[Lab] 8th independent test on JEEP — 97.2% on a claimed 97.0%, and the trend is the interesting part
Result first, context after: 8th independent test on JEEP — 97.2% on a claimed 97.0%, and the trend is the interesting part. Everything below is how it was ordered, stored and sent.
Numbers, in the order they matter: 97.2% and 97.0%.
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.
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.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
- JEJEEP source pageGuangzhou JEEP Biotechnology Co., Ltd. · Guangzhou · 97% here, rank 3 · shop at jeepbio.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.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.
Removed the escalation schedule. Unapproved compound, no protocols for other members, no exceptions.
read the histology endpoint definitions before quoting a response rate
biopsy-confirmed is not the same as imaging-suggested
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.
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
julia_mensa is right that biopsy and imaging endpoints are not interchangeable.
That figure is from the obesity programme, and this thread is about the hepatic one.
That figure is from the obesity programme, and this thread is about the hepatic one.
Agreed — and the endpoint definitions are where the actual claim lives.
Small fix — dual agonist, GLP-1 and glucagon. No GIP arm in this molecule.
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.
What does the tolerability table say at that dose?
This. Biopsy-confirmed and imaging-suggested are different evidentiary categories and get run together constantly.
Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.
MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar
MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar
Disagreeing with this bit: that number comes from a different programme with a different population.
research material is not approved for human use, which is why the clinical record here is thin
Correcting myself: the readout I quoted was the 44-week interim rather than the endpoint.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Cosigning on the glucagon arm. It is the mechanistic thread that connects the hepatic and the metabolic effects.
not approved anywhere, and the boards forget that constantly
Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, which is the first fact and usually the last one mentioned.
Read the phase 2 hepatic paper properly and the endpoint definitions were more interesting than the headline response rate.
Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.
- 1Phase 2 in a biopsy-confirmed population is a demanding design: recruitment…8 comments in this branch · started by u/julia_mensa