triple agonist is the most under-discussed thing on this board
triple agonist is the most under-discussed thing on this board, which sounds obvious until you try to state the evidence for it.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
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.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Trial names corrected in the title. The phase 3 programme and the phase 2 readout are not the same thing.
Trial names corrected in the title.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
Same read.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. That is not a legal formality on this board — it is why there is so little independent data, why the escalation schedules people post are invented, and why nobody here can answer a dosing question.
What this board can usefully do is read the published trials carefully, log independent purity results, and be honest about how thin the evidence base is. Everything else belongs somewhere with a clinician in it.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm is the genuinely novel component and it is the one with the least human outcome data behind it.
Correcting my own comment above: that figure was the 36-week interim, not the 48-week endpoint.
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
This. The phase 2 result was genuinely large and it was also 48 weeks in a few hundred people.
The fatigue profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
- 1The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting…8 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy