triple agonist: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1
triple agonist: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1. Numbers below. Ask me the boring questions, they are the useful ones.
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.
Increases in heart rate have been reported across this receptor class. The magnitude and clinical significance are exactly what phase 3 is powered to establish.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use, and that is a statement of fact rather than a disclaimer.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
Careful with the rankings. A phase 2 result and a phase 3 result are not on the same evidential footing and cannot be listed in one table.
Careful with the rankings.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.
GLP-1 and GIP agonism cover appetite and insulin secretion in ways that are now reasonably well characterised. Glucagon receptor agonism is the third leg and it is associated with increased energy expenditure and with effects on hepatic fat.
Mechanistically that is why this compound reads as a different proposition rather than a stronger version of a dual agonist. Clinically, the size and durability of that difference in humans is precisely what is not yet established, and anyone telling you otherwise is filling a gap with confidence.
What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.
discount_math_dm is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of food noise to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the intervals.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate out of curiosity. Result was 97.7% against a claimed 97.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
heart rate is the thing people report watching
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.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
Watched heart rate on a wearable across twelve weeks because the threads said to. It moved a little and I have no idea whether that means anything.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
- 1Careful with the rankings. A phase 2 result and a phase 3 result are not on…11 comments in this branch · started by u/nordic_pricing
- 2Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it…10 comments in this branch · started by u/clara_weiss