[Question] how do you actually verify biopsy
Asking properly rather than in a comment on somebody else’s thread: how do you actually verify biopsy.
Went slowly because everything published describes a deliberate escalation. That is the extent of what I will say about it.
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.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
That figure is from the obesity programme, and this thread is about the hepatic one.
Spent an evening on the histology scoring system and understood the trial literature far better afterwards.
not approved anywhere, and the boards forget that constantly
not approved anywhere, and the boards forget that constantly
Agreed — and the endpoint definitions are where the actual claim lives.
Small fix — dual agonist, GLP-1 and glucagon. No GIP arm in this molecule.
Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.
Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.
independent testing on this compound is very thin
Which phase and which arm are you quoting?
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.
[deleted]
glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread
Bought small because the evidence base is early. That is the only defensible position I could construct.
Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, which is the first fact and usually the last one mentioned.
Cosigning on the glucagon arm. It is the mechanistic thread that connects the hepatic and the metabolic effects.
Careful with the mechanism claim. Glucagon agonism is plausible as an explanation and it has not been isolated as the operative one.
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.
Agreed that the endpoint definitions matter enormously and almost nobody reads them before quoting a response rate.
Sent a vial to PeptideMeter because there was nothing on file. 97.4% against a claimed 97.0%. First entry for this compound in my own log.
I would not read across from the obesity programmes. Different population, different endpoint, different question.
this board is small because the compound is early
- 1Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological…7 comments in this branch · started by u/ismael_nwosu