[Results] 8 weeks on 7.5mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring
Six-word version is the title — 8 weeks on 7.5mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring — and the rest is context.
Hard numbers: 8 weeks and 7.5mg. Anything softer than that is flagged as an impression.
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
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.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
[removed by moderator]
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
rohan_cardoso is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
Cosigning the escalation point. Almost every difficult report on this board is from somebody who went up quickly.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
What do you think the glucagon component is adding, specifically?
This. The phase 2 result was genuinely large and it was also 48 weeks in a few hundred people.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
Yes — the glucagon arm is what makes it a different proposition rather than a stronger version of the others.
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.
Careful with the rankings. A phase 2 result and a phase 3 result are not on the same evidential footing and cannot be listed in one table.
Went up slowly, deliberately, because everything on this board says the escalation is where trouble lives. Uneventful so far and I am not going to pretend that is a finding.
Sent a vial to PeptideMeter out of curiosity. Result was 97.8% against a claimed 97.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
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.
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
- 1Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is…8 comments in this branch · started by u/discount_math_dm
- 2Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it…6 comments in this branch · started by u/ismael_eriksen