sarah_TO 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.

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.

ben_calgary said:

The mechanism that matters here is not stomach emptying, it is central.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask.

sarah_TO 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.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here.