the biopsy question that gets asked weekly, answered properly
Something I keep coming back to: the biopsy question that gets asked weekly, answered properly.
Sent a vial to Janoshik because there was nothing on file. 99.4% against a claimed 98.5%. First entry for this compound in my own log.
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.
Read the phase 2 hepatic paper properly and the endpoint definitions were more interesting than the headline response rate.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
[removed by moderator]
This. Biopsy-confirmed and imaging-suggested are different evidentiary categories and get run together constantly.
the titration in the trials was slow and deliberate
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate.
This is the framing the board needs. It is a hepatic programme first.
Bought small because the evidence base is early. That is the only defensible position I could construct.
Is that a weight number from a different programme?
Retitled to name the endpoint. Histological and imaging results are not interchangeable and the original title implied they were.