[Results] 88 weeks on 2.4mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring
Six-word version is the title — 88 weeks on 2.4mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring — and the rest is context. Hard numbers: 88 weeks and 2.4mg. Anything softer than that is flagged as an impression. The phase 2 readout ran to 48 weeks in a few hundred participants with a slow escalation. Both the size and the…
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.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first.
devils_advocate_d is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.