Cagrilintide's dosing interval and the pharmacokinetics behind it

I read post #14 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Nausea profile of amylin analogues: the historical agent pramlintide required multiple daily doses and had a difficult tolerability profile. A weekly formulation is a substantially different proposition and data from that is more relevant than data from pramlintide.

On post #19 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

Picking up post #45: that is the part I would want checked first.

Cagrilintide alone is discussed less than in combination because the published data is almost entirely from combination trials. The phase 2 combination data was consistent with more effect than either component alone, but phase 2 cannot establish whether that is synergy or simply additivity.

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.

Cagrilintide molecular characteristics: it is a synthetic amylin analogue, substituted to prevent the amyloidogenicity of human amylin. The sequence is short and analytically straightforward to confirm by LC-MS.

Worth separating two things that post #72 runs together.

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.

Gastric emptying: both amylin and GLP-1 slow it, through partly overlapping but distinct mechanisms. Whether the slowing at a higher magnitude produces disproportionate nausea or is tolerable is a question phase 3 exists to answer.

I read post #104 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.