This is the version of the explanation I wish somebody had given me, written down before I forget what confused me. It is about retatrutide, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.
The glucagon component looks paradoxical and is not. Glucagon receptor agonism raises energy expenditure and drives hepatic fatty-acid oxidation, and its hyperglycaemic tendency is offset by the GLP-1 arm's insulin secretagogue effect. Net result: intake down from GLP-1/GIP, expenditure up from glucagon, glycaemia neutral or improved. It is a balancing act, and it is why the liver-fat results are the most interesting part of the dataset.
Phase 2 tolerability figures rarely survive contact with phase 3 scale. Triple agonism means three receptor systems generating adverse events, and the dropout column is the one I would read first when the larger trials report.
For anyone tracking the class: GLP-1 alone gets you appetite, GLP-1 plus GIP adds tolerability and lipid handling, and adding glucagon adds expenditure and liver-fat reduction. Each addition also adds a receptor system that can generate side effects.
What I actually want to know is what the phase 2 dropout pattern implies about how the phase 3 tolerability will read. If the honest answer is that nobody knows, that is a useful answer and I would rather have it.
tom_AK said:The glucagon component looks paradoxical and is not.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
tom_AK said:The glucagon component looks paradoxical and is not.
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.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemTaking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. The phase 2 numbers were about 24% mean weight loss at 48 weeks on the top dose, with the curve still descending at the end of the study. A curve that has not flattened is a real finding, but it also means the true plateau is unknown, and phase 2 populations are small and selected.
BariatricNurseD said:I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.