someone explain survodutide to me like I have not read a paper in years
someone explain survodutide to me like I have not read a paper in years. I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They 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.
Spent an evening on the histology scoring system and understood the trial literature far better afterwards.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
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.
Removed the escalation schedule. Unapproved compound, no protocols for other members, no exceptions.
Careful with the mechanism claim. Glucagon agonism is plausible as an explanation and it has not been isolated as the operative one.
Asked here what the difference was between the imaging and biopsy endpoints and got a genuinely excellent answer.
the hepatic data is what makes this compound different from the others
phase 2 in liver disease is a different evidence question from weight
Is that a weight number from a different programme?
Are you reading the publication or a summary?
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Biopsy-confirmed population or imaging-selected?
MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar
That is an escalation schedule for an unapproved compound and this board does not host those.
independent testing on this compound is very thin
the titration in the trials was slow and deliberate
Same. Very thin independent data on this one, which should make everybody here more tentative than they are.
I would not read across from the obesity programmes. Different population, different endpoint, different question.
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.
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.
Agreed. The hepatic programme is the point of this compound and the weight discussion is a side effect of the side effect.
Read the phase 2 hepatic paper properly and the endpoint definitions were more interesting than the headline response rate.
Push back: the evidence here is phase 2, in a specific population, and it does not support a general ranking.
- 1Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only…11 comments in this branch · started by u/rafael_sjoberg