Second pass at: Retatrutide dose escalation in the published trials — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on Retatrutide dose escalation, because they get bundled and then argued about as one thing.
The first is descriptive: what has actually been observed, by whom, and how. The second is causal: why. I am asking about the first only.
No phase 3 results exist for retatrutide. Anything attributed to a completed phase 3 trial of this compound is either a misreading or an invention, and the honest answer to most questions here is that the data is not in yet.
Post #27 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
I disagree with the framing of Retatrutide dose escalation above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Retatrutide is investigational. Anything obtained outside a trial is by definition research-use-only material with no human-use authorisation. This site will state that plainly rather than winking at it.
I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
Building on post #37 rather than restating it.
Whether triple agonism is additive or synergistic is an open question and the published work does not answer it. A phase 2 trial without a dual-agonist comparator arm cannot distinguish the two.
No phase 3 results exist for retatrutide. Anything attributed to a completed phase 3 trial of this compound is either a misreading or an invention, and the honest answer to most questions here is that the data is not in yet.
I would treat that as a working assumption and revisit it.
Careful with the language on Retatrutide dose escalation. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
Why this subcategory is more cautious than elsewhere: retatrutide is investigational, phase 3 is ongoing, and the heart-rate signal in phase 2 is not negligible. Caution is proportionate to the evidence status.
Read the full topic (126 posts)
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Second pass at: Retatrutide mass and identity: what a report should show
Second pass at: Retatrutide mass and identity: what a report should show — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+65 | 71 | 4.6k | 13mo |
|
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A methods question rather than a substantive…
|
+10 | 14 | 8.4k | 16h |
|
About the Retatrutide category
Triple GIP/GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonist. Phase 2 data, TRIUMPH programme, and cautious practical discussion. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit…
|
4 | 12k | 2y | |
|
Retatrutide phase 2 in type 2 diabetes: the Lancet paper
On the subject in the title: Retatrutide phase 2 in type 2 diabetes: the Lancet paper Working notes rather than a conclusion. Asking about retatrutide phase 2 in type on behalf of the question I keep seeing…
|
+12 | 16 | 50k | 12mo |
|
Follow-up: The retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper, read closely
The retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper, read closely — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A follow-up question about retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper that I did not know to…
|
+19 | 23 | 16k | 2d |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Run-in periods and the population they select
On the subject in the title: Run-in periods and the population they select Working notes rather than a conclusion. An honest uncertainty about run-in periods rather than a disguised assertion. I do not know…
|
+130 | 142 | 7.3k | 1mo |
|
Why tirzepatide titration schedules have more steps than semaglutide's
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why tirzepatide titration schedules have more steps than semaglutide's I have spent a fortnight trying to pin tirzepatide titration schedules down…
|
4 | 8.4k | 7mo | |
|
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all — one year on
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all — one year on — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Reading back through what has been written here…
|
+11 | 15 | 17k | 24d |
|
SURPASS-2 and the comparator dose question that will not go away
SURPASS-2 and the comparator dose question that will not go away — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A methods question rather than a substantive one, about SURPASS-2.…
|
+101 | 111 | 1.5k | 18mo |
|
Journal club: SELECT, absolute risk, and how it was reported — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Journal club: SELECT, absolute risk, and how it was reported — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on SELECT. It is mine, it is…
|
4 | 1.3k | 1mo |