[Discussion] the CagriSema advice in here is 14 years out of date
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking cagrilintide against ApoB for 17 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
amylin is not a GLP-1, posts conflating them get corrected
Small correction: the trial was 6 weeks, not 4. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
the mechanism is different, the side effect profile reflects it
Small correction: the trial was 15 weeks, not 26. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
CagriSema ratios in trials are fixed, do not extrapolate self-mixing
the amylin agonist pool is small, community is amylin
REDEFINE phase 16 readouts are interesting but 16 person cagrilintide is different from 16 trial cagrilintide.
Crossposting this to c/hplc because the people who need it are not reading this community.
tendon and amylin literature in rodents is interesting
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
the co-agonism question is real and interesting
REDEFINE which arm?
REDEFINE phase 3 readouts are interesting but 3 person REDEFINE is different from 3 trial REDEFINE.
REDEFINE readouts are phase 8 data
the amylin agonist pool is small, community is satiety
- 1Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.9 comments in this branch · started by u/incretin_ivy
- 2REDEFINE which arm?4 comments in this branch · started by u/ferran_halonen