Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. With resmetirom now available for MASH, combination approaches are being explored, so the standard of care in this area is moving faster than most threads assume.
One thing that is still open after rachel_ABQ’s answer:
What actually belongs on a baseline panel, as opposed to the enormous list that gets pasted around here?
lisa_labSD said:With resmetirom now available for MASH, combination approaches are being explored, so the standard of care in this area is moving faster than most…
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The liver data is among the strongest non-weight findings in the class. The semaglutide MASH programme reported a large advantage over placebo on MASH resolution, with a substantial minority also achieving fibrosis improvement — and fibrosis is the endpoint that predicts outcomes. Mechanistically it is reduced hepatic lipogenesis, increased fatty-acid oxidation, less hepatic inflammation, and possibly a direct effect on stellate-cell activation.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsReporting back.
Took the whole panel in rather than the one flagged line, and the conversation lasted two minutes instead of generating three more tests.
anders_CPH said:The liver data is among the strongest non-weight findings in the class.
Agreed, and reference ranges are laboratory-specific. Comparing your number to somebody else's range, or to a screenshot from another country, is how people convince themselves something is wrong.
Worth separating that from liver and MASH, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.