The lack of info on eGFR has been on my mind for a while. Possibilities:

1. Worse-case scenario: eGFR was reduced by ABL. Very unlikely because of what we already know about the drug, and if that were the case, it would have been flagged as an adverse effect by tge FDA that would surely have blocked BT designation.

2. eGFR was not significantly affected. Possible. But then it would have been a throw-away finding that they would probably have mentioned at the AHA.

3. eGFR was improved but they are keeping quiet about despite the impact on share value. The only reason I can think of here is that it is going to be presented at a meeting or published in a paper soon and there is a prior agreement with investigators not to go public before then and/or an embargo imposed by the journal or congress.

If eGFR was increased, it’s a fair assumption that measurements like serum creatinine and urea (both eliminated by the kidneys) would have decreased. My recollection is that these data were also not presented at the AHA. As they are very basic measurements, why were they not presented either?

So I would put my money on no 3.

All imo.

But perhaps I’ve overlooked something! I’ll continue to scratch my head.