The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Topic summary

Second pass at: Triple agonism: additive, synergistic, or neither?

This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 121, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
SB
s.bruunTL2 Moderator Solution9 Jan 2025#4
b.demir, post #3: Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first. 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

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.

11 likes in reply to #3 19mo
BC
b.correiaTL2 Moderator18 Feb 2025#16

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.

30 likes 17mo
WM
w.moreauTL2 Moderator12 Mar 2025#24

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.

30 likes 17mo
BI
blank_injectionTL2Analytical chemist11 Apr 2025#36

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.

28 likes 16mo
DB
da.bakkerTL2 Moderator27 May 2025#56

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.

31 likes 14mo
HB
h.bakkerTL2 Moderator13 Jun 2025#64

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.

28 likes 13mo
AK
a.kowalczykTL2Regular23 Jun 2025#69

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.

29 likes 13mo
FL
f.lindholmTL2 Moderator6 Jul 2025 · edited#75

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.

27 likes 13mo
EK
ew.kuuselaTL2 Moderator20 Sep 2025#114
m.perrin, post #88: Coming back to post #86, 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. 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.

28 likes in reply to #88 10mo

Read the full topic (121 posts)

Suggested topics

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
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 ,…
HFITVAKLV+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)…
CBTNNAFEKK+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…
RMCCYMRMJW+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…
BNKCDTAMO 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)…
NTTKNECCYM+22 27 872 22h

Related topics — sharing the tags TRIUMPH programme, effect size, retatrutide

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
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 ,…
KBCHGHECGI+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…
NLAMDOVRV+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…
DNKANTINL+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 (…
VMDMMGRPT+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…
SGLIAKADYR+82 87 1.1k 12mo