CagriSema: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1
CagriSema: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1. Full detail below, and I have tried to keep the editorialising out of it.
Bought small deliberately because the evidence base is thin. That felt like the only defensible approach.
Asked a question here that turned out to be based on a mechanism confusion. Three people untangled it patiently.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Independent purity data on this compound is sparse compared with the older molecules, simply because far fewer members have paid for testing. Sparse data means wide uncertainty, not a verdict.
Right, and the tolerability data in the combination arms is the part worth reading properly rather than summarising.
independent purity data on this compound is thin
the interesting data is the combination, not the monotherapy
This. Complementary mechanisms rather than more of the same is the actual argument for the pairing.
Correction: that is the combination programme, not the monotherapy readout. Different arms, different numbers.
Agreed that the monotherapy numbers look modest out of context and that the context is the whole story.
Disagree — you are quoting a combination arm as though it were monotherapy. Those are different results.
Correcting myself upthread: I gave the 88-week figure and the paper reports 52 weeks.
phase 3 data will change most of what gets said here
nausea profile in the combination trials is the thing to read carefully
nausea profile in the combination trials is the thing to read carefully
Agreed, and the combination arms are where the interesting numbers actually live.
Is there any independent purity data on this compound that you have seen?
amylin analogue, different receptor family, different story
amylin analogue, different receptor family, different story
yara_mensah is right that the evidence base here is thin. Conclusions should be held loosely.
Complementary mechanisms are the rationale for pairing: satiety signalling alongside incretin signalling, rather than more agonism at the same receptor.
Push back: the evidence base here is thin enough that a confident ranking against the established compounds is not supportable.
I would not extrapolate the tolerability profile from the monotherapy arm to the combination. The trials report them separately for a reason.
I would not extrapolate the tolerability profile from the monotherapy arm to the combination.
Disagreeing with this line: that figure is from a combination arm and is being quoted as monotherapy.
Yes. Anyone reading this board should hold their conclusions loosely until phase 3 reports.
The engineering problem was duration: native amylin is short-acting and aggregation-prone. A long-acting analogue suitable for weekly administration is what makes the combination clinically interesting.
Nothing containing this compound is approved as a standalone product, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Yes. The combination is where the interesting effect sizes are, and the monotherapy arms read very differently.
read the combination arms separately from the monotherapy arms
do not assume the dosing intuitions from the GLP-1 boards transfer
this is a less-travelled board and the evidence base shows it
- 1Independent purity data on this compound is sparse compared with the older…21 comments in this branch · started by u/liv_kuipers