[Discussion] hepatic fat is doing more work than we give it credit for
hepatic fat is doing more work than we give it credit for. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments.
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
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.
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.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
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 by moderator]
Same. Very thin independent data on this one, which should make everybody here more tentative than they are.
This. Biopsy-confirmed and imaging-suggested are different evidentiary categories and get run together constantly.
That figure is from the obesity programme, and this thread is about the hepatic one.
Agreed that the endpoint definitions matter enormously and almost nobody reads them before quoting a response rate.
Spent an evening on the histology scoring system and understood the trial literature far better afterwards.
I would not read across from the obesity programmes. Different population, different endpoint, different question.
this board is small because the compound is early
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.