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

Tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS programme, summarised honestly posts 91–120

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.

DO
d.oyelaranTL3Pharmacist22 May 2025#91

Nausea profile: some people report tirzepatide as less nausea-prone than semaglutide, others report it as more. The trial reported gastrointestinal effects broadly comparable in character. Individual variation is the largest factor.

20 likes 14mo
NK
n.krastevTL2 Moderator24 May 2025#92
h.ferrari, post #11: 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. Go to post

Storage and stability: published data on licensed tirzepatide formulations exists and is worth reading directly rather than through summarised claims. Reconstituted preparations in different diluents have not been studied and extrapolation from the licensed formulation is the best you can do.

0 likes in reply to #11 14mo
K
KLindqvistTL4 Moderator25 May 2025#93

post #92 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

The 2.5 mg starting dose is not a therapeutic dose in the sense that weight loss is minimal at that dose. It is a tolerance-testing dose. Confusing the purpose of a starting dose with the purpose of a maintenance dose leads to false conclusions about efficacy.

0 likes 14mo
CT
c.tullochTL2 Moderator26 May 2025#94

Worth separating two things that post #90 runs together.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

5 likes 14mo
PM
physio_marchettiTL2Physiotherapist27 May 2025#95
Thibodeau, post #75: post #74 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. Mass and charge states: tirzepatide is about 4813.5 Da and on an electrospray instrument you would expect to see charge states mostly in the 2+ to 4+ range, the same as semaglutide. A doubly charged species would appear at about (4813.5 + 2 × 1.008) / 2 ≈… Go to post

Half-life difference: tirzepatide is about 5 days versus semaglutide's week-long. Practically, that means steady state is reached slightly faster and the post-dose swing is slightly larger. Most people do not report noticing the difference in practical terms.

27 likes in reply to #75 14mo
JI
j.iyerTL2 Moderator28 May 2025#96
s.cardoso, post #2: This follows the opening post rather than contradicting it. SURMOUNT-OSA is notable because it used an objective physiological endpoint, the apnoea-hypopnoea index, rather than a symptom scale. Two parallel trials, with and without positive airway pressure, addressed the confounder directly. The reduction was substantial in both. Go to post

SURPASS-2 compared tirzepatide with semaglutide 1.0 mg, the licensed diabetes dose at that time. It did not compare with semaglutide 2.4 mg, the highest approved dose. That is the central and legitimate criticism of the head-to-head evidence and it is worth remembering when people quote the trial.

0 likes in reply to #2 14mo
BD
baseline_driftTL2Analytical chemist30 May 2025#97

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.

2 likes 14mo
NO
n.oseiTL2 Moderator31 May 2025 · edited#98

On post #94 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Mass and charge states: tirzepatide is about 4813.5 Da and on an electrospray instrument you would expect to see charge states mostly in the 2+ to 4+ range, the same as semaglutide. A doubly charged species would appear at about (4813.5 + 2 × 1.008) / 2 ≈ 2408.

8 likes 14mo
TY
two_year_lineTL3Regular1 Jun 2025#99

This follows post #96 rather than contradicting it.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

0 likes 14mo
AP
au.pereiraTL2 Moderator2 Jun 2025#100

SURMOUNT-1 reported weight reduction of a magnitude that was the largest for a pharmacological intervention at that time of publication. It also reported a clear dose response across three doses. The categorical thresholds (people reaching 10%, 15%, 20% loss) got the most attention but read less informatively than the mean weight change.

0 likes 14mo
VD
vial_deskTL3Regular3 Jun 2025#101
j.restrepo, post #60: Coming back to post #58, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. Mass and charge states: tirzepatide is about 4813.5 Da and on an electrospray instrument you would expect to see charge states mostly in the 2+ to 4+ range, the same as semaglutide. A doubly charged species would appear at about (4813.5 + 2 × 1.008) /… Go to post

This follows post #98 rather than contradicting it.

Titration schedules for tirzepatide have more dose steps than semaglutide partly because the compound is more potent and partly because the clinical programme used a finer gradation. That does not mean you cannot escalate on a coarser schedule if that suits you — the published schedule is not a lower bound.

2 likes in reply to #60 14mo
MA
m.adebayoTL2 Moderator5 Jun 2025#102

I read post #100 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

SURMOUNT-4 used a randomised withdrawal design: everyone titrated, then those on maintenance were randomised to continue or placebo. Continuation maintained effect; withdrawal was followed by regain. The finding is robust but it says nothing about a lower effective maintenance dose, because that was not studied.

9 likes 14mo
I
IsaksenTL3Regular6 Jun 2025#103

SURMOUNT-OSA is notable because it used an objective physiological endpoint, the apnoea-hypopnoea index, rather than a symptom scale. Two parallel trials, with and without positive airway pressure, addressed the confounder directly. The reduction was substantial in both.

27 likes 14mo
AE
a.eriksenTL2 Moderator7 Jun 2025 · edited#104
Birkeland, post #28: SURMOUNT-OSA is notable because it used an objective physiological endpoint, the apnoea-hypopnoea index, rather than a symptom scale. Two parallel trials, with and without positive airway pressure, addressed the confounder directly. The reduction was substantial in both. Go to post

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.

0 likes in reply to #28 14mo
B
batchlogTL3Regular8 Jun 2025#105
h.castellanos, post #52: Half-life difference: tirzepatide is about 5 days versus semaglutide's week-long. Practically, that means steady state is reached slightly faster and the post-dose swing is slightly larger. Most people do not report noticing the difference in practical terms. Go to post

Dual agonism versus dose: how much of tirzepatide's effect is the GIP component and how much is simply achieving higher receptor engagement? The honest answer is that the question is not settled. Some of the effect is surely the GIP component, but the trial design does not decompose it.

4 likes in reply to #52 14mo
TI
t.ibarraTL2 Moderator9 Jun 2025#106

Coming back to post #104, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

The GIP component: GIP receptor agonism is thought to amplify the GLP-1 effect on satiety and energy expenditure, but how much of tirzepatide's effect is that and how much is simply achieving higher receptor occupancy remains genuinely open. The mechanistic literature is active.

13 likes 14mo
BV
bias_varianceTL4Biostatistician11 Jun 2025#107

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.

0 likes 14mo
DF
d.ferreiraTL2 Moderator12 Jun 2025#108
k.fonseca, post #18: The GIP component: GIP receptor agonism is thought to amplify the GLP-1 effect on satiety and energy expenditure, but how much of tirzepatide's effect is that and how much is simply achieving higher receptor occupancy remains genuinely open. The mechanistic literature is active. Go to post

SURMOUNT-4 used a randomised withdrawal design: everyone titrated, then those on maintenance were randomised to continue or placebo. Continuation maintained effect; withdrawal was followed by regain. The finding is robust but it says nothing about a lower effective maintenance dose, because that was not studied.

0 likes in reply to #18 14mo
BD
baseline_driftTL2Analytical chemist13 Jun 2025 · edited#109

The 2.5 mg starting dose is not a therapeutic dose in the sense that weight loss is minimal at that dose. It is a tolerance-testing dose. Confusing the purpose of a starting dose with the purpose of a maintenance dose leads to false conclusions about efficacy.

8 likes 13mo
IA
id.almeidaTL2 Moderator14 Jun 2025#110

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

19 likes 13mo
MO
m.onwukaTL2 Moderator15 Jun 2025#111

Worth separating two things that post #107 runs together.

Storage and stability: published data on licensed tirzepatide formulations exists and is worth reading directly rather than through summarised claims. Reconstituted preparations in different diluents have not been studied and extrapolation from the licensed formulation is the best you can do.

0 likes 13mo
MP
mira.patelTL4 Admin16 Jun 2025#112

Nausea profile: some people report tirzepatide as less nausea-prone than semaglutide, others report it as more. The trial reported gastrointestinal effects broadly comparable in character. Individual variation is the largest factor.

23 likes 13mo
SD
s.dialloTL2 Moderator18 Jun 2025#113
g.ibarra, post #3: Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together. SURMOUNT-4 used a randomised withdrawal design: everyone titrated, then those on maintenance were randomised to continue or placebo. Continuation maintained effect; withdrawal was followed by regain. The finding is robust but it says nothing about a lower effective… Go to post

The GIP component: GIP receptor agonism is thought to amplify the GLP-1 effect on satiety and energy expenditure, but how much of tirzepatide's effect is that and how much is simply achieving higher receptor occupancy remains genuinely open. The mechanistic literature is active.

6 likes in reply to #3 13mo
OB
owen.bradyTL4 Moderator19 Jun 2025#114
d.oyelaran, post #91: Nausea profile: some people report tirzepatide as less nausea-prone than semaglutide, others report it as more. The trial reported gastrointestinal effects broadly comparable in character. Individual variation is the largest factor. Go to post
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.

This follows post #111 rather than contradicting it.

Half-life difference: tirzepatide is about 5 days versus semaglutide's week-long. Practically, that means steady state is reached slightly faster and the post-dose swing is slightly larger. Most people do not report noticing the difference in practical terms.

1 like in reply to #91 13mo
NS
no.silvaTL2 Moderator20 Jun 2025#115

On post #111 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

SURMOUNT-OSA is notable because it used an objective physiological endpoint, the apnoea-hypopnoea index, rather than a symptom scale. Two parallel trials, with and without positive airway pressure, addressed the confounder directly. The reduction was substantial in both.

32 likes 13mo
PP
peak_purityTL3Analytical chemist21 Jun 2025 · edited#116

post #115 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

16 likes 13mo
MV
m.vukovicTL2 Moderator22 Jun 2025#117

Dual agonism versus dose: how much of tirzepatide's effect is the GIP component and how much is simply achieving higher receptor engagement? The honest answer is that the question is not settled. Some of the effect is surely the GIP component, but the trial design does not decompose it.

3 likes 13mo
NG
np_gilmoreTL3Nurse practitioner23 Jun 2025#118
m.ramos, post #82: SURMOUNT-4 used a randomised withdrawal design: everyone titrated, then those on maintenance were randomised to continue or placebo. Continuation maintained effect; withdrawal was followed by regain. The finding is robust but it says nothing about a lower effective maintenance dose, because that was not studied. Go to post

SURPASS-2 compared tirzepatide with semaglutide 1.0 mg, the licensed diabetes dose at that time. It did not compare with semaglutide 2.4 mg, the highest approved dose. That is the central and legitimate criticism of the head-to-head evidence and it is worth remembering when people quote the trial.

0 likes in reply to #82 13mo
FR
f.rasmussenTL2 Moderator25 Jun 2025#119
i.lehtinen, post #31: post #30 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. SURMOUNT-1 reported weight reduction of a magnitude that was the largest for a pharmacological intervention at that time of publication. It also reported a clear dose response across three doses. The categorical thresholds (people reaching 10%, 15%, 20%… Go to post

SURMOUNT-1 reported weight reduction of a magnitude that was the largest for a pharmacological intervention at that time of publication. It also reported a clear dose response across three doses. The categorical thresholds (people reaching 10%, 15%, 20% loss) got the most attention but read less informatively than the mean weight change.

24 likes in reply to #31 13mo
MD
m.dalgaardTL3Regular26 Jun 2025#120

post #119 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Titration schedules for tirzepatide have more dose steps than semaglutide partly because the compound is more potent and partly because the clinical programme used a finer gradation. That does not mean you cannot escalate on a coarser schedule if that suits you — the published schedule is not a lower bound.

11 likes 13mo