Dr.PeteFamMed said:The liver data is among the strongest non-weight findings in the class.
All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.
Dr.KarenChen said:The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Taking it to my next appointment.
Dr.PeteFamMed said:The liver data is among the strongest non-weight findings in the class.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding 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.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Carry on.