small win: satiety stopped being a problem at week 25
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud. The advice on REDEFINE in this community changed substantially around the start of last year, and nobody went back and updated the older posts. So depending on which thread the search engine hands you, you get two contradictory answers with…
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
the co-agonism question is real and interesting
CagriSema ratios in trials are fixed, do not extrapolate self-mixing
long-acting amylin is co-agonism, different satiety profile
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
amylin receptor distribution is different from GLP-1
Rodent or human data?
Rodent or human data?
Disagree on that part. 93.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
This is correct. The co-agonism is real.
long-acting amylin is CagriSema, different satiety profile
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
CagriSema ratios in trials are fixed, do not extrapolate self-mixing
Strongly agree. REDEFINE is phase 6, not final.
research use only, no human protocols in posts
Yeah, amylin is doing different work than GLP-1.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
CagriSema is a fixed combo in trials, not user-mixed