THE NASH Tsunami audience came to know Jörn Schattenberg in the Fall of 2020 when he shared a paper he had recently co-authored on why NASH drug trials failed. This week, the same group that discussed that paper – Jörn, Stephen Harrison, Louise Campbell and Roger Green – reflect on what has improved in the intervening time period and what has not. The group suggest that researchers are making progress in reducing screen fail rates, but not in the critical issues of accessibility and equity.

Improving NASH Clinical Trials By Reducing Screen Fail Rates

I start this question by asking Stephen why tertiary care centers with extensive primary care outreach might not be excellent sites to exercise the new paradigm. He agrees, giving the specific example of Naga Chalasani’s work at the University of Indiana. I ask how this approach might fare outside the US, which leads Jörn and Louise to state that while it might be a fantastic idea, their medical systems are not set up to operate this way today.

This leads to my closing question, which asks each panelist one event over the next 6-12 months that might provide momentum for more robust and rigorous patient recruitment. Listen for our answers, including one that flips a Stephen Harrisonism on its head by talking about juice that is DEFINITELY worth the squeeze.