The opening post is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. The practical version of TRIUMPH is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
What TRIUMPH is designed to answer, and why we should not pre-empt it I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below.
TRIUMPH keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the answer is conditional and the conditions never travel with it.
Attempting to write the conditional version down properly. Corrections welcome and expected — I would like this to end up as a maintained page rather than a fifth thread.
Triple agonism: is the effect additive, synergistic, or neither? A phase 2 comparison of tirzepatide (dual) to retatrutide (triple) would answer that question. The published data does not include such a direct comparison.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
I would keep TRIUMPH and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
The opening post is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
The practical version of TRIUMPH is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Dose-response in the phase 2 obesity work was clear across the studied range, with no obvious plateau within it. Extrapolating beyond the highest studied dose from that is exactly the reasoning trials are designed to prevent.
I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.
Nausea and vomiting were dose-related in the phase 2 work, as they are throughout this class. What is not established is whether the tolerability profile differs from the dual agonists at equipotent effect, because equipotence has not been established either.
I read post #5 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
No phase 3 results exist for retatrutide. Anything attributed to a completed phase 3 trial of this compound is either a misreading or an invention, and the honest answer to most questions here is that the data is not in yet.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
Retatrutide is investigational. Anything obtained outside a trial is by definition research-use-only material with no human-use authorisation. This site will state that plainly rather than winking at it.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How to read a phase 2 result without treating it as a phase 3 result
The question in the title: How to read a phase 2 result without treating it as a phase 3 result I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Putting the numbers in the first post,…
|
+36 | 40 | 35k | 7mo |
|
Retatrutide's phase 2 heart-rate signal and how to think about it — the long version
Retatrutide's phase 2 heart-rate signal and how to think about it — the long version Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Putting the numbers in the first post,…
|
2 | 103 | 17mo | |
|
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 |
|
Retatrutide mass and identity: what a report should show
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Retatrutide mass and identity: what a report should show Everything below is what sits behind that. The question about retatrutide mass and identity that I actually…
|
+22 | 27 | 872 | 22h |
|
Follow-up: The retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper, read closely
The retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper, read closely — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A follow-up question about retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper that I did not know to…
|
+19 | 23 | 16k | 2d |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What SELECT changed about how semaglutide is discussed, and what it did not
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What SELECT changed about how semaglutide is discussed, and what it did not I was wrong about SELECT in a thread last spring and I would like to…
|
+120 | 132 | 2k | 14mo |
|
An ABAB design with a data table and honest limitations — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: An ABAB design with a data table and honest limitations — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on ABAB design. It is mine, it is…
|
+106 | 118 | 25k | 4mo |
|
Pooling trials with different estimands
On the subject in the title: Pooling trials with different estimands Working notes rather than a conclusion. Asking about pooling trials with different estimands on behalf of the question I keep seeing asked…
|
+120 | 132 | 2.3k | 1d |
|
Measurement error in a self-reported exposure
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Measurement error in a self-reported exposure Everything below is what sits behind that. The question about measurement error that I actually want answered is the…
|
+117 | 129 | 45k | 5mo |
|
A well-designed study with a badly written abstract
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A well-designed study with a badly written abstract Everything below is what sits behind that. Reading back through what has been written here about well-designed…
|
+117 | 128 | 7.2k | 14mo |