I did a quick search on sotagliflozin, and it turns out there’s quite a bit of dirty laundry. Sanofi terminated its partnership with Lexicon because of its subpar efficacy, and the FDA rejected its approval for certain indications, among other messy issues. With a track record like that, it’s hard to stay interested in looking into this drug.
In that case, you should not have said “out of all gliflozins currently available [emph mine]” and instead said “out of all flozins most often discussed on this forum”. Btw., I’m not sure henagliflozin was discussed more often than sotagliflozin - certainly not earlier in the thread.
Also, if positing a thesis like “it is T1 that is important in LE” wrt. canagliflozin, you really should have “dug into” sotagliflozin research first before hanging your case on T1 seeing as the T2/T1 ratio is strongest in that flozin. Research first, generate hypothesis second.
1 Like
My bad ! I kind of glossed over sotagliflozin because I remembered seeing articles about all its corporate and regulatory mess, so I naturally excluded it from my literature search.
Also, I know I left out some of the other gliflozins. Maybe I’m just set in my ways, but up until now, my attention has pretty much been tied to dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and henagliflozin.
3 Likes
What a curious position to take! I myself pointed out the regulatory issues around sotagliflozin (including marketing decisions in Europe), earlier in the thread, so I’m well aware of this.
However, I find it astonishing, that you would see “subpar efficiency” of sotagliflozin in a clinical setting, and conclude that you should not be interested in this drug for research. Hello?! Isn’t that the entire point of research, to look at evidence for and against your hypothesis? A negative result is just as valuable as a positive one, often even more so. If you are positing that the T2/T1 ratio being low is what makes canagliflozin all that, then if presented with a case of a flozin with a lower yet ratio, and it is dramatically falsifying your hypothesis, that’s all the more reason, in Popperian terms to sit up and “dig into” the implication for your views re the centrality of T2/T1 ratio in the effectiveness of canagliflozin!
In fact, that is exactly what @adssx did earlier in the discussion of T2/T1 - he, unlike you, immediately saw the importance of sotagliflozin in clarifying this issue, and explored it earlier in the thread (@adssx has shown himself repeatedly to be a very good researcher of the literature - you may want to emulate his example, instead of doing the opposite as you so often tend to).
Remember, when generating and evaluating a hypothesis, you should not limit yourself to searching for all the evidence for your thesis, but even more importantly search for evidence against your thesis. That way your thesis won’t immediately collapse at the first presentation of a 101 level of critique. Get your basics solid first, long before boldly presenting a “novel” idea. Good luck!
4 Likes
Why debate which one to use when we can do both. As matter of fact, I’ve been doing Empa 12.5MG mornings for last 18 months but couple days ago I started Cana 100mg’s at night also. So, now I can have my 14% life extension and also protect my heart and kidneys LOL. I intend to keep it this way for a while and see how it goes.
1 Like