'The Downsized' has latest Survodutide news.

diplomat

diplomat

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2026
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Imported archive
YouTube Link

Seems that Survo has a horrendous dropout rate and isn't likely to be one of the Greats!

Zealand Pharma stock is down about 25% on the release of the trial data.

Investors consider tolerability to be one of the paramount conditions for market success, and with a (trial) rate of discontinuation about two to four times even Wegovy, Survo seems like a dud.

Having checked out preliminary data, I'm not letting go of Survodutide so easily - I have a couple of kits and I am hoping that its visceral and liver fat focus can help with my Humpty Dumpty shaped body!
 
I suspect that the lack of GIP makes it a hard pill to swallow. (bad pun alert)

This caught my interest. Data from the Phase III SYNCHRONIZE-1 clinical trials reveal that survodutide achieves a 63.1% reduction in liver fat alongside a 34.0% reduction in visceral fat at its highest evaluated dose (6.0 mg) over 76 weeks.
 
Just A Cat said:


I suspect that the lack of GIP makes it a hard pill to swallow. (bad pun alert)

This caught my interest. Data from the Phase III SYNCHRONIZE-1 clinical trials reveal that survodutide achieves a 63.1% reduction in liver fat alongside a 34.0% reduction in visceral fat at its highest evaluated dose (6.0 mg) over 76 weeks.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Do you happen to know how that compares to reta trials?
 
Sings "I'll do anything for you..." 🙂

Liver Fat: S 63.1% reduction (at 76 weeks) vs R 86.0% reduction (at 48 weeks)

Visceral Fat: S 34.0% reduction (at 76 weeks) vs R 48.0% reduction (at 48 weeks)
 
Just A Cat said:


Sings "I'll do anything for you..." 🙂

Liver Fat: S 63.1% reduction (at 76 weeks) vs R 86.0% reduction (at 48 weeks)

Visceral Fat: S 34.0% reduction (at 76 weeks) vs R 48.0% reduction (at 48 weeks)

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Gotta say reta somehow got me from s2 fatty liver to normal, 3% fat.... was on about 15 months of tirz, ret and both.
 
I find it hard to see the advantages of any GLP drug that does not include GIP agonism, as it counteracts the side effects from GLP-1, allowing less side effects or higher maximum tolerated doses which make the drug more effective. Some people are not going to have a lot of side effects so it might be fine for them, but on average the GIP of reta is going to make it both more effective at weight loss or liver fat reduction and have less side effects than a glucagon/GLP-1 agonist.
 
Airborne Daddy said:


Gotta say reta somehow got me from s2 fatty liver to normal, 3% fat...

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Congrats. That is a great accomplishment.



Let's discuss three types of fat. SubQ fat which at best is annoying. Visceral Fat which is at best unhealthy. Liver Fat which is at best dangerous.
 
They had a very strict titration schedule. Everyone on the study was forced to titrate up, unlike the Lilly trials where they were given the option to titrate up or remain at the same dose for longer, skipping doses were permitted as well on reta trials.

The survo trials also had a lot of people on tue placebo arm secretly taking a glp. Placebo achieved 5% weight loss. They have to improve study design for their next trials. For all the researchers holding survo on here, stick to go low and slow. Titrate slowly.
 
It’s too bad they have to use placebo. I’d be pissed if I thought I was going to get free weight loss and instead I drew the short straw.
 
Friend of mine was on the study and dropped 60lbs in one year. She was also diabetic, that´s why she came in the study. After finishing they just stopped her giving survo, but she managed to keep the weight off and diabetes away. That´s what she told me.
 
ColdSmoke said:


It’s too bad they have to use placebo. I’d be pissed if I thought I was going to get free weight loss and instead I drew the short straw.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
right! have always wondered, what’s in a placebo? saline water or something?
 
just to give my 2 cents I couldnt tolerate reta due to skin side effects so i went on survo. Had no side effects and good efficacy for about a year of use with tirz combo. No complaints but I get its not a cost efficient one to use when compared to reta.
 
lessthanhalf said:


I find it hard to see the advantages of any GLP drug that does not include GIP agonism, as it counteracts the side effects from GLP-1, allowing less side effects or higher maximum tolerated doses which make the drug more effective. Some people are not going to have a lot of side effects so it might be fine for them, but on average the GIP of reta is going to make it both more effective at weight loss or liver fat reduction and have less side effects than a glucagon/GLP-1 agonist.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And then there's this rather interesting study that may change your perspective on that particular stance:


https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/16/13/1979
 
ColdSmoke said:


It’s too bad they have to use placebo. I’d be pissed if I thought I was going to get free weight loss and instead I drew the short straw.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That’s what the people in the placebo trials thought as well hence they were secretly taking a glp. It raises the question whether it will be possible to run placebo controlled trials with glp’s in the future. They will probably force them to run vs a comparator drug trial (semaglutide).
 
tubby said:


And then there's this rather interesting study that may change your perspective on that particular stance:


https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/16/13/1979


Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I had seen that and it is definitely interesting. Not that anyone is measuring GLP-1 or GIP blood levels outside of research as far as I know. It does seem to show that some people get better results from one drug or another depending on initial glp or gip levels, even if I find it a bit hard to understand why that happens. Normal physiological levels of those hormones are miniscule compared to the effect of GLP-1 drugs, which is why I am a bit surprised baseline levels should even matter. Is it useful without testing levels first?, maybe it is worth people trying different glp drugs if they do not respond well to the first one, even maybe worth trying semaglutide if tirzepatide does not work well, which is slightly painful to consider given how horrible my experience with it was. I would still recommend starting with tirz or reta first.
 
lessthanhalf said:


I had seen that and it is definitely interesting. Not that anyone is measuring GLP-1 or GIP blood levels outside of research as far as I know. It does seem to show that some people get better results from one drug or another depending on initial glp or gip levels, even if I find it a bit hard to understand why that happens. Normal physiological levels of those hormones are miniscule compared to the effect of GLP-1 drugs, which is why I am a bit surprised baseline levels should even matter. Is it useful without testing levels first?, maybe it is worth people trying different glp drugs if they do not respond well to the first one, even maybe worth trying semaglutide if tirzepatide does not work well, which is slightly painful to consider given how horrible my experience with it was. I would still recommend starting with tirz or reta first.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think my main takeaway from it was that there's going to be a minority of people out there who do better on sema than tirz. By focusing on overall averages (which at a population level do better on tirz), we may do a poor job treating that minority.

As one moves into the world of glucagon-agonism, it's reasonable to believe that same minority might do better on survo. I agree that we don't know who they are since we're not testing, but it appears they do exist.
 
Back
Top