is it normal to get constipation at week 7
is it normal to get constipation at week 7, logged the same way every week so the comparison is at least internally fair.
Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.
Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Which phase and which arm are you quoting?
Asked here what the difference was between the imaging and biopsy endpoints and got a genuinely excellent answer.
independent testing on this compound is very thin
the weight numbers are secondary to what this is being developed for
Which phase and which arm are you quoting?
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved compound, research material is not for human use.
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.
What does the tolerability table say at that dose?
[deleted]
Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.
MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar
research material is not approved for human use, which is why the clinical record here is thin
Went slowly because everything published describes a deliberate escalation. That is the extent of what I will say about it.
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
Yes — histological endpoints are a far harder bar than the surrogate measures people are used to quoting.
That figure is from the obesity programme, and this thread is about the hepatic one.
Biopsy-confirmed population or imaging-selected?
Small fix — dual agonist, GLP-1 and glucagon. No GIP arm in this molecule.
Agreed that the endpoint definitions matter enormously and almost nobody reads them before quoting a response rate.
Careful with the mechanism claim. Glucagon agonism is plausible as an explanation and it has not been isolated as the operative one.
Correcting myself: the readout I quoted was the 46-week interim rather than the endpoint.
Bought small because the evidence base is early. That is the only defensible position I could construct.
Looked for independent results across this whole site and found almost none. Worth knowing before forming an opinion.
This. Biopsy-confirmed and imaging-suggested are different evidentiary categories and get run together constantly.
Cosigning on the glucagon arm. It is the mechanistic thread that connects the hepatic and the metabolic effects.
Sent a vial to PeptideMeter because there was nothing on file. 99.3% against a claimed 99.0%. First entry for this compound in my own log.
- 1Histological endpoints in this field are scored on biopsy: resolution of…8 comments in this branch · started by u/elin_tamm
- 2Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with…6 comments in this branch · started by u/sofia_danquah