[Results] 17 weeks, 6kg, and cagrilintide was the hard part
17 weeks, 6kg, and cagrilintide was the hard part. Full detail below, and I have tried to keep the editorialising out of it.
Pulling the figures out of the title: 17 weeks and 6kg. All of it is written down as it happened rather than reconstructed.
Asked a question here that turned out to be based on a mechanism confusion. Three people untangled it patiently.
Kept a log purely because so few people are logging this one. It is one person and it is not data.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
phase 3 data will change most of what gets said here
long-acting amylin is the whole point of the molecule
Cosigning on the thin independent data. Fewer members test this, so the bands are wider and should be treated that way.
The tolerability tables were more informative than the headline numbers, which is usually the case and never how it gets summarised.
this is a less-travelled board and the evidence base shows it
[removed by moderator]
amylin and GLP-1 are not redundant pathways
Right, and the tolerability data in the combination arms is the part worth reading properly rather than summarising.
Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate because there was almost nothing on file for this compound. 98.5% against a claimed 98.0%, and I posted it because the log needs entries.
amylin analogue, different receptor family, different story
Carried an assumption over from the tirzepatide board and was corrected within an hour. Deserved.
That is preclinical work and the thread is treating it as a human finding.
Same view — long-acting is the engineering achievement here, and it is why the molecule exists at all.
Yes. The combination is where the interesting effect sizes are, and the monotherapy arms read very differently.
Small fix — amylin analogue, not a GLP-1 analogue. The whole mechanism argument changes on that word.
Yes.
Adding the standing caveat — nothing here is approved standalone and research material is not for human use.
Are you comparing against a GLP-1 monotherapy result? They are not comparable.
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.
Correcting myself upthread: I gave the 22-week figure and the paper reports 89 weeks.
Read the combination paper twice before saying anything here. The monotherapy and combination arms tell genuinely different stories.
Is there any independent purity data on this compound that you have seen?
Independent result added to the log. Thank you for paying for it — there are very few on this compound.
the monotherapy numbers are modest and that is not the point
What does the tolerability table in that paper actually say?
- 1Independent purity data on this compound is sparse compared with the older…7 comments in this branch · started by u/ms_fragmenter
- 2That is preclinical work and the thread is treating it as a human finding.6 comments in this branch · started by u/rt_shift_reggie