RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Timeline??? MRI and liver fibroscans. No tracer :)
Here are a couple links for you.
The 2nd is not yet recruiting but includes liver biopsy results. Gold standard. You’ll note that study #2 is for the general population and not just HIV. It has not started.....perhaps a bigger company will come in and get it rolling faster. There’s some speculation!
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02196831?term=Egrifta&draw=2&rank=2 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03375788?term=Egrifta&draw=4&rank=11 Wino115 wrote: I suppose another way to approach these speculative debate points is to put probabilities around them. SPCEO has acknowledged his conclusions have a lot of "ifs" in them. That means, fairly low probability the conlusion will actually happen given what we know now.
The biggest 'if" is the results from the MGH/NIH study. This is where I am perhaps more skeptical and put a very low probability even though I'm not a liver scientist. It what little reading I've done, it seems to me that the only way they are actually measuring NASH success is in tracing an enzyme indicator or something like that. I think SPCEO posted on it and it and its mentioned in some of the literature. Obviously they can't biopsy. To me, this means it could very well be hard to actually show "really good" numbers on the study. I just think the science will behind all this makes all these probabilities extremely low. I have to ask myself, wouldn't any one of the previous owners of the drug think to see if it reduced other fatty areas? Just seems too obvious a question and even TH mgmt didn't want to spend a penny to do the NIH study, and they know the most of the science.
LIghtning in a bottle does happen. We may all get lucky. I am hoping for it. But I put the probability of fantastic NASH results at 1%, really good at 5% and "ok, maybe will help HIV mkt only" at 30%. So on a probability weighted scenario we should be more concerned about the revenue ramp of Trogarzo still.