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.
The bit I cannot resolve on my own is what the phase 2 dropout pattern implies about how the phase 3 tolerability will read.
If the honest answer is that nobody knows, that is a useful answer and I would rather have it.
This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. Relative and absolute effects need reading together. A 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit; the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one, and press summaries almost always quote the relative number because it is bigger.
JennaRN said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
No disagreement with JennaRN. One condition attached. The phase 2 numbers were about 24% mean weight loss at 48 weeks on the top dose, with the curve still descending at the end of the study. A curve that has not flattened is a real finding, but it also means the true plateau is unknown, and phase 2 populations are small and selected.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsrick_sfbay 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.
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.