[Discussion] the hepatic fat advice in here is 2 years out of date
the hepatic fat advice in here is 2 years out of date. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this.
The relevant figures are 2 years, and they come from the same log I have kept the whole time.
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
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.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
The escalation schedules in the published protocols are slow and deliberate, and the tolerability tables show why.
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved compound, research material is not for human use.
That figure is from the obesity programme, and this thread is about the hepatic one.
the titration in the trials was slow and deliberate
the titration in the trials was slow and deliberate
Disagreeing with this bit: that number comes from a different programme with a different population.
Are you reading the publication or a summary?
- 1The escalation schedules in the published protocols are slow and deliberate,…6 comments in this branch · started by u/farid_kuipers