MASHdoc_SA 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
kevin_tulsa said:Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
MASHdoc_SA said:The liver data is among the strongest non-weight findings in the class.
I read this differently from MASHdoc_SA, on substance rather than tone. 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.
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.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. 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.