[Discussion] we are measuring CagriSema at the wrong time and calling it noise
we are measuring CagriSema at the wrong time and calling it noise. I have gone back and forth on this for months.
Carried an assumption over from the tirzepatide board and was corrected within an hour. Deserved.
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.
Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate because there was almost nothing on file for this compound. 99.1% against a claimed 98.5%, and I posted it because the log needs entries.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Left up. Thin evidence base, honestly labelled, which is the standard here.
Complementary mechanisms are the rationale for pairing: satiety signalling alongside incretin signalling, rather than more agonism at the same receptor.
Nothing containing this compound is approved as a standalone product, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
I would not extrapolate the tolerability profile from the monotherapy arm to the combination. The trials report them separately for a reason.
nothing containing this is approved as a standalone product
Small fix — amylin analogue, not a GLP-1 analogue. The whole mechanism argument changes on that word.
Correction: that is the combination programme, not the monotherapy readout. Different arms, different numbers.
Read the combination paper twice before saying anything here. The monotherapy and combination arms tell genuinely different stories.
Cosigning on the thin independent data. Fewer members test this, so the bands are wider and should be treated that way.
Are you comparing against a GLP-1 monotherapy result? They are not comparable.
Reading the trial literature on this without misleading yourself.
Separate the monotherapy arms from the combination arms before you do anything else. They report different effect sizes and different tolerability, and almost every summary that circulates blends them.
Then read the tolerability tables rather than the headline. In combination work the interesting question is whether adding a second mechanism adds effect without adding proportionate side effects, and that question is answered in a table nobody quotes.
Finally, note the durations. Comparing a shorter readout here with a longer one from an established compound is not a comparison at all.
phase 3 data will change most of what gets said here
How many separate lots has anyone here tested?
this is a less-travelled board and the evidence base shows it
Correcting myself upthread: I gave the 49-week figure and the paper reports 92 weeks.
read the combination arms separately from the monotherapy arms
Which receptor family are you attributing that effect to?
- 1Left up. Thin evidence base, honestly labelled, which is the standard here.7 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy