For people living with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, also known as fatty liver disease, finding a way to reduce liver fat is a major goal. A new study looked at a drug called chiglitazar to see if it could help. The research involved 104 patients who had high triglycerides and insulin resistance. These are common issues that make the disease harder to manage. Participants took either a low dose of 48 milligrams, a higher dose of 64 milligrams, or a sugar pill that looked the same but had no medicine. They took the chosen option once every day for 18 weeks. Scientists used a special MRI scan to measure how much fat was stored in the liver at the end of the trial. The results showed a clear difference between the groups. Patients taking the lower dose saw their liver fat drop by 24.9 percent compared to those on the sugar pill. Those on the higher dose saw a 36.3 percent drop. The sugar pill group did not see a similar reduction in fat levels. Both doses of the drug were well tolerated by the patients. Most side effects that did occur were mild to moderate. No serious problems were reported during the study. This trial offers hope for a treatment that directly targets the fat buildup in the liver.
Chiglitazar reduces liver fat in MASLD patients with hypertriglyceridemia and insulin resistanceTwo doses of chiglitazar cut liver fat far more than a placebo in 18 weeks
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
This phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated chiglitazar in 104 patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) who also had hypertriglyceridemia and insulin resistance. Patients were assigned to chiglitazar 48 mg once daily, chiglitazar 64 mg once daily, or placebo for 18 weeks.
The primary outcome was the percentage change in liver fat content measured by MRI-PDFF at week 18. The 48 mg group showed a mean reduction of 28.1% (95% CI -37.5 to -18.7), the 64 mg group a reduction of 39.5% (95% CI -49.0 to -30.0), and placebo a reduction of 3.2% (95% CI -16.8 to 10.4). The difference versus placebo was statistically significant for both doses (p <0.05 for 48 mg; p <0.001 for 64 mg).
Most adverse events were mild to moderate, and both doses were well tolerated. Serious adverse events and discontinuation rates were not reported. The study did not report funding or conflicts of interest.
Limitations include the small sample size, short follow-up of 18 weeks, and lack of data on long-term outcomes or histologic improvement. As a phase II trial, these results are preliminary. Clinicians should interpret the findings cautiously until confirmed by larger phase III studies.