does MASH actually matter or is it forum lore at this point
The title is the whole question — does MASH actually matter or is it forum lore at this point — but here is why I am asking. Independent purity results for this compound are very sparse across the whole site, which means any impression about consistency is built on almost nothing. Nothing containing this compound is…
Yes — nothing containing this is approved anywhere, which is the first fact and usually the last one mentioned.
research material is not approved for human use, which is why the clinical record here is thin
the weight numbers are secondary to what this is being developed for
What does the tolerability table say at that dose?
Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.
Not convinced.
renzo_yildiz is right that biopsy and imaging endpoints are not interchangeable.
read the histology endpoint definitions before quoting a response rate
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one. The paper reports both and they differ substantially.
I would not read across from the obesity programmes. Different population, different endpoint, different question.
That figure is from the obesity programme, and this thread is about the hepatic one.
MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar
Correction: that is the imaging endpoint, not the histological one.
This is the framing the board needs. It is a hepatic programme first.
biopsy-confirmed is not the same as imaging-suggested
Is that a weight number from a different programme?
How fast was the escalation in that protocol?