biopsy is the most under-discussed thing on this board
biopsy 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.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Disagree — that is a weight endpoint from a different programme and you are quoting it in a hepatic context.
Push back: the evidence here is phase 2, in a specific population, and it does not support a general ranking.
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.
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.