what would you tell week-1 you about glucagon
what would you tell week-1 you about glucagon, and I want the answer with the reasoning attached rather than just the conclusion.
Sent a vial to Medutest out of curiosity. Result was 99.2% against a claimed 98.5%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
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.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
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.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
Trial names corrected in the title. The phase 3 programme and the phase 2 readout are not the same thing.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
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.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
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.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
- 1Trial names corrected in the title. The phase 3 programme and the phase 2…6 comments in this branch · started by u/reta_and_regret