Second pass at: Reading a combination trial: attributing effect to components

Second pass at: Reading a combination trial: attributing effect to components — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

The question about Reading a combination trial that I actually want answered is the second one below. The first is context and I have kept it short.

Both are stated with units, and I have said what I already checked so that nobody repeats it.

The arithmetic in post #12 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Published human data on cagrilintide alone is thinner than on the combination, which is the reverse of what most people assume from how it is discussed here.

Amylin analogues affect gastric emptying as well, so the mechanism overlaps the incretins in at least one place. That overlap is part of why the combination's tolerability profile is not simply the sum of the two.

What is genuinely unknown about long-term amylin agonism: real-world response rates, whether effect is durable with continued use, whether satiety adaptation occurs over months or years, safety profile in populations not enrolled in the trials.

Injection-site tolerability is reported more often for this compound than for the incretins, and it is worth reading the trial reports rather than the summaries on that point specifically.

Published human data on cagrilintide alone is thinner than on the combination, which is the reverse of what most people assume from how it is discussed here.

I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.