Study: Do Fasting GLP-1 and GIP Levels Predict the Initial Pharmacological Response to Semaglutide and Tirzepatide?

I came up with a better graph than the last one we looked at.

It seems logical that sema doesn't depend much on GIP and tends to work better only with reduced GLP-1 levels. Yet ending up with low readings on both counts comes across as puzzling and illogical, implying some unknown element must be shaping the outcome. Tirz looks like it operates without needing GLP-1 while instead relying on reduced GIP, and this pattern holds steady in observations. Still, its not also needing reduced GLP-1 the way sema does doesn't align easily with its makeup. This is quite odd.

The main point they highlight is a suggested way to pick one med or the other depending on those hormone readings, yet they make clear it is only an idea worth checking later and not something ready for everyday medical use before larger trials back it up. I found the paper refreshingly open about how they handled the numbers despite the limited group size plus how they spelled out where the findings fall short. Everything matches what we know about how the compounds attach to the receptors in distinct ways plus the uneven signaling pattern of the first one.

I figure this company aims to market a hormone assay meant to guide which weight loss drug to pick and dodge useless ones. Anyone can see that low GLP-1 plus high GIP points to strong results from semaglutide. The paper lays out simple matching rules from the nine possible combinations. Low GIP on its own favors the dual agonist for the biggest drop. Low GLP-1 paired with middle or high GIP favors the single agonist for the same big drop. Both hormones high means weak effects from either so other paths like combined meds surgery or new non gut hormone options make more sense. Everything else gives mixed outcomes so other details decide. All it needs is one early morning blood draw plus two standard lab tests so it fits right into normal visits. That lab work adds very little next to half a year on the medicines and might cut wasted time plus failed tries. One of the writers held a post at the firm while the rest stated no money links that could bias things.

I believe this pattern applies to the majority of these compounds. For most, responses break down into roughly equal groups: one where folks report strong results, another with mild or uncertain benefits, and one seeing zero change. This variation seems tied to personal physiology rather than the substance. Starting from a deficit in the targeted area leads to noticeable shifts, whereas beginning at higher levels yields minimal impact. That variability also contributes to the challenges in researching and confirming their value, since solid conclusions would require matching participants by genetic makeup and initial measurements.

I find that research quite interesting. Once other groups replicate the results, testing my starting amounts of those hormones might clarify if the drugs are a good option.