This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Post #29 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space.
The practical version of TRIUMPH is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
On TRIUMPH the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
Post #33 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Nausea and vomiting were dose-related in the phase 2 work, as they are throughout this class. What is not established is whether the tolerability profile differs from the dual agonists at equipotent effect, because equipotence has not been established either.
I would keep TRIUMPH and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
The arithmetic in post #36 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Triple agonism: is the effect additive, synergistic, or neither? A phase 2 comparison of tirzepatide (dual) to retatrutide (triple) would answer that question. The published data does not include such a direct comparison.
I have been on both sides of the TRIUMPH argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
One caution on TRIUMPH: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
Adding the measurement that post #38 says would settle it.
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.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
Speaking only to TRIUMPH as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
TRIUMPH is phase 3 and it is ongoing. No phase 3 results exist. Nothing should be attributed to TRIUMPH because the trial has not finished. When it does, this page will update.
The arithmetic in post #42 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
My position on TRIUMPH is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.
Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.
Heart rate increased in a dose-dependent way in the phase 2 work. That is not a footnote — it is one of the specific things phase 3 exists to characterise, and it is why this subcategory is written more cautiously than the others.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Why a glucagon receptor agonist in a weight-loss compound is not a contradiction — one year on
Why a glucagon receptor agonist in a weight-loss compound is not a contradiction — one year on — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. The question about…
|
+3 | 7 | 1k | 2mo |
|
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 |
|
Second pass at: Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither?
Second pass at: Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Posting a small dataset on Triple agonism. It is…
|
+114 | 120 | 1.4k | 10mo |
|
Why retatrutide discussion here is more cautious than elsewhere — one year on
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why retatrutide discussion here is more cautious than elsewhere — one year on Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+92 | 97 | 3.6k | 20h |
|
Second pass at: Retatrutide dose escalation in the published trials
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…
|
+115 | 125 | 30k | 2y |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly
The question in the title: What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Setting out what I think I know about this compound and…
|
+106 | 113 | 4.8k | 17mo |
|
Dose numbers for oral formulations are not comparable to injectable ones — a second dataset
Dose numbers for oral formulations are not comparable to injectable ones — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a small dataset on Dose…
|
+48 | 52 | 59k | 18mo |
|
Comparing the STEP programme populations: who was actually enrolled — the long version
On the subject in the title: Comparing the STEP programme populations: who was actually enrolled — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about Comparing the STEP programme…
|
4 | 7.7k | 11mo | |
|
Revisiting: What pooling buys you and what it destroys
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: What pooling buys you and what it destroys Working notes rather than a conclusion. Pooling buys — I have the observation and I do not trust my interpretation of it, so…
|
+97 | 107 | 4k | 19h |
|
Follow-up: Open-label extensions: what survives and what does not
Open-label extensions: what survives and what does not — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin Open-label extensions down and I want to set…
|
+22 | 26 | 397 | 16mo |