5 months in and dose escalation is still the thing I get wrong
5 months in and dose escalation is still the thing I get wrong. Same spreadsheet I have been keeping since the start, nothing retrofitted.
Numbers, in the order they matter: 5 months.
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.
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.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the intervals.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
heart rate is the thing people report watching
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
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.
Not convinced. You are attributing a week of fatigue to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
- 1Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the…13 comments in this branch · started by u/reta_and_regret