Talk:Dulaglutide
Discussion page·3 threads·no archives
This is the discussion page for the article Dulaglutide. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.
Is this a peptide article at all?Resolved
A 60 kDa Fc fusion is a protein biologic. Does it belong in Category:Peptide drugs alongside 39-residue synthetics? — ScopeSeverin (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
The active moiety is a GLP-1 peptide and the article is read alongside the others in the class. I would keep the category and let the article make the distinction, which it does at some length. — DulaglutideDug (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. Categories are for finding things, not for taxonomy purity. ✓ Done — DefinedTermDov (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
REWIND population
The primary-prevention majority in REWIND is the most important thing about that trial and the article gets it right. Worth also noting the longer median follow-up, which contributes to the event count as much as the population does. — ForestPlotFinn (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Added the 5.4-year median. I would resist adding much more — the trial deserves its own article eventually rather than three paragraphs here. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Reverse-phase purity on a fusion proteinDone
"Would be inadequate on its face" is a strong statement but I think it is right. A single RP figure cannot speak to aggregation or charge variants in a molecule that size. — Areapercent_Ayo (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
It is a statement about method scope rather than about any supplier, which is why it can be made plainly. Keeping it. ✓ Done — Chromatokid (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)