[PSA] dual agonist is not what most of this community thinks it is
Short public-service post: dual agonist is not what most of this community thinks it is.
Asked here what the difference was between the imaging and biopsy endpoints and got a genuinely excellent answer.
Went slowly because everything published describes a deliberate escalation. That is the extent of what I will say about it.
Spent an evening on the histology scoring system and understood the trial literature far better afterwards.
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
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.
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.
Agreed that the endpoint definitions matter enormously and almost nobody reads them before quoting a response rate.
not approved anywhere, and the boards forget that constantly
Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.
Yes — histological endpoints are a far harder bar than the surrogate measures people are used to quoting.
Yes — histological endpoints are a far harder bar than the surrogate measures people are used to quoting.
This is the framing the board needs. It is a hepatic programme first.
research material is not approved for human use, which is why the clinical record here is thin