[PSA] phase 2 is not what most of this community thinks it is
The one-line version is the title: phase 2 is not what most of this community thinks it is. The rest is why.
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.
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.
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.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
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.
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.
Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?
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.
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
Yes — the glucagon arm is what makes it a different proposition rather than a stronger version of the others.
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.
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running. Everything else is inference.
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.
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
small trial, big effect, wide error bars
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
Sceptical of the extrapolation. Forty-eight weeks does not tell you about seventy-two, and the curve shape is exactly what is unknown.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate out of curiosity. Result was 98.7% against a claimed 98.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
The constipation profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
- 1wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings13 comments in this branch · started by u/ewan_marchand
- 2Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range. Phase 3 estimates it…8 comments in this branch · started by u/noor_ivaturi