triple agonist: what the trials say vs what this community says
triple agonist: what the trials say vs what this community says. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments. 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. Glucagon…
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.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
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.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
[removed by moderator]
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
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.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population