Cagrilintide molecular characteristics and analytical considerations

Cagrilintide molecular characteristics and analytical considerations — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

I have seen SURMOUNT-2 (Lancet, 2023) cited in support of a claim I do not think it supports, twice this month, so I would like to work through what it actually shows.

My reading is that the trial is sound for its own question and is being stretched to answer a different one. I might be wrong about that, which is why this is a topic rather than a correction.

What I would like from this discussion: someone who disagrees with me to say why, with the section of the paper they are relying on.

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.

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.

post #2 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Historical amylin analogues: pramlintide was the only long-acting amylin analogue licensed for some time and its poor adherence was a known limitation. A weekly formulation addresses that practical barrier.

The dosing interval: cagrilintide's half-life is roughly 7 to 8 days, suitable for weekly dosing. The pharmacokinetics are the reason the dosing schedule makes sense.