what would you tell week-1 you about dose escalation
The title is the whole question — what would you tell week-1 you about dose escalation — but here is why I am asking.
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.
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.
What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.
GLP-1 and GIP agonism cover appetite and insulin secretion in ways that are now reasonably well characterised. Glucagon receptor agonism is the third leg and it is associated with increased energy expenditure and with effects on hepatic fat.
Mechanistically that is why this compound reads as a different proposition rather than a stronger version of a dual agonist. Clinically, the size and durability of that difference in humans is precisely what is not yet established, and anyone telling you otherwise is filling a gap with confidence.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
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.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
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.
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
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.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
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.
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.
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.
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
heart rate is the thing people report watching
Sent a vial to Medutest out of curiosity. Result was 99.5% against a claimed 99.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is not established in humans at scale.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
[deleted]
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running. Everything else is inference.
Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members to follow and inventing one here is exactly what this board does not do.
Are you tracking heart rate at all?
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
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.
the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently
Where the evidence actually stands, since every thread here assumes a different answer.
Phase 2 reported a large mean body weight change at 48 weeks across a few hundred participants with a slow, protocol-driven escalation. The effect size was striking. The confidence intervals were wide, the population was small, and the duration was under a year.
Phase 3 is running. Until it reports, everything else — including the ranking arguments this board loves — is extrapolation from a small study. That is not a criticism of the compound; it is a description of the evidence.
- 1Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only…8 comments in this branch · started by u/freya_baptista
- 2Same read. The energy-expenditure mechanism is the interesting bit and it is…8 comments in this branch · started by u/ferran_krastev