genuine question about TRIUMPH that I am slightly embarrassed to ask
genuine question about TRIUMPH that I am slightly embarrassed to ask. I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
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.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it precisely in a bigger population and catches what phase 2 was too small to see. Treating them as the same tier of evidence is the recurring error here.
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.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
Are you tracking heart rate at all?
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?
[deleted]
heart rate is the thing people report watching
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
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.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
What do you think the glucagon component is adding, specifically?
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members to follow and inventing one here is exactly what this board does not do.
Removed the escalation schedule.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
The sulphur burps profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older molecules, simply because fewer members have paid for it. Fewer results means wider uncertainty, not a verdict.
- 1wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings9 comments in this branch · started by u/helga_vermeulen
- 2Are you tracking heart rate at all?7 comments in this branch · started by u/yannick_salinas