When exploring MASH research, follow the science and the money

The past year has brought a great deal of good news for those of us with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH). I follow research that may improve outcomes for the millions of people worldwide living with this often cruel disease.

Most of the news excites me. Still, I sometimes wonder how much of it I can trust. I know some readers do, too.

One of the biggest developments has been the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists to help people lose excess weight and improve metabolic health. In August 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted conditional approval to Wegovy (semaglutide) for certain adults with noncirrhotic MASH and moderate to advanced liver fibrosis. It is the first GLP-1 approved specifically for MASH.

That does not mean Wegovy is right for every person with fatty liver disease. Its MASH indication does not include people who already have cirrhosis, and continued approval depends on further evidence confirming its clinical benefit. I have been eager to explore it, but before I start Wegovy, I am asking questions.

So how do we know which medical research to trust?

Recommended Reading

June 22, 2026 News by Michela Luciano, PhD

In large trials, MASLD drug survodutide safely shrank liver fat, body weight

Studies don’t represent everyone

Years ago, I was dealing with turbulent stomach problems. I was broke, unemployed, and uninsured when I saw an advertisement for a clinical trial in the back of a local Pennysaver. The investigational medicine sounded as though it might relieve symptoms that frightened and annoyed me in equal measure.

A few days later, I sat in an office next to a local hospital, filling out a small forest of paperwork. Then came the bad news: I could not participate because I had undergone gastric bypass surgery, which might affect how my body absorbed the medication.

The researchers offered free blood work and promised to email the results. The tests did not explain my stomach trouble, but they revealed something I never expected to learn via email: I was pregnant.

A week later, a small check and a congratulatory note arrived in my mailbox. Seven months later, my daughter was born.

That experience taught me something important. Even a well-designed study cannot represent every body, medical history, or circumstance. A medicine that helps me may not help you, and a trial result may not apply neatly to either of us.

Researchers once excluded women from much medical research, partly out of concern that hormonal cycles or pregnancy might complicate results. The NIH Revitalization Act, signed June 10, 1993, required women and minorities to be included in clinical research funded by the National Institutes of Health. Medicine finally began acting on what women already knew: We are not merely smaller versions of men. The law changed research, but it did not erase every gap in representation.

Asking questions

When I read a study, I first look at who participated. How many people were enrolled? Were the participants similar in age, sex, disease stage, and medical history to the people who may use the treatment?

A larger study can provide more reliable evidence, but size alone is not enough. Randomization, a meaningful control group, participant diversity, and the number of people who dropped out also matter. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers tools for assessing study quality.

Then I follow the money. Industry funding does not automatically make research dishonest. Pharmaceutical companies must fund studies to develop medicines. However, a Cochrane review of industry sponsorship found that sponsored drug and medical device studies were more likely to report conclusions favorable to the sponsor’s product. Readers should look for funding disclosures and whether researchers have financial conflicts of interest.

Finally, I look for replication, peer review, and regulatory context. FDA approval means the agency reviewed evidence and determined that a drug’s benefits outweigh its known risks for a specific use. It does not mean the medicine is risk-free or that science has finished asking questions.

Post-approval safety monitoring may reveal uncommon side effects or other information after thousands or millions of people begin taking a drug.

Whether you are following the science or the money, keep your questions handy. Ask who was studied, who paid, what the comparison group received, and whether the results apply to someone with your medical history.

I will keep bringing you the latest credible information on MASH treatments whenever I can. Liver Disease News will also continue reporting on studies and therapies that you can discuss with your medical team.

We are all in this together, but our livers still insist on being individuals.

Note: Liver Disease News is strictly a news and information website about the disease. It does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. This content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The opinions expressed in this column are not those of Liver Disease News or its parent company, Bionews, and are intended to spark discussion about issues pertaining to liver disease.