Energy expenditure increase from GCG component — November 2025

COA_Karl said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome. It is a phase 2 result in a few hundred participants with no cardiovascular endpoint and no long-term safety data, and this board has a habit of treating pipeline numbers as settled.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

One concrete data point for the thread. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.

Dr.AddMedPHL said:

I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.

One thing that is still open after Dr.PulmRoch’s answer:

What the phase 2 dropout pattern implies about how the phase 3 tolerability will read?

Closing the loop on my own question.

Rereading it with the dropout table open changed my view. I still think it is the most interesting molecule in the pipeline; I no longer think the 24% is the number that will end up on a label.