[Lab] 9th independent test on QYB — 97.7% on a claimed 97.0%, and the trend is the interesting part
Filing this under things worth writing down: 9th independent test on QYB — 97.7% on a claimed 97.0%, and the trend is the interesting part.
Numbers, in the order they matter: 97.7% and 97.0%.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Watched heart rate on a wearable across twelve weeks because the threads said to. It moved a little and I have no idea whether that means anything.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
- QYQYB source pageChinaPeptides Co., Ltd. (QYAOBIO) · Shanghai · 93% here, rank 11 · shop at qyaobiopeptides.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for 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?
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
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.
This. The phase 2 result was genuinely large and it was also 48 weeks in a few hundred people.
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.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
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.
Increases in heart rate have been reported across this receptor class.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot host that and it should not want to.
[removed by moderator]
Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?
Sent a vial to Janoshik out of curiosity. Result was 97.9% against a claimed 97.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running. Everything else is inference.
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
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.
It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors.
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.
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.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
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.
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
mateusz_mensah is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
- 1It is a triple agonist at the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors. The…8 comments in this branch · started by u/honest_syringe33