[Lab] WWB survo — Medutest came back 99.2% against a claimed 98.5%
WWB survo — Medutest came back 99.2% against a claimed 98.5%. One vial, one service, one member paying, which is the only kind of result this board should treat as evidence.
99.2% and 98.5%. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.
Bought small because the evidence base is early. That is the only defensible position I could construct.
What this compound is actually being developed for, since the boards treat it as a weight-loss molecule with a footnote.
It is a dual GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist, and the glucagon arm links to hepatic fat and energy expenditure. The headline programme is metabolic liver disease, with endpoints scored on biopsy rather than on a scale.
That matters for how the data should be read. A histological response rate in a biopsy-confirmed population answers a very different question from a mean weight change in an obesity trial, and quoting one in place of the other — which happens in nearly every thread here — is not a comparison.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
- WWWWB source pageWuhan Wansheng Biotechnology Co., Ltd. · Wuhan · 97% here, rank 2 · shop at wuhanwanshengbio.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.
Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.
That is an escalation schedule for an unapproved compound and this board does not host those.
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.
I would not read across from the obesity programmes. Different population, different endpoint, different question.
Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.
Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected.
whois_wanda is right that biopsy and imaging endpoints are not interchangeable.
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.