am I the only one who found hepatic fat harder than the injections
The title is the whole question — am I the only one who found hepatic fat harder than the injections — but here is why I am asking.
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.
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.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate.
Agreed — and the endpoint definitions are where the actual claim lives.
the weight numbers are secondary to what this is being developed for
Small fix — dual agonist, GLP-1 and glucagon. No GIP arm in this molecule.
Has anyone posted an independent purity result for this compound?
MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar
Which phase and which arm are you quoting?
the hepatic data is what makes this compound different from the others
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.
Bought small because the evidence base is early. That is the only defensible position I could construct.
It is a dual agonist at the GLP-1 and glucagon receptors.
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved compound, research material is not for human use.
Asked here what the difference was between the imaging and biopsy endpoints and got a genuinely excellent answer.
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.
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.
Sent a vial to Janoshik because there was nothing on file. 99.0% against a claimed 98.5%. First entry for this compound in my own log.
the titration in the trials was slow and deliberate
do not import intuitions from the obesity programmes
- 1Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with…9 comments in this branch · started by u/kaia_cabrera