[Lab] 24th independent test on QSC — 98.4% on a claimed 98.0%, and the trend is the interesting part
Short version of the title, which is already short: 24th independent test on QSC — 98.4% on a claimed 98.0%, and the trend is the interesting part. Longer version underneath.
Since the title puts numbers in the shop window: 98.4% and 98.0%.
The honest evidence position, written out so this board does not drift.
Phase 2 data exists in a specific, biopsy-characterised population, with a slow protocol escalation and tolerability tables worth reading in full. Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Independent purity results across this entire site number in the low single figures. That means nobody here — including the people who post most confidently — has a basis for statements about batch-to-batch consistency. If you test something, post it; the log is the only thing that will change that position.
The endpoint vocabulary, because you cannot read this literature without it.
Resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis and improvement in fibrosis without worsening of steatohepatitis are the two standard composite endpoints, both scored on biopsy by pathologists against a defined system. Liver fat fraction is an imaging surrogate that correlates imperfectly with histology.
A trial can move the surrogate substantially and the histological endpoint modestly. Both results are real; they answer different questions. Anybody quoting a response rate here should say which endpoint it refers to, and most summaries do not.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
- QSQSC source pageQingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd. · Qingdao · 95% here, rank 7 · shop at qingdaosigma.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.
read the histology endpoint definitions before quoting a response rate
That figure is from the obesity programme, and this thread is about the hepatic one.
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.
[removed by moderator]
a liver endpoint is not a weight endpoint with better marketing
Careful with the mechanism claim. Glucagon agonism is plausible as an explanation and it has not been isolated as the operative one.
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.
That is an escalation schedule for an unapproved compound and this board does not host those.
Read the phase 2 hepatic paper properly and the endpoint definitions were more interesting than the headline response rate.
Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
fibrosis improvement without worsening steatohepatitis is the phrase to learn
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
the weight numbers are secondary to what this is being developed for
Went slowly because everything published describes a deliberate escalation. That is the extent of what I will say about it.
research material is not approved for human use, which is why the clinical record here is thin
phase 2 in liver disease is a different evidence question from weight
the hepatic data is what makes this compound different from the others
phase 2 in liver disease is a different evidence question from weight
This is the framing the board needs. It is a hepatic programme first.
this board is small because the compound is early
This. Biopsy-confirmed and imaging-suggested are different evidentiary categories and get run together constantly.
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.
fibrosis improvement without worsening steatohepatitis is the phrase to learn
lina_ndiaye is right that biopsy and imaging endpoints are not interchangeable.
biopsy-confirmed is not the same as imaging-suggested
glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread
glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread
Disagreeing with this bit: that number comes from a different programme with a different population.
Looked for independent results across this whole site and found almost none. Worth knowing before forming an opinion.
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.
- 1fibrosis improvement without worsening steatohepatitis is the phrase to learn16 comments in this branch · started by u/lina_ndiaye
- 2Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the…10 comments in this branch · started by u/cato_girard