does phase 2 actually matter or is it forum lore at this point
does phase 2 actually matter or is it forum lore at this point, and I want the answer with the reasoning attached rather than just the conclusion.
Where the evidence actually stands, since every thread here assumes a different answer.
Phase 2 reported a large mean body weight change at 48 weeks across a few hundred participants with a slow, protocol-driven escalation. The effect size was striking. The confidence intervals were wide, the population was small, and the duration was under a year.
Phase 3 is running. Until it reports, everything else — including the ranking arguments this board loves — is extrapolation from a small study. That is not a criticism of the compound; it is a description of the evidence.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm is the genuinely novel component and it is the one with the least human outcome data behind it.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
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
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.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
trialwatch_theo is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
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.
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
Yes — the glucagon arm is what makes it a different proposition rather than a stronger version of the others.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
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.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
- 1the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature6 comments in this branch · started by u/trialwatch_theo