Is "synergy" the right word for the combination data? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.
Setting out what I think I know about this compound and asking which parts are wrong.
My understanding is below in the order I acquired it, which is probably also the order of decreasing reliability. The last two points came from somewhere I can no longer identify, which is exactly why I am posting them.
Amylin analogues affect gastric emptying as well, so the mechanism overlaps the incretins in at least one place. That overlap is part of why the combination's tolerability profile is not simply the sum of the two.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Everything in post #2 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The interest in combining it with semaglutide is that two different satiety mechanisms might add. Whether they do, and by how much, is exactly what the combination trials were designed to find out rather than something to be assumed.
Nausea profile of amylin analogues: the historical agent pramlintide required multiple daily doses and had a difficult tolerability profile. A weekly formulation is a substantially different proposition and data from that is more relevant than data from pramlintide.
Post #4 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Published human data on cagrilintide alone is thinner than on the combination, which is the reverse of what most people assume from how it is discussed here.
I read post #6 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Worth distinguishing the combination product from the two components bought separately and mixed. Those are different pharmaceutical objects and nothing published about the first applies to the second.
If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.
Staff rationale: Hidden by community flags. The substance was fine; the framing attributed motive rather than error, which is R1.
Confirming post #8 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The CagriSema phase 2 paper: a fixed combination of the two components in one weekly injection. The trade-off of a fixed combination is that you cannot titrate the components independently and you cannot attribute effect to one component from a combination trial.
The corresponding entry is in the public moderation log. Hidden posts are never deleted.
Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Cagrilintide & amylin analogues category
Long-acting amylin analogues alone and in combination. Mechanism, published data, and the open questions. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is…
|
4 | 1.8k | 11mo | |
|
Why cagrilintide alone is discussed so much less than in combination
Why cagrilintide alone is discussed so much less than in combination I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Collecting what is known about cagrilintide alone…
|
+93 | 108 | 35k | 16mo |
|
Follow-up: What is genuinely unknown about long-term amylin agonism
What is genuinely unknown about long-term amylin agonism I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question…
|
2 | 25k | 11mo | |
|
Coming back to: Nausea profile of amylin analogues compared with GLP-1 agonists
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Nausea profile of amylin analogues compared with GLP-1 agonists Everything below is what sits behind that. Nausea profile of amylin analogues — I have the…
|
+48 | 53 | 31k | 13mo |
|
Amylin analogue mechanism: satiety signalling separate from GLP-1 — does this still hold?
Amylin analogue mechanism: satiety signalling separate from GLP-1 — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Trying to work out what would…
|
+21 | 25 | 45k | 7mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading a supplementary appendix and finding the interesting part
Reading a supplementary appendix and finding the interesting part — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Collecting what is known about reading a supplementary appendix in one…
|
+87 | 92 | 1.1k | 17mo |
|
A well-designed study with a badly written abstract
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A well-designed study with a badly written abstract Everything below is what sits behind that. Reading back through what has been written here about well-designed…
|
+117 | 128 | 7.2k | 14mo |
|
Pooling trials with different estimands
On the subject in the title: Pooling trials with different estimands Working notes rather than a conclusion. Asking about pooling trials with different estimands on behalf of the question I keep seeing asked…
|
+120 | 132 | 2.3k | 1d |
|
Why cagrilintide alone is discussed so much less than in combination — does this still hold?
Why cagrilintide alone is discussed so much less than in combination — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Cagrilintide alone:…
|
+27 | 31 | 1.2k | 22h |
|
Second pass at: Cagrilintide's dosing interval and the pharmacokinetics behind it
On the subject in the title: Second pass at: Cagrilintide's dosing interval and the pharmacokinetics behind it Working notes rather than a conclusion. A comparison question rather than a question about one…
|
+2 | 6 | 2.4k | 7mo |