RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Looking more closely at the NASH PotentialNot trying to suggest they are perfect. What I'm reading is around 50% of people respond to these treatments but not with the fibrotic aspect of the disease which is one of the worst prognostic features. That would be a clear differentiator it seems.
SPCEO1 wrote: From what I have read the vitamin E and pioglitazone option is not very effective. I suspect that Egrifta would be clearly superior to that.
PoorOpinion wrote: I guess the positive here is that anybody looking to treat NASH pharmacologically is automatically looking at off-label drugs. And looking at many of the science publications and serious health websites they invariably go to this topic. So I guess this is where clinicians minds are today when faced with what to do with NASH patients.
The negative is vitamin E and pioglitazone seem to be the off-label drugs of choice (among others) and these are orders of magnitude cheaper than EGRIFTA, pills, and seem to have positive impacts in a good number of cases. From what I've read it is fibrosis that is still the one completely unmet challenge so the fibrosis data in the trial may offer one possible differentiator.
So while there may be no approved treatments there seems to be a well established off-label market , breaking into that would be a challenge. But atleast it exists.
SPCEO1 wrote: I have no seen any studies - just a guess on my part. Someone else might be able to justify their guess with something that happened in similar circumstances.
PoorOpinion wrote: I can totally see that this is possible but have you seen any studies/numbers to suggest that the super-wealth do this, and their doctor aid in the process? Why the
200-1000 range? Rather than say 20-100 or
2000-10000?