Offering a way to settle cagrisema phase 2 paper rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.
2 likes 13mo
Compounds · Cagrilintide & amylin analogues · continued
The CagriSema phase 2 paper and what a fixed combination buys posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
9 likes 13mo
Amylin signalling is distinct from GLP-1 signalling. Amylin slows gastric emptying and promotes satiety through a different receptor and different neural pathways. The hypothesis behind combination is two complementary satiety mechanisms with one injection.
29 likes 13mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
I read post #60 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
I have three months of notes on cagrisema phase 2 paper and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.
Combination products complicate the certificate question considerably. Two active components mean two purity determinations and a ratio, and a single figure for a combination tells you almost nothing.
That is the version I would defend. It is not the version I started with.
6 likes 13mo
st.diallo, post #15: Reading the phase 2 paper: it establishes tolerability and efficacy in a selected population on a defined dose escalation. It does not establish the lowest effective dose or the durability over years. Go to post
Reconstitution at higher concentrations is worth avoiding for aggregation-prone material. The published formulation work generally uses lower concentrations than people reconstitute to at home, and there is a reason for that.
I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.
b.nwosu, post #30: Reading back through the cagrisema phase 2 paper threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap. Go to post
Cagrisema phase 2 paper has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.
h.bakker, post #39: Helpful, and easy to find again, which is half of what a good reply is. Go to post
Adding the measurement that post #66 says would settle it.
Cagrilintide alone is discussed less than in combination because the published data is almost entirely from combination trials. The phase 2 combination data was consistent with more effect than either component alone, but phase 2 cannot establish whether that is synergy or simply additivity.
Post #68 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
The interest in combining it with semaglutide is that two different satiety mechanisms might add. Whether they do, and by how much, is exactly what the combination trials were designed to find out rather than something to be assumed.
0 likes 12mo
m.coelho, post #46: Distinguishing three things in the cagrisema phase 2 paper discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both. Go to post
Post #67 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Cagrilintide alone is discussed less than in combination because the published data is almost entirely from combination trials. The phase 2 combination data was consistent with more effect than either component alone, but phase 2 cannot establish whether that is synergy or simply additivity.
A guess, clearly labelled as one.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Taking post #71 at face value and following it one step further.
What I would want before treating cagrisema phase 2 paper as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
Nausea appears in the amylin-analogue literature as it does in the incretin literature, and the two are not additive in a simple way when the drugs are combined. The combination trials report tolerability separately for that reason.
0 likes 12mo
d.ferreira, post #56: Reading the phase 2 paper: it establishes tolerability and efficacy in a selected population on a defined dose escalation. It does not establish the lowest effective dose or the durability over years. Go to post
Post #71 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Marking my uncertainty on cagrisema phase 2 paper explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
Taking cagrisema phase 2 paper seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
18 likes 12mo
Small correction to my own earlier position on cagrisema phase 2 paper. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
0 likes 12mo
Second-hand on cagrisema phase 2 paper, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.
31 likes 12mo
revision_history, post #67: Reconstitution at higher concentrations is worth avoiding for aggregation-prone material. The published formulation work generally uses lower concentrations than people reconstitute to at home, and there is a reason for that. I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer. Go to post
The bit of cagrisema phase 2 paper that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
Post #80 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Amylin signalling is distinct from GLP-1 signalling. Amylin slows gastric emptying and promotes satiety through a different receptor and different neural pathways. The hypothesis behind combination is two complementary satiety mechanisms with one injection.
3 likes 11mo
The monoisotopic mass sits near 3749.9 Da, and the same caveat applies as everywhere else: a mass consistent with the proposed structure is a necessary condition and not a sufficient one.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
0 likes 11mo
k.dahlberg, post #79: Small correction to my own earlier position on cagrisema phase 2 paper. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely. Go to post
Post #82 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
The documentation on cagrisema phase 2 paper is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
Reframing cagrisema phase 2 paper slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
6 likes 11mo
Worth distinguishing the combination product from the two components bought separately and mixed. Those are different pharmaceutical objects and nothing published about the first applies to the second.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
16 likes 11mo
Where I part company with post #86, and it is a narrow parting.
My understanding of cagrisema phase 2 paper is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it.
11 likes 11mo