[Lab] GGPeps survo — VendorInvestigate came back 97.9% against a claimed 97.0%
GGPeps survo — VendorInvestigate came back 97.9% against a claimed 97.0%, and before anyone asks: same batch throughout, single submission, no cherry-picking between services. 97.9% and 97.0% — those are the numbers, and they are the ones I am willing to defend. Bought small because the evidence base is early. That…
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
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.
What does the tolerability table say at that dose?
Push back: the evidence here is phase 2, in a specific population, and it does not support a general ranking.
That is an escalation schedule for an unapproved compound and this board does not host those.
Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.
Same. Very thin independent data on this one, which should make everybody here more tentative than they are.
biopsy-confirmed is not the same as imaging-suggested