am I the only one who found glucagon harder than the injections
am I the only one who found glucagon harder than the injections. 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.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
[removed by moderator]
small trial, big effect, wide error bars
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.
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
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.
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
Disagree.
yannick_barros is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
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.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
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.
Are you tracking heart rate at all?
Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older molecules, simply because fewer members have paid for it.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. That is not a legal formality on this board — it is why there is so little independent data, why the escalation schedules people post are invented, and why nobody here can answer a dosing question.
What this board can usefully do is read the published trials carefully, log independent purity results, and be honest about how thin the evidence base is. Everything else belongs somewhere with a clinician in it.
The standing caveat, written out properly because it keeps getting compressed into a footnote.
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
- 1Watched heart rate on a wearable across twelve weeks because the threads…7 comments in this branch · started by u/careful_gradient_again