someone explain ATTAIN to me like I have not read a paper in years
Asking properly rather than in a comment on somebody else’s thread: someone explain ATTAIN to me like I have not read a paper in years.
Went looking for independent testing on this and found essentially nothing, which was clarifying.
Compared milligram figures across two completely different molecule classes in a comment. Deserved the correction.
Spent an evening reading about small-molecule agonism at a peptide receptor. Genuinely interesting engineering.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Milligram comparisons across molecule classes are meaningless. Potency is a property of the molecule at its receptor, not of the number on the label.
Corrected a cross-class dose comparison in the title. The body is untouched.
Small fix — the two programme names got swapped upthread and it changes which population the figure came from.
Cosigning on daily dosing. It changes the exposure profile and it changes adherence, in both directions.
What is actually known, and what is being assumed.
Known: it is a small-molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist, dosed daily, with clinical programmes reporting in both obesity and type 2 diabetes. Its tolerability profile broadly resembles the class in the data published so far.
Assumed, frequently and confidently: that milligram comparisons with injectables mean something, that adherence is straightforwardly better because it is a tablet, that peptide purity discussions transfer to it. None of those hold. And nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere, which makes research-use-only material exactly that — not approved for human use.
phase 3 is where the comparison becomes fair
This. The absence of food and water timing restrictions is the practical difference people will actually notice.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Disagree. You are comparing doses across a small molecule and a peptide, which is not a comparison of anything.
a non-peptide agonist does not degrade the way a peptide does
Daily rather than weekly sounds trivial until you think about what a missed dose means in each case.
Push back: daily dosing is not automatically better adherence. It is a different failure mode, not a solved problem.
The no-timing-restriction thing is the part I would care about most in practice, and it barely gets mentioned here.
Agreed — non-peptide is the fact that everything else follows from, including the manufacturing and the analytics.
I would not assume the tolerability profile transfers exactly. Similar class effects, different exposure profile.
Daily dosing gives a very different exposure profile from a weekly injectable: peaks and troughs within each day rather than a smoothed weekly curve.
the boards keep comparing it to injectables at matched doses, which is meaningless
- 1What is actually known, and what is being assumed. Known: it is a…8 comments in this branch · started by u/taper_off_tabitha