🍪 The GLP Lounge uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsMASH / Liver DiseaseMASH resolution without worsening fibrosis — endpoint analysis Page 2

MASH resolution without worsening fibrosis — endpoint analysis

MASHdoc_SA Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 2:26 AM 11 replies 281 viewsPage 2 of 3
raj_cambridge
Member
489
2,123
Jun 2024
Cambridge, MA
Jun 7, 2026 at 4:32 AM#6

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.

10 5SleepFixSam, PurityPaulOR, MaxMetOK and 7 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
JenPlateau
Member
234
890
Nov 2024
Missouri
Jun 7, 2026 at 5:21 AM#7

Following on from PharmHunterJen — and this may be the naive question:

How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?

Last edited: Jun 7, 2026 at 11:21 AM
9 4TrialNerd_Beth, HPLC_Greg, LibrarianMeg and 6 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
jim_asheville
Member
289
1,234
Aug 2024
Asheville, NC
Jun 7, 2026 at 6:10 AM#8
raj_cambridge 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.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud. Trial participants get titration by protocol, scheduled contact, free drug and dietetic support; removing that infrastructure costs a few percentage points every time it has been measured. When your own curve sits below the published mean, that is the likeliest explanation before anything about you or your material.

Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

8 3NurseAsh_DET, BenResearch_OR, MikeKY_noInsulin and 5 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards

Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.

Shop Reference Standards
MASHdoc_SA
Member
456
2,345
Aug 2024
San Antonio, TX
Jun 7, 2026 at 7:00 AM#9

Closing the loop on my own question.

Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.

7 2LabKate, kate.chem, DataDave and 4 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
amsterdam_pete
Senior Member
1,567
6,789
Feb 2024
Netherlands
Jun 7, 2026 at 10:57 AM#10
jim_asheville said:
The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.

Liver ultrasound comparison for liver and MASH: my hepatologist ordered serial ultrasounds to track NAFLD regression.

Baseline: "Moderate hepatic steatosis, liver span 17.2cm, echogenic texture consistent with fat infiltration"
Month 8: "Mild steatosis, liver span 15.8cm, improved echogenicity"
Month 14: "Minimal to no steatosis, normal liver span 14.5cm, normal echotexture"

My liver literally shrank and de-fattened. The ultrasound tech said she's seen this pattern increasingly in GLP-1 patients and it's remarkable how consistently the fatty liver resolves.

Last edited: Jun 7, 2026 at 4:57 PM
35 8ChrisMacros, KetoKyle, CanadaChris and 32 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

Survodutide MASH Phase 2b — histological improvement data9 replies
Semaglutide and MASH — liver fat reduction quantification13 replies
Non-invasive MASH biomarkers — FibroScan, ELF, FIB-4 on GLP-110 replies
ALT normalization rates on GLP-1 — pooled trial data20 replies
GLP-1 hepatoprotection — direct vs indirect mechanisms16 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register