someone explain retatrutide to me like I have not read a paper in years
someone explain retatrutide to me like I have not read a paper in years. I would rather ask a basic question now than get this wrong quietly for two months.
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.
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.
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.
That is everything I have. The rest is opinion and I have tried to keep it out.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate out of curiosity. Result was 99.1% against a claimed 99.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
[removed by moderator]
Push back: quoting the phase 2 headline as an expected outcome is not a fair reading of a small trial with wide intervals.
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.
the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits
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.
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else? They are not comparable.
Are you comparing against phase 3 numbers for something else?
priya_weiss is right about the escalation being the variable. It explains most of the difficult reports here.
Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, nothing on this board is medical advice.
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.
not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board
phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label
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 phase 2 numbers were striking and they were also 48 weeks in a small population
Kept a log specifically because there is so little published. It is one person and it is not data.
What is the source for that figure — the published paper or a summary of it?
- 1Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research…8 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy
- 2research-use-only material is not approved for human use, full stop7 comments in this branch · started by u/emil_agyeman