[Trial Data] TRIUMPH timeline — what we actually know vs what gets repeated
TRIUMPH timeline — what we actually know vs what gets repeated. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use, and that is a statement of fact rather than a disclaimer.
The phase 2 readout ran to 48 weeks in a few hundred participants with a slow escalation. Both the size and the duration matter when people quote the headline number.
Increases in heart rate have been reported across this receptor class. The magnitude and clinical significance are exactly what phase 3 is powered to establish.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the intervals.
Left up.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
Correcting my own comment above: that figure was the 36-week interim, not the 48-week endpoint.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of food noise to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
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.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
small trial, big effect, wide error bars
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
Glucagon receptor agonism is associated with increased energy expenditure and with hepatic effects. That is a mechanistic story with strong preclinical support and limited phase 2 human data.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
heart rate is the thing people report watching
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
That is body weight change, not fat mass.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
freya_baptista is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
Has anyone posted an independent test on this compound recently?
- 1Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the…11 comments in this branch · started by u/reta_and_regret
- 2The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference…10 comments in this branch · started by u/sena_teixeira