three years of glucagon threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
three years of glucagon threads, summarised so you do not have to read them, which sounds obvious until you try to state the evidence for it.
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.
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.
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
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.
biopsy-confirmed is not the same as imaging-suggested
The escalation schedules in the published protocols are slow and deliberate, and the tolerability tables show why.
Adding the standing caveat — unapproved compound, research material is not for human use.
Which phase and which arm are you quoting?
Yes — histological endpoints are a far harder bar than the surrogate measures people are used to quoting.
This. Biopsy-confirmed and imaging-suggested are different evidentiary categories and get run together constantly.
Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.
Bought small because the evidence base is early. That is the only defensible position I could construct.
the hepatic data is what makes this compound different from the others
the hepatic data is what makes this compound different from the others
This is the framing the board needs. It is a hepatic programme first.
Left up. It reads the paper carefully and is explicit about the population.
Sent a vial to PeptideMeter because there was nothing on file. 98.4% against a claimed 98.0%. First entry for this compound in my own log.
glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread
Went slowly because everything published describes a deliberate escalation. That is the extent of what I will say about it.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Right, and the trial titration was slow for reasons that are visible in the tolerability tables.
Asked here what the difference was between the imaging and biopsy endpoints and got a genuinely excellent answer.
Looked for independent results across this whole site and found almost none. Worth knowing before forming an opinion.
- 1The escalation schedules in the published protocols are slow and deliberate,…8 comments in this branch · started by u/elin_ferrari