[Results] 49 weeks, 7kg, and dose escalation was the hard part
49 weeks, 7kg, and dose escalation was the hard part. Numbers below. Ask me the boring questions, they are the useful ones.
Numbers, in the order they matter: 49 weeks and 7kg.
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.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Trial names corrected in the title. The phase 3 programme and the phase 2 readout are not the same thing.
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
[deleted]
Yes — the glucagon arm is what makes it a different proposition rather than a stronger version of the others.
That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.
This. The phase 2 result was genuinely large and it was also 48 weeks in a few hundred people.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop
This.
nordic_pricing is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
the phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
triple agonist — GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the glucagon arm is the new part
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.
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
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.
comparing reta phase 2 to sema phase 3 is comparing different things
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything.
Adding the standing caveat: none of this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.
wait for phase 3 before you argue about rankings
That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot host that and it should not want to.
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else 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.
dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason
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
This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.
nothing here is available as a prescription product, so read every thread with that in mind
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
- 1Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older…12 comments in this branch · started by u/solene_ilunga
- 2Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more…7 comments in this branch · started by u/rui_only_ro