does MASH actually matter or is it forum lore at this point
The title is the whole question — does MASH actually matter or is it forum lore at this point — but here is why I am asking.
Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
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.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Asked here what the difference was between the imaging and biopsy endpoints and got a genuinely excellent answer.
Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, which is the first fact and usually the last one mentioned.
research material is not approved for human use, which is why the clinical record here is thin
the weight numbers are secondary to what this is being developed for
What does the tolerability table say at that dose?
Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.
Not convinced.
renzo_yildiz is right that biopsy and imaging endpoints are not interchangeable.
read the histology endpoint definitions before quoting a response rate
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.
I would not read across from the obesity programmes. Different population, different endpoint, different question.
That figure is from the obesity programme, and this thread is about the hepatic one.
MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one.
This is the framing the board needs. It is a hepatic programme first.
biopsy-confirmed is not the same as imaging-suggested
Is that a weight number from a different programme?
How fast was the escalation in that protocol?
- 1Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, which is the first fact…15 comments in this branch · started by u/joaquin_ivaturi