triple agonist: what the trials say vs what this community says
triple agonist: what the trials say vs what this community says. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments.
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.
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.
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.
Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
the TRIUMPH programme is still running, so anything definitive is premature
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
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.
Phase 2 estimates effect and finds a dose range.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
[removed by moderator]
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
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.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
the energy-expenditure story is mechanistically interesting and clinically unproven
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
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.
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
Are you tracking heart rate at all?
The constipation profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, nothing on this board is medical advice.
a lot of the confident posting here is extrapolation
Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running. Everything else is inference.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
Disagree with this specific inference. A 48-week readout does not tell you the shape of the curve after it.
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first.
Agreed, and the glucagon arm is exactly why the comparison threads do not work.
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
How fast was the escalation? That is usually the variable that explains the reports.
- 1Where the evidence actually stands, since every thread here assumes a…11 comments in this branch · started by u/two_mil_or_one
- 2Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase…10 comments in this branch · started by u/cagrilintide_enthusiast