Has anyone dealt with pemvidutide vs survodutide?

sarah.morrison said:

The glucagon co-agonists — survodutide, mazdutide, ecnoglutide — are all chasing the same idea: add energy expenditure to appetite suppression.

Glucagon receptor pharmacology in triple agonists (retatrutide), relevant to the glucagon co-agonists: the glucagon component is the most controversial because glucagon traditionally raises blood glucose. So why include it in an anti-obesity drug?

Key insight: glucagon increases energy expenditure (thermogenesis), promotes hepatic lipid oxidation, and reduces appetite through distinct CNS mechanisms. The hyperglycemic effect is counterbalanced by the GLP-1 component's insulin secretagogue action.

Net result: more weight loss through increased expenditure (glucagon) + decreased intake (GLP-1/GIP), with neutral or improved glycemia. An elegant pharmacological balancing act[1].

sarah.morrison said:

The glucagon co-agonists — survodutide, mazdutide, ecnoglutide — are all chasing the same idea: add energy expenditure to appetite suppression.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

Short answer first, then the reasoning. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

Happy to go further on any of that.

FDA_TrackerJim said:

Glucagon receptor pharmacology in triple agonists (retatrutide), relevant to the glucagon co-agonists: the glucagon component is the most…

Same pattern here, and in the same order. Nothing to add that would improve it.