u/yannick_salinas

Compared milligram figures across two completely different molecule classes in a comment. Deserved the correction.

Small fix — the two programme names got swapped upthread and it changes which population the figure came from.

Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.

Not convinced.

This is the sentence the rest of the board should read first. Phase 2 is not a label.

That reads as a titration plan for an unapproved compound. This board cannot host that and it should not want to.

ATTAIN and ACHIEVE are the programmes to keep straight

Careful — that is a dosing recommendation dressed as an anecdote, and this board removes those.

Milligram comparisons across molecule classes are meaningless. Potency is a property of the molecule at its receptor, not of the number on the label.

the glucagon component is why the metabolic story reads differently

Are you tracking heart rate at all?

Went up slowly, deliberately, because everything on this board says the escalation is where trouble lives. Uneventful so far and I am not going to pretend that is a finding.

Week 4 for me was completely flat and I was convinced something was wrong. It was not. Month two was where everything happened.

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.

Yes. Anyone reading this board should hold their conclusions loosely until phase 3 reports.

Bacteriostatic water contains a preservative, which is what makes repeated entry into a vial reasonable.

Adding the one habit worth starting today: write the concentration on the vial.

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

Cardiovascular outcome trials are powered for events, not for weight, and are typically run in a different population with different inclusion criteri

nayeli_fonseca is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.

Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.

not approved anywhere, which is the single most important fact in this board

Not convinced. You are attributing a week of injection-site soreness to the glucagon arm when the escalation rate alone would explain it.

The injection-site soreness profile felt different rather than worse. Hard to describe and impossible to quantify, so take it as an impression.

Sent a vial to PeptideMeter out of curiosity. Result was 98.9% against a claimed 98.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.

phase 2 data only, and people quote it like it is a label

The injection was scarier in my head than in reality. It took about ten seconds and I felt slightly silly afterwards.

Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.

heart rate is the thing people report watching

Which phase 2 arm are you quoting, and at what week?

Is that the 48-week figure or an earlier readout?

Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.

Which country? Half the answers here only apply in one place.

Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed. It had not, which was reassuring and worth checking.

Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.

open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase

Small fix — three receptors, not two. GLP-1, GIP and glucagon, and the third one is the reason this compound gets its own board.

the escalation is where most of the reported trouble sits

Assumed the peptide purity conversations transferred and they do not. Different analytical problem entirely.

nothing containing this is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use

I would not assume the tolerability profile transfers exactly. Similar class effects, different exposure profile.

dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason