangled it patiently.
Monotherapy arm or combination arm?
Complementary mechanisms are the rationale for pairing: satiety signalling alongside incretin signalling, rather than more agonism at the same receptor.
Cosigning on the thin independent data. Fewer members test this, so the bands are wider and should be treated that way.
[deleted]
Correcting myself upthread: I gave the 94-week figure and the paper reports 45 weeks.
satiety signalling rather than incretin signalling
Carried an assumption over from the tirzepatide board and was corrected within an hour. Deserved.
That result is preclinical. Worth flagging, since the thread has been reading it as human data.
Kept a log purely because so few people are logging this one. It is one person and it is not data.
Push back: the evidence base here is thin enough that a confident ranking against the established compounds is not supportable.
Independent purity data on this compound is sparse compared with the older molecules, simply because far fewer members have paid for testing. Sparse data means wide uncertainty, not a verdict.
Are you comparing against a GLP-1 monotherapy result? They are not comparable.
Disagree — you are quoting a combination arm as though it were monotherapy. Those are different results.
What does the tolerability table in that paper actually say?
What does the tolerability table in that paper actually say?
Adding the standing caveat — nothing here is approved standalone and research material is not for human use.
Dosing intuitions from the GLP-1 boards do not transfer. Different receptor family, different exposure-response, and no published schedule for members to reason from.
Yes. The combination is where the interesting effect sizes are, and the monotherapy arms read very differently.
this is a less-travelled board and the evidence base shows it
the co-agonism argument is about complementary mechanisms
nothing here is approved as a standalone product and research material is not for human use
This. Complementary mechanisms rather than more of the same is the actual argument for the pairing.
Is there any independent purity data on this compound that you have seen?
- 1Combination and monotherapy arms must be read separately. Efficacy and…9 comments in this branch · started by u/emil_agyeman
- 2What does the tolerability table in that paper actually say?7 comments in this branch · started by u/lucia_bruun