The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator. Three questions, and they resolve most disagreements in these threads.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?
PeptideChemSF said:A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsReporting back.
Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have. That was reassuring rather than otherwise.
james_edin said:Read four things before the headline number.
ATTAIN trial (survodutide) context for liver and MASH: survodutide, a GLP-1/glucagon dual agonist, showed -18.7% body weight at 46 weeks in the Phase 3 ATTAIN trial. NASH resolution was achieved in ~60% of patients[1].
This is relevant to liver and MASH because survodutide's glucagon agonism specifically targets hepatic lipid metabolism — making it potentially the best-in-class agent for NASH/MAFLD comorbid with obesity.