Sceptical rather than excited about the triple agonist, and I would like somebody to talk me out of the scepticism with data rather than enthusiasm.
For anyone tracking the class: GLP-1 alone gets you appetite, GLP-1 plus GIP adds tolerability and lipid handling, and adding glucagon adds expenditure and liver-fat reduction. Each addition also adds a receptor system that can generate side effects.
What would genuinely help is knowing what the phase 2 dropout pattern implies about how the phase 3 tolerability will read.
I have searched first, so if this is covered somewhere point me at it and I will read it.
This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
Dr.SurgeonPGH said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. The glucagon component looks paradoxical and is not. Glucagon receptor agonism raises energy expenditure and drives hepatic fatty-acid oxidation, and its hyperglycaemic tendency is offset by the GLP-1 arm's insulin secretagogue effect. Net result: intake down from GLP-1/GIP, expenditure up from glucagon, glycaemia neutral or improved. It is a balancing act, and it is why the liver-fat results are the most interesting part of the dataset.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochemmona_PHX said:Sceptical rather than excited about the triple agonist, and I would like somebody to talk me out of the scepticism with data rather than enthusiasm.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.