BariatricNurseD said:Liver enzyme update related to liver and MASH: I had mildly elevated ALT/AST at baseline (likely NAFLD).
NASH/MAFLD therapeutic landscape and liver and MASH: GLP-1 agonists are emerging as potential first-line NASH therapy. The Phase 2b data for semaglutide showed 59% NASH resolution (vs 17% placebo) with 43% achieving fibrosis improvement[1].
Mechanism: GLP-1R activation reduces hepatic lipogenesis, increases fatty acid oxidation, reduces hepatic inflammation, and may directly reduce hepatic stellate cell activation (fibrosis pathway).
With resmetirom (thyroid hormone receptor agonist) recently approved for NASH, the field is evolving rapidly. Combination approaches (GLP-1 + resmetirom) are being explored.
[1] Newsome PN, et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(12):1113-1124.
BiostatsBrad said:Fatty liver on an incidental scan two years ago and nobody followed it up.
Liver ultrasound comparison for liver and MASH: my hepatologist ordered serial ultrasounds to track NAFLD regression.
Baseline: "Moderate hepatic steatosis, liver span 17.2cm, echogenic texture consistent with fat infiltration"
Month 8: "Mild steatosis, liver span 15.8cm, improved echogenicity"
Month 14: "Minimal to no steatosis, normal liver span 14.5cm, normal echotexture"
My liver literally shrank and de-fattened. The ultrasound tech said she's seen this pattern increasingly in GLP-1 patients and it's remarkable how consistently the fatty liver resolves.
LipidDoc_ATL said:NASH/MAFLD therapeutic landscape and liver and MASH: GLP-1 agonists are emerging as potential first-line NASH therapy.
Coming at LipidDoc_ATL’s question from a different direction. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Reporting back.
Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause. Leaving the original post as written rather than editing it, so the mistake stays visible for whoever searches this next.