[Discussion] the pharmacology advice in here is 3 years out of date
the pharmacology advice in here is 3 years out of date, and I am aware this is a minority view on this board.
3 years. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.
The half-life explanation was the thing that made weekly dosing intuitive for me rather than arbitrary.
Tried to build a mental model from mechanism alone and produced a confident prediction that the trial data flatly contradicted.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Receptor expression in a tissue is necessary but not sufficient for an effect. You also need the agonist to reach it at relevant exposure, and that is where a lot of confident mechanism talk falls down.
glucagon agonism sounds paradoxical until you read the energy expenditure work
Not convinced by the linearity assumption. Dose-response in this class is not linear and the trials show it.
Speculation is welcome here if it is labelled. This one has been relabelled rather than removed.
Speculation is welcome here if it is labelled.
sig_figs_sam is right that mechanism gives direction and not magnitude. Worth pinning.
[removed by moderator]
Push back: a receptor being expressed in a tissue does not tell you the agonist reaches it at therapeutic exposure.
Speculation is welcome here if it is labelled.
Adding the caveat the paper itself makes in its limitations section, which is stronger than anything in this thread.
Went looking for human data on a mechanism everybody here asserts. Found preclinical work and one small study. That was clarifying.
That study was in a rodent model. Worth stating, since the thread has been reading it as human data.
Yes. The central component is the one that explains the reports on this site better than gastric emptying does.
- 1Receptor expression in a tissue is necessary but not sufficient for an…8 comments in this branch · started by u/aleksi_eriksen