unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about MASH is guesswork
unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about MASH is guesswork. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down.
Asked here what the difference was between the imaging and biopsy endpoints and got a genuinely excellent answer.
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.
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
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 titration in the trials was slow and deliberate
read the histology endpoint definitions before quoting a response rate
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.
This is the framing the board needs. It is a hepatic programme first.
Small fix — dual agonist, GLP-1 and glucagon. No GIP arm in this molecule.
Cosigning on the glucagon arm. It is the mechanistic thread that connects the hepatic and the metabolic effects.
phase 2 in liver disease is a different evidence question from weight
Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.
the weight numbers are secondary to what this is being developed for
This. Biopsy-confirmed and imaging-suggested are different evidentiary categories and get run together constantly.
Has anyone posted an independent purity result for this compound?
- 1The escalation schedules in the published protocols are slow and deliberate,…8 comments in this branch · started by u/cato_girard