The published pharmacokinetics show dose proportionality across the studied range, which means dose arithmetic behaves the way you would naively expect. That is not true of every compound and it is worth knowing which ones it is true of.
If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.
Coming back to post #11, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Research-use-only tirzepatide is not approved for human use and is not made to pharmaceutical standards. Anyone discussing it here is describing what they did, not recommending it.
Post #19 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
An observation about dual agonism that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private.
No notes. Posting so the count is not one.
Small methodological point on dual agonism: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
SURPASS-2 compared tirzepatide with semaglutide 1.0 mg, the licensed diabetes dose at that time. It did not compare with semaglutide 2.4 mg, the highest approved dose. That is the central and legitimate criticism of the head-to-head evidence and it is worth remembering when people quote the trial.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
Adding the measurement that post #46 says would settle it.
Categorical response thresholds — the proportion reaching ten, fifteen or twenty per cent reduction — are more persuasive and less informative than the mean. They depend entirely on where the threshold was drawn.
Not a strong opinion, just a consistent one.
Categorical response thresholds — the proportion reaching ten, fifteen or twenty per cent reduction — are more persuasive and less informative than the mean. They depend entirely on where the threshold was drawn.
Read the full topic (64 posts)
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Tirzepatide category
Dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist. SURPASS and SURMOUNT programme data, titration, and comparative discussion. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is…
|
+2 | 6 | 132 | 13mo |
|
Tirzepatide molecular mass and the charge states you would expect on ESI — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Tirzepatide molecular mass and the charge states you would expect on ESI — does this still hold? The question about Tirzepatide molecular mass that…
|
+7 | 11 | 281 | 6mo |
|
Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose?
Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A question about dual agonism that I think has a definite…
|
+62 | 68 | 2.6k | 29d |
|
Tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS programme, summarised honestly — the long version
On the subject in the title: Tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS programme, summarised honestly — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about Tirzepatide in type 2…
|
+85 | 90 | 13k | 7mo |
|
The 2.5 mg starting dose is not a therapeutic dose — why that matters
The 2.5 mg starting dose is not a therapeutic dose — why that matters Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A follow-up question about 2.5 mg starting dose that I…
|
+119 | 136 | 5.6k | 2mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tirzepatide and nausea: is the profile genuinely different or just differently reported?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Tirzepatide and nausea: is the profile genuinely different or just differently reported? Asking about tirzepatide and nausea directly, because I…
|
+18 | 22 | 37k | 8mo |
|
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 |
|
Why retatrutide discussion here is more cautious than elsewhere
Why retatrutide discussion here is more cautious than elsewhere I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A question about retatrutide discussion that I think…
|
+7 | 12 | 7.7k | 2mo |
|
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on Non-inferiority…
|
+32 | 37 | 574 | 5mo |
|
Comparing my trajectory with the trial curves, carefully
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Comparing my trajectory with the trial curves, carefully Everything below is what sits behind that. Maintenance rather than loss, which is the part of this that…
|
+86 | 92 | 54k | 7mo |