RE:RE:Screening Failure - Alcohol Until Proven OtherwiseCorrect
I'm assuming chronic liver diseases were excluded in all study participants (especially given past issue), therefore, increase in liver enzymes should not be secondary to an acute on chronic process, but rather an acute process
Well what's the differential diagnosis for acute liver enzyme elevation (transaminitis) in the 5x ULN range?
It's NOT otenaproxesul at 100 mg (because we have strong data readouts at 150 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg already that proves against this)...renal accumulation because of 21 vs. 14 days is very unlikely...
Therefore, it is alcohol until proven otherwise (other substances or infectious transaminitis less so)...
WalkOverTheStrt wrote: If memory serves a previous study had issues b/c a patient lied about their liver - believe had Hep B or some other disease. Im not on the conspiracy side but more likely a result of drinking, disease that wasnt mentioned, etc.