For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
8 likes 11mo
Compounds · Retatrutide · continued
[2026 update] What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly posts 61–84
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Coming back to post #60, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
18 likes 11mo
w.moreau, post #30: Hepatic effects: glucagon receptor agonism promotes hepatic fat oxidation, which is mechanistically plausible for benefit in metabolic liver disease. Whether that translates to improved clinical outcomes is being tested in phase 2 work. Go to post
post #62 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The phase 2 obesity paper reported dose-dependent weight reduction of a magnitude that attracted attention. It also reported dose-dependent heart-rate increases. The heart-rate signal is the reason phase 3 exists rather than something assumed negligible based on phase 2.
TRIUMPH is phase 3 and it is ongoing. No phase 3 results exist. Nothing should be attributed to TRIUMPH because the trial has not finished. When it does, this page will update.
1 like 11mo
What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly: long-term safety, real-world response rates, the dose response in diverse populations, whether the heart-rate signal persists or attenuates, durability of effect on withdrawal, efficacy in comorbidities beyond obesity.
4 likes 11mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Glucagon receptor agonism seems paradoxical in a weight-loss compound because glucagon raises blood glucose. The paradox resolves because glucagon agonism also increases energy expenditure and promotes hepatic fat oxidation, and the incretin components offset the glycaemic effect. In diabetes trials, HbA1c improved rather than worsened.
h.nicolaides, post #25: Picking up post #22: that is the part I would want checked first. 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. Go to post
post #66 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Hepatic effects: glucagon receptor agonism promotes hepatic fat oxidation, which is mechanistically plausible for benefit in metabolic liver disease. Whether that translates to improved clinical outcomes is being tested in phase 2 work.
Worth separating two things that post #64 runs together.
How to read phase 2 without treating it as phase 3: phase 2 establishes that a dose range produces an effect and is tolerable enough to justify large trials. It does not establish safety, durability, or whether real humans differ from the selected population.
0 likes 11mo
Picking up post #66: that is the part I would want checked first.
Why this subcategory is more cautious than elsewhere: retatrutide is investigational, phase 3 is ongoing, and the heart-rate signal in phase 2 is not negligible. Caution is proportionate to the evidence status.
2 likes 11mo
p.onwuka, post #26: Coming back to post #24, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. Dose escalation in the published trials: the protocols started at lower doses and escalated by defined steps. The step sizes are documented and they may or may not match what someone self-prescribing would choose. Go to post
Coming back to post #68, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Mass and identity: a report on retatrutide should state the mass detected by LC-MS, not assume a theoretical mass. The theoretical mass is not published in peer-reviewed literature for retatrutide at present.
On post #67 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
4 likes 11mo
Phase 2 sample sizes are not adequate for safety characterisation of a novel triple agonist. Phase 3 is where that question gets answered. Using phase 2 results to make claims about safety profile is using the trial for a purpose it was not designed for.
0 likes 11mo
s.vanhecke, post #18: The phase 2 obesity paper reported dose-dependent weight reduction of a magnitude that attracted attention. It also reported dose-dependent heart-rate increases. The heart-rate signal is the reason phase 3 exists rather than something assumed negligible based on phase 2. Go to post
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.
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.
12 likes 11mo
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
1 like 11mo
endpoint_line, post #27: Why this subcategory is more cautious than elsewhere: retatrutide is investigational, phase 3 is ongoing, and the heart-rate signal in phase 2 is not negligible. Caution is proportionate to the evidence status. Go to post
Mass and identity: a report on retatrutide should state the mass detected by LC-MS, not assume a theoretical mass. The theoretical mass is not published in peer-reviewed literature for retatrutide at present.
m.ivaturi, post #11: The phase 2 obesity paper reported dose-dependent weight reduction of a magnitude that attracted attention. It also reported dose-dependent heart-rate increases. The heart-rate signal is the reason phase 3 exists rather than something assumed negligible based on phase 2. Go to post
This follows post #75 rather than contradicting it.
Why this subcategory is more cautious than elsewhere: retatrutide is investigational, phase 3 is ongoing, and the heart-rate signal in phase 2 is not negligible. Caution is proportionate to the evidence status.
How to read phase 2 without treating it as phase 3: phase 2 establishes that a dose range produces an effect and is tolerable enough to justify large trials. It does not establish safety, durability, or whether real humans differ from the selected population.
0 likes 11mo
post #79 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Hepatic effects: glucagon receptor agonism promotes hepatic fat oxidation, which is mechanistically plausible for benefit in metabolic liver disease. Whether that translates to improved clinical outcomes is being tested in phase 2 work.
0 likes 11mo
post #80 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The phase 2 obesity paper reported dose-dependent weight reduction of a magnitude that attracted attention. It also reported dose-dependent heart-rate increases. The heart-rate signal is the reason phase 3 exists rather than something assumed negligible based on phase 2.
2 likes 11mo
On post #78 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
TRIUMPH is phase 3 and it is ongoing. No phase 3 results exist. Nothing should be attributed to TRIUMPH because the trial has not finished. When it does, this page will update.
9 likes 11mo
am.wikstrom, post #81: post #80 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. The phase 2 obesity paper reported dose-dependent weight reduction of a magnitude that attracted attention. It also reported dose-dependent heart-rate increases. The heart-rate signal is the reason phase 3 exists rather than something assumed negligible… Go to post
Phase 2 sample sizes are not adequate for safety characterisation of a novel triple agonist. Phase 3 is where that question gets answered. Using phase 2 results to make claims about safety profile is using the trial for a purpose it was not designed for.
Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.
0 likes 11mo
This topic was referenced in
- Follow-up: The retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper, read closelyCompounds › Retatrutide · 23 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: Retatrutide phase 2 in type 2 diabetes: the Lancet paper
Retatrutide phase 2 in type 2 diabetes: the Lancet paper Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) cited in support of a claim I…
|
+1 | 5 | 31k | 8mo |
|
How to read a phase 2 result without treating it as a phase 3 result — what changed since
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How to read a phase 2 result without treating it as a phase 3 result — what changed since Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it…
|
+25 | 35 | 568 | 6mo |
|
Second pass at: Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither?
Second pass at: Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I have seen STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022) cited in support…
|
+114 | 120 | 1.4k | 10mo |
|
About the Retatrutide category
Triple GIP/GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonist. Phase 2 data, TRIUMPH programme, and cautious practical discussion. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit…
|
4 | 12k | 2y | |
|
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
+10 | 14 | 8.4k | 16h |
Related topics — sharing the tags TRIUMPH programme, preprint, effect size
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024) cited…
|
+15 | 19 | 2.8k | 1d |
|
[2026 update] Correlation in a self-tracked dataset: what it can support
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Correlation in a self-tracked dataset: what it can support Everything below is what sits behind that. I have seen SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) cited in support of a…
|
2 | 31k | 6h | |
|
Criticising the method without criticising the authors — one year on
On the subject in the title: Criticising the method without criticising the authors — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it before posting;…
|
+16 | 20 | 61k | 11mo |
|
Why the absence of controlled human data on BPC-157 matters more than people admit
Why the absence of controlled human data on BPC-157 matters more than people admit — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Comparing STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022) with…
|
+60 | 66 | 16k | 1d |
|
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023). Please read…
|
+82 | 87 | 1.1k | 12mo |