Energy expenditure increase from GCG component — my results so far

labquiet_amy said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

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.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

pete_manc_UK said:

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

Coming at pete_manc_UK’s question from a different direction. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Following on from LibrarianMeg — and this may be the naive question:

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.