[Lab] Homopeptide survo — Medutest came back 98.4% against a claimed 98.0%
Homopeptide survo — Medutest came back 98.4% against a claimed 98.0%. One vial, one service, one member paying, which is the only kind of result this board should treat as evidence.
The relevant figures are 98.4% and 98.0%, and they come from the same log I have kept the whole time.
Sent a vial to PeptideMeter because there was nothing on file. 97.7% against a claimed 97.5%. First entry for this compound in my own log.
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.
Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.
- HOHomopeptide source pageHunan Aslsen Technology Co., Ltd. · Changsha · 91% here, rank 16 · shop at homopeptide.net →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Retitled to name the endpoint. Histological and imaging results are not interchangeable and the original title implied they were.
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.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
That is an escalation schedule for an unapproved compound and this board does not host those.
Yes — histological endpoints are a far harder bar than the surrogate measures people are used to quoting.
Same. Very thin independent data on this one, which should make everybody here more tentative than they are.
read the histology endpoint definitions before quoting a response rate
That figure is from the obesity programme, and this thread is about the hepatic one.
Push back: the evidence here is phase 2, in a specific population, and it does not support a general ranking.
not approved anywhere, and the boards forget that constantly
Disagree — that is a weight endpoint from a different programme and you are quoting it in a hepatic context.
glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread
glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread
This is the framing the board needs. It is a hepatic programme first.
Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.
This. Biopsy-confirmed and imaging-suggested are different evidentiary categories and get run together constantly.
glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread
Agreed — and the endpoint definitions are where the actual claim lives.
Careful with the mechanism claim. Glucagon agonism is plausible as an explanation and it has not been isolated as the operative one.
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
Has anyone posted an independent purity result for this compound?
Looked for independent results across this whole site and found almost none. Worth knowing before forming an opinion.
biopsy-confirmed is not the same as imaging-suggested
I would not read across from the obesity programmes. Different population, different endpoint, different question.
Has anyone posted an independent purity result for this compound?
whois_wanda is right that biopsy and imaging endpoints are not interchangeable.
The honest evidence position, written out so this board does not drift.
Phase 2 data exists in a specific, biopsy-characterised population, with a slow protocol escalation and tolerability tables worth reading in full. Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Independent purity results across this entire site number in the low single figures. That means nobody here — including the people who post most confidently — has a basis for statements about batch-to-batch consistency. If you test something, post it; the log is the only thing that will change that position.
this board is small because the compound is early
Which endpoint — histological response, fibrosis improvement, or fat fraction?
phase 2 in liver disease is a different evidence question from weight
Read the phase 2 hepatic paper properly and the endpoint definitions were more interesting than the headline response rate.
the weight numbers are secondary to what this is being developed for
- 1It is a dual agonist at the GLP-1 and glucagon receptors. The glucagon arm…10 comments in this branch · started by u/camila_marchand
- 2glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread6 comments in this branch · started by u/liv_vukovic