my ALT moved and I cannot work out whether dual agonist is why
Something I keep coming back to: my ALT moved and I cannot work out whether dual agonist is why.
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
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.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Left up. It reads the paper carefully and is explicit about the population.
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.
Biopsy-confirmed population or imaging-selected?
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.
[deleted]
not approved anywhere, and the boards forget that constantly
read the histology endpoint definitions before quoting a response rate
That is an escalation schedule for an unapproved compound and this board does not host those.
glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread
Went slowly because everything published describes a deliberate escalation. That is the extent of what I will say about it.
Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.
Looked for independent results across this whole site and found almost none. Worth knowing before forming an opinion.
Looked for independent results across this whole site and found almost none.
Agreed — and the endpoint definitions are where the actual claim lives.
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.
Are you reading the publication or a summary?
This. Biopsy-confirmed and imaging-suggested are different evidentiary categories and get run together constantly.
Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, which is the first fact and usually the last one mentioned.
this board is small because the compound is early
What does the tolerability table say at that dose?
Which phase and which arm are you quoting?
- 1Looked for independent results across this whole site and found almost none.…9 comments in this branch · started by u/elin_tamm
- 2Histological endpoints in this field are scored on biopsy: resolution of…8 comments in this branch · started by u/injection_site_iris