Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. The liver data is among the strongest non-weight findings in the class. The semaglutide MASH programme reported a large advantage over placebo on MASH resolution, with a substantial minority also achieving fibrosis improvement — and fibrosis is the endpoint that predicts outcomes. Mechanistically it is reduced hepatic lipogenesis, increased fatty-acid oxidation, less hepatic inflammation, and possibly a direct effect on stellate-cell activation.

Dr.PainCLE said:

The liver data is among the strongest non-weight findings in the class.

Agreed, and ALT falling is not the same as fibrosis improving. Enzymes are a crude proxy; FIB-4 or elastography is what tells you about the thing that matters.

CanadaChris said:

Following the glucagon co-agonists mostly for the liver endpoints rather than the weight ones, which seems to be the opposite of how they get…

Second this.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.

Glucagon receptor pharmacology in triple agonists (retatrutide), relevant to the glucagon co-agonists: the glucagon component is the most controversial because glucagon traditionally raises blood glucose. So why include it in an anti-obesity drug?

Key insight: glucagon increases energy expenditure (thermogenesis), promotes hepatic lipid oxidation, and reduces appetite through distinct CNS mechanisms. The hyperglycemic effect is counterbalanced by the GLP-1 component's insulin secretagogue action.

Net result: more weight loss through increased expenditure (glucagon) + decreased intake (GLP-1/GIP), with neutral or improved glycemia. An elegant pharmacological balancing act[1].