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.
Second pass at: Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither?
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.
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.
Picking up post #53: 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.
Worth separating two things that post #60 runs together.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read the full topic (121 posts)
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
|
Second pass at: Retatrutide mass and identity: what a report should show
Second pass at: Retatrutide mass and identity: what a report should show — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023) with STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021)…
|
+65 | 71 | 4.6k | 13mo |
|
Retatrutide dose escalation in the published trials
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Retatrutide dose escalation in the published trials Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021). Please read it…
|
+149 | 159 | 30k | 15mo |
|
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 | |
|
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. Comparing SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) with STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021)…
|
+22 | 27 | 872 | 22h |
Related topics — sharing the tags TRIUMPH programme, effect size, retatrutide
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What the GIP component of tirzepatide is thought to contribute, and how confident we can be — the long version
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What the GIP component of tirzepatide is thought to contribute, and how confident we can be — the long version Comparing PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
+48 | 52 | 609 | 10mo |
|
The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it
Posting this under the heading it deserves: The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024). Please read it…
|
+96 | 119 | 17k | 3mo |
|
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 |
|
Immortal time bias in a claims-database study — one year on
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Immortal time bias in a claims-database study — one year on Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) with SURMOUNT-1 (…
|
+41 | 46 | 3.7k | 22h |
|
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 |