RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:If I understand well....Agreed on both points.
In both the VKTX and MDGL trials, placebo patients lost about 9% of MRI measured liver fat.
In the Egrifta study, placebo patients gained 5%.
Therefore, it likely is more difficult to reduce liver fat in HIV patients.
We can compare and contrast the studies forever.
However, there are tox concerns with the VKTX drug and MDGL’s drug has not been studied in a large population yet.
There is no argument about the safety factor and this is extremely important for a drug that will be used on a semi-chronic to chronic basis.
bfw
jfm1330 wrote: The most important difference is that Grinspoon study was on HIV patients, while Madrigal was on general population. It is a known scientific fact that HIV virus and anti retroviral therapy are inducing disorder in fat metabolism in many HIV patient. So maybe it's harder to reduce liver fat in HIV patients. I don't think we can compare both at this point.
qwerty22 wrote: You're right about relative to placebo numbers. We could argue the finer points of the two studies forever.
Mdgl was week 36, Grinspoon week 52.
Mdgl was NASH patients, Grinspoon NAFL/NASH,
mean liver at outset - 13% Grinspoon, 20% mdgl
The point is we really need the other metrics to be a hit as well and I would give more value to mdgl liver fat reduction data from the fact that they have the other metrics already in the bank.