genuine question about dual agonist that I am slightly embarrassed to ask
Slightly embarrassed to be asking this, but: genuine question about dual agonist that I am slightly embarrassed to ask. Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other. Nothing containing this compound is approved…
Agreed. The hepatic programme is the point of this compound and the weight discussion is a side effect of the side effect.
That figure is from the obesity programme, and this thread is about the hepatic one.
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
research material is not approved for human use, which is why the clinical record here is thin
Disagreeing with this bit: that number comes from a different programme with a different population.
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.
glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread
the weight numbers are secondary to what this is being developed for
Agreed.
Agreed — and the endpoint definitions are where the actual claim lives.