GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of [Question] how do you actually verify biopsy — 51 comments in the full submission. View in context.
1.7k
c/survodutide·submitted 1 year ago by u/hana_pereira

[Question] how do you actually verify biopsy

Questionbranch of 7 comments

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…

Read the full submission and all 51 comments →

This branch

7 comments, started 1 year ago
u/ismael_nwosu144 points·1 year ago

Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.

replysharereportpermalink
u/slow_logbook_notes3044 points·1 year ago

Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.

replysharereportpermalink
u/dario_boateng35 points·1 year ago

independent testing on this compound is very thin

replysharereportpermalink
u/hana_pereiraOP-15 points·1 year ago

Which phase and which arm are you quoting?

replysharereportpermalink
u/paper_trail_paulavetting38 points·1 year ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
[deleted]28 points·1 year ago

[deleted]

replysharereportpermalink
u/neha_rahimi8 points·1 year ago

glucagon agonism and energy expenditure is the mechanistic thread

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

About c/survodutide

Survodutide-specific discussion: glucagon-receptor co-agonism, the hepatic fat and MASH resolution data, and how the side-effect profile compares with GIP-based dual agonism. Small community, high signal.

12kmembers
62submissions
Feb 2024created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

Janoshik Analytical

Independent HPLC and mass spec. The number you get is the number they found.

janoshik.com
Sponsored

GL Biochem (Shanghai)

Custom peptides and amino acids direct from the manufacturer since 1998. ISO 9001 / cGMP. Batch COA every order.

glbiochem.net
c/survodutide rules
  1. Glucagon co-agonism has a distinct safety story. Do not generalise from tirzepatide.
  2. MASH claims need the trial and the biopsy endpoint.
  3. Not approved. Descriptive posts only.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.