dual agonist is the most under-discussed thing on this board
dual agonist is the most under-discussed thing on this board. I have gone back and forth on this for months.
Phase 2 in a biopsy-confirmed population is a demanding design: recruitment is slow, the population is specific, and the results do not generalise to people who have not been characterised that way.
It is a dual agonist at the GLP-1 and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm is associated with increased energy expenditure and with effects on hepatic fat, which is why the development programme is oriented towards liver disease.
Histological endpoints in this field are scored on biopsy: resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis, or improvement in fibrosis without worsening of steatohepatitis. Both are harder to achieve and to interpret than an imaging surrogate.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
do not import intuitions from the obesity programmes
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
Same. Very thin independent data on this one, which should make everybody here more tentative than they are.
Are you reading the publication or a summary?
Sent a vial to Janoshik because there was nothing on file. 98.0% against a claimed 97.5%. First entry for this compound in my own log.
Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.
read the histology endpoint definitions before quoting a response rate
The escalation schedules in the published protocols are slow and deliberate, and the tolerability tables show why. That is a description of the trials rather than a suggestion for anybody.
That is an escalation schedule for an unapproved compound and this board does not host those.
research material is not approved for human use, which is why the clinical record here is thin
biopsy-confirmed is not the same as imaging-suggested
What does the tolerability table say at that dose?
independent testing on this compound is very thin
not approved anywhere, and the boards forget that constantly
Is that a weight number from a different programme?
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.
Agreed. The hepatic programme is the point of this compound and the weight discussion is a side effect of the side effect.
Which phase and which arm are you quoting?
- 1independent testing on this compound is very thin6 comments in this branch · started by u/border_paperwork