Dual, triple, co-formulated: a taxonomy the coverage keeps collapsing

For most of thirty years, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide was the incretin that did not work. Its insulinotropic effect is blunted in type 2 diabetes; GIP receptor agonism was associated with weight gain in some preclinical models; and pharmaceutical interest drifted almost entirely to GLP-1. Tirzepatide’s clinical results forced a reconsideration that is still in progress, and the honest position is that the mechanism by which adding GIP activity improves outcomes is not settled.

Selectivity, potency and efficacy are three measurements

Three quantities are routinely conflated in discussions of this class. Affinity is how tightly a ligand binds, usually reported as a dissociation constant. Potency is the concentration producing half-maximal response, reported as an EC₅₀. Efficacy is the maximal response achievable, reported relative to a reference agonist. A molecule can be more potent and less efficacious than another, and a molecule can bind a second receptor with high affinity and produce almost no response there.

Selectivity is the ratio of activities across receptors, and it is where the current pipeline diverges most sharply. Reported GIP-to-GLP-1 activity ratios for dual agonists vary by more than an order of magnitude between molecules; glucagon receptor arms in triple agonists vary similarly. Those ratios are properties of the sequence and they are not adjustable by dose. Two molecules with different ratios are different drugs at every dose, which is the reason head-to-head trials cannot be replaced by cross-trial comparison.¹

Injection timing: what the kinetics permit

At steady state on a seven-day half-life the peak-to-trough variation across the dosing interval is modest — on the order of tens of per cent rather than folds. Moving the injection by twelve hours, or from one day of the week to another, does not meaningfully change total exposure. It does change when the highest concentrations occur relative to a person’s week.

Time to maximum concentration after subcutaneous injection is on the order of one to three days for the long-acting agonists, so an injection on Friday evening produces its concentration peak somewhere in the weekend. Whether that is desirable is a question about a person’s schedule, not about pharmacology. What the pharmacology does say is that consistency of interval matters more than consistency of hour, because the interval is what determines the accumulation ratio.

What GIP receptor agonism appears to contribute

Three explanations are current for the additional effect of GIP receptor agonism, and they are not mutually exclusive. The first is that GIP receptor activation in adipose tissue improves lipid handling and insulin sensitivity, permitting greater fat mobilisation at a given level of energy deficit. The second is central: GIP receptors are expressed in hypothalamic and hindbrain regions, and GIP receptor agonism may reduce nausea signalling, allowing higher GLP-1 receptor engagement to be tolerated. The third is that chronic GIP receptor agonism produces functional desensitisation that resembles antagonism, which would reconcile the apparently contradictory finding that both GIP agonists and GIP antagonists reduce body weight in preclinical work.

The second explanation is the most consequential if true, because it would mean the dual agonist’s advantage is partly a tolerability advantage rather than a distinct metabolic one — a difference that matters for how the drugs should be compared.²

The glucagon arm and the balance problem

Glucagon receptor agonism increases resting energy expenditure and promotes hepatic fat oxidation. It also stimulates hepatic glucose production, which in a person with impaired glycaemic control is the opposite of what is wanted. A triple agonist therefore has to be balanced so that the GLP-1 arm’s insulinotropic and glucose-lowering effects exceed the glucagon arm’s glucose-raising effect at every therapeutic concentration.

That balance is set by the sequence, not the dose, which is why glucagon-containing agonists have historically failed in development for glycaemic reasons rather than efficacy ones, and why the ratio is the number to look for in any new molecule’s pharmacology package. Reported phase 2 glycaemic data for the current triple agonists suggests the balance has been achieved; the phase 3 programmes will establish whether it holds across a broader population.³

Amylin analogues are a different class

Cagrilintide is not a GLP-1 receptor agonist and it is repeatedly described as one. It is a long-acting analogue of amylin, a 37-residue peptide co-secreted with insulin from the beta cell, acting at calcitonin and amylin receptor complexes. Its effects — slowed gastric emptying, reduced food intake, satiety signalling through the area postrema — overlap substantially with GLP-1 receptor agonism, which is why the confusion persists and why the co-formulation with semaglutide is pharmacologically interesting rather than redundant.

Two mechanisms converging on the same behavioural endpoint through different receptors is the argument for combining them: the ceiling of each is set by its own receptor-mediated adverse effects, and two half-doses at different receptors may sit below both ceilings. Whether that argument survives phase 3 is an empirical question.

The oral non-peptide agonists

An orally bioavailable small molecule that activates a class B GPCR was, for a long time, considered close to impossible. The current crop of non-peptide GLP-1 receptor agonists achieves it by binding a site that overlaps only partially with the peptide binding pocket, stabilising an active conformation without the two-domain capture mechanism.

Pharmacologically this matters for three reasons. Absorption does not depend on a permeation enhancer, so bioavailability is far less variable and far less dependent on fasting state than oral semaglutide’s. Elimination is hepatic rather than largely renal and proteolytic, which changes the interaction profile. And potency at the receptor is achieved without a fatty-acid albumin depot, so the concentration-time profile looks like a conventional small molecule rather than a peptide. None of this predicts efficacy; all of it predicts a different practical drug.

Desensitisation, and what it does and does not explain

Receptor internalisation following agonist binding is well established in vitro, and the popular inference is that "the receptors get used to it", explaining plateaus. The inference outruns the evidence in two ways. First, plateaus in the trials occur at around sixty to seventy weeks and coincide closely with the point at which reduced body mass lowers energy requirement enough to re-establish balance, which is a sufficient explanation without invoking receptor changes. Second, weight regain on withdrawal is rapid and near-complete, which is difficult to reconcile with a model in which the receptor has become unresponsive.

The tolerability tachyphylaxis discussed above — the attenuation of nausea and gastric delay over weeks at a fixed dose — is separately well supported. Two different phenomena share a name, and conflating them produces confident conclusions about plateaus that the data does not license.

Why any of this belongs in a general publication

An argument could be made that receptor pharmacology is a specialist concern and that readers need practical guidance instead. The Journal’s position is the opposite, for a specific reason: almost every piece of bad advice circulating about this drug class is a mechanistic error with a practical conclusion attached.

Escalating on a fixed calendar regardless of symptoms is an error about accumulation kinetics. Splitting a weekly dose into daily fractions to reduce side effects is an error about half-life and steady state. Assuming a molecule with GIP activity is simply a stronger version of one without is an error about selectivity. Expecting weight to keep falling indefinitely is an error about energy balance. In each case the practical advice is wrong because the mechanism was misunderstood, and in each case understanding the mechanism is not much harder than memorising the rule.

A note on sources

Everything above is drawn from the peer-reviewed pharmacology and clinical literature and from regulatory assessment reports, which are more informative than the papers on questions of dose selection and exposure. Where a claim rests on in-vitro work in transfected cells, this piece says so, because the translation of such work to human physiology has failed often enough in this field to deserve a standing caveat.

Where the Journal reports a trial number it states the estimand behind it, because the treatment-policy and trial-product estimands differ by two to three percentage points in the obesity programmes and the difference is routinely lost in secondary coverage. Nothing here is a recommendation, and none of the compounds discussed as research chemicals are approved for human use.

A short glossary, because the words are used loosely

Agonist: a ligand that binds a receptor and produces a response. Full agonist: one producing the maximal response the system permits. Partial agonist: one producing less than maximal response even at full occupancy. Analogue: a molecule structurally derived from a natural ligand. Mimetic: a molecule reproducing a natural ligand’s effect without structural derivation.

Orthosteric site: the binding site the natural ligand occupies. Allosteric site: a distinct site whose occupancy modulates activity at the orthosteric one. Biased agonism: preferential activation of one downstream pathway over another. Tachyphylaxis: diminishing response to repeated administration. Steady state: the condition in which the rate of drug entering the body equals the rate leaving it.

Precision here is not pedantry. Several of the arguments this publication receives by post turn out, on inspection, to be disagreements about which of these words the writer meant.

What has actually changed in the last three years

Three things, on the Journal’s assessment. First, the demonstration that a dual agonist could produce weight reduction approaching bariatric-surgical magnitude moved the field’s expectations, and with them the design of every subsequent programme. Second, the cardiovascular and renal outcome results reframed the class from metabolic-cosmetic to cardiometabolic, which changed reimbursement arguments far more than it changed prescribing.

Third, and least remarked, the pharmacology of oral administration became tractable. That is a manufacturing and access story as much as a scientific one: an oral small molecule has a completely different cost structure, cold-chain requirement and supply profile from an injectable peptide, and if it holds up in phase 3 it will do more to change who can get treated than any of the receptor science described above.

The Journal will keep reporting this department from the primary literature and the regulatory assessment reports, and will keep stating when a claim rests on transfected cells rather than on people. Readers who think a paragraph here has outrun its evidence should write in; the standards desk reads every such letter and the correction log records what came of it.