three years of MASH threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
Thinking out loud about this: three years of MASH threads, summarised so you do not have to read them.
Spent an evening on the histology scoring system and understood the trial literature far better afterwards.
Looked for independent results across this whole site and found almost none. Worth knowing before forming an opinion.
Asked here what the difference was between the imaging and biopsy endpoints and got a genuinely excellent answer.
That is everything I have. The rest is opinion and I have tried to keep it out.
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.
Went slowly because everything published describes a deliberate escalation. That is the extent of what I will say about it.
Went slowly because everything published describes a deliberate escalation.
Disagreeing with this bit: that number comes from a different programme with a different population.
fibrosis improvement without worsening steatohepatitis is the phrase to learn
Correcting myself: the readout I quoted was the 55-week interim rather than the endpoint.
do not import intuitions from the obesity programmes
Left up. It reads the paper carefully and is explicit about the population.
Right, and the trial titration was slow for reasons that are visible in the tolerability tables.
Small fix — dual agonist, GLP-1 and glucagon. No GIP arm in this molecule.
do not import intuitions from the obesity programmes
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved compound, research material is not for human use.
biopsy-confirmed is not the same as imaging-suggested
dual GLP-1 and glucagon agonist, and the glucagon arm is the story
Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.
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.
research material is not approved for human use, which is why the clinical record here is thin
Bought small because the evidence base is early. That is the only defensible position I could construct.
Is that a weight number from a different programme?
Agreed. The hepatic programme is the point of this compound and the weight discussion is a side effect of the side effect.
Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.
Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost no
Agreed — and the endpoint definitions are where the actual claim lives.
Same. Very thin independent data on this one, which should make everybody here more tentative than they are.
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.
Cosigning on the glucagon arm. It is the mechanistic thread that connects the hepatic and the metabolic effects.
Sent a vial to PeptideMeter because there was nothing on file. 99.6% against a claimed 99.0%. First entry for this compound in my own log.
- 1do not import intuitions from the obesity programmes7 comments in this branch · started by u/isabela_nilsen