Skip to content

NotablePeer-reviewed

Efficacy and safety of efinopegdutide in adults with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis and stage 2–3 fibrosis: a phase 2b, randomised, placebo-controlled study

Steatohepatitis resolved in over half of patients analysed on each dose of a GLP-1-glucagon drug, vs 13% on placebo

ByEric Lawitz, Vincent Wai‐Sun Wong, R Ravi Shankar, Sven Francque, Keyur Patel, Luca Miele and 2 others

The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center · Texas Liver Institute · Chinese University of Hong Kong · Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) and 4 more

30th of 40 papers scored this week on Frontier.

What it is

Efinopegdutide is a once-weekly co-agonist of the GLP-1 and glucagon receptors, with a relative receptor potency balance of about 2:1, in development for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), the inflammatory form of fatty liver disease. In this phase 2b, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study at 176 centres in 26 countries, adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and stage 2 or 3 fibrosis were assigned to efinopegdutide at 4 mg, 7 mg or 10 mg, placebo, or open-label semaglutide 2.4 mg, all injected once a week; 381 participants received at least one dose. At week 52, MASH resolved without worsening of fibrosis in 56%, 63% and 61% of those analysed on the three doses, against 13% on placebo and 53% on semaglutide. Fibrosis improved by at least one stage without worsening of steatohepatitis in 43%, 52% and 34% on the three doses against 21% on placebo (differences from placebo with p=0.0038 at 4 mg and p<0.0001 at 7 mg; at 10 mg p=0.072, with a confidence interval that included no difference), and in 25% on semaglutide. Gastrointestinal events were the most frequent adverse events with efinopegdutide, highest at 10 mg, where 11% stopped treatment because of adverse events, against 3-4% at the other doses and 1% on placebo.

Why it matters

MASH resolved more often than on placebo at every dose after a year, and the authors single out 7 mg, which also improved fibrosis in about half of the patients on it. At that dose the difference from placebo was 49.5 percentage points for MASH resolution and 30.4 percentage points for fibrosis improvement, and the authors judge it to have the most favourable balance of benefit and risk. The abstract does not give their reasoning; it reports that 10 mg had the most discontinuations for adverse events (11%) and the smallest fibrosis gain over placebo (34% against 21%). The study also gave semaglutide openly to one group, and the abstract reports its rates without a statistical comparison with efinopegdutide. The authors conclude that the findings support efinopegdutide's potential as a once-weekly treatment for MASH.

Underlined numbers link to their source. Every metric and quoted figure is listed under Sources and data below.

Filed underLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment, Diabetes Treatment and Management, Hepatitis C virus research

Scored 2026-11-14How scoring works

The Frontier Score, in full

How this entry's score is built, term by term. Open any pillar to see each sub-metric's raw value, how it maps to 0 to 100, and a link to its source (OpenAlex for most sub-metrics that combine several sources, NIH iCite where its ratio is part of field-normalized impact).
Evidence 80Impact 36Novelty 67
The three pillars as one shape: a result strong on every axis fills the triangle.
How the Frontier Score is calculated for this breakthrough
TermScoreWeightPoints
EvidenceHow established and verifiable the result is.80× 0.2520.0
ImpactHow much the result matters, judged field-relative and by current momentum.36× 0.258.9
NoveltyHow genuinely new the result is, and how fast-moving.67× 0.5033.4
Weighted pillars62.2
Frontier recency0 months since publication× 0.98
IntegrityNot retracted× 1
Frontier Score61
Confidence: Early signal. Early signal: little citation history yet, so impact is an estimate and may shift as the work is taken up. Corroborated beyond citations (1 clinical trial).Early signal: little citation history yet, so impact is an estimate and may shift as the work is taken up. Corroborated beyond citations (1 clinical trial).

Every sub-metric, traced to its source

Evidence80
Evidence sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Peer review & venueWhether the work has cleared peer review, and how selective its venue is. Peer review is necessary but not sufficient: before citations accrue, a fresh result in one of the five general flagships (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) is a stronger evidence signal than one in a selective specialist or society journal, which in turn outranks one in a legitimate but very high-volume mega-journal, and any of them outranks a preprint that has not been reviewed at all.Maps to 0 to 100: Peer-reviewed article graded by venue tier: flagship journal (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) 100; selective journal (every other journal the index admits: the specialist journals of those families, JAMA, PNAS, Physical Review Letters and X) 90; high-volume mega-journal (Nature Communications, Science Advances) 78; venue not recorded 88. Other records: review 90, book 70, dataset 60, preprint 45, an article that has not been peer reviewed 45, other 55.Peer-reviewed, flagship journal1000.3030.0OpenAlex type / primary_location / source
CorroborationIndependent corroboration that the result is on the record and reaching beyond a single source, read as the BREADTH of independent records rather than the size of the citation pile. Counts how many of the five independent citation indices (OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC) report a citation count for the work at all, zero included, plus orthogonal, non-citation lines of corroboration: citation in Wikipedia, registered clinical trials or clinical citations, released datasets or software or a repository copy, public funding on record, and technical-community discussion. Citation MAGNITUDE is deliberately judged under Impact, not here, so Evidence and Impact measure genuinely different things instead of both rewarding the same citation pile twice.Maps to 0 to 100: Starts at 28 and rises by 9 for each of the five independent citation indices that returns a citation count for the work (zero counts; OpenCitations returns zero even for a DOI it does not hold) and by 6 for each orthogonal non-citation line (Wikipedia, clinical trials or clinical citations, open datasets, software or a repository copy, public funding, community discussion), up to the top of the 0-100 scale.4 of 5 citation indices report a count, 1 independent non-citation line700.3021.0OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC, DataCite, NIH RePORTER, Wikipedia, Hacker News count of indices that report a count for the work + orthogonal reach
VerifiabilityHow openly the result can be read, reused, and reproduced. Rewards open access, a Creative Commons BY or CC0 license, a green repository copy anyone can archive, openly minable full text, and released datasets or software a reader can actually run. Cross-checked across OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, and DataCite.Maps to 0 to 100: Closed access 45; open access 88; any Creative Commons BY license (including the NC, ND and SA variants) or CC0 100. A repository copy raises the floor to 85, openly minable full text to 90, and released data or software to 92.Closed access450.209.0OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, DataCite is_oa / license / has_repository_copy / open datasets
IntegrityRetraction and post-publication correction status. A retracted result is not evidence of anything and collapses the whole Frontier Score; a correction or expression of concern is a softer flag. A correction the publisher labels as its own error (a Publisher Correction) is not a flag on the work. Read across OpenAlex and Crossref (both update-to and updated-by notices).Maps to 0 to 100: Clean 100 (also when the only notice is a Publisher Correction); a correction or expression of concern 75; retracted 0. Flagged if OpenAlex OR Crossref records the notice.No retraction or concern on record1000.2020.0OpenAlex, Crossref is_retracted / update-to / updated-by
Impact36
Impact sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Field-normalized impactImpact relative to the world average for the same field, year, and type, so a small field and a large field are judged fairly. Triangulates three independent field-normalized measures: OpenAlex's Field-Weighted Citation Impact, its citation percentile within the exact field-and-year cohort, and the NIH iCite Relative Citation Ratio. 1.0x is average; the percentile is the share of same-field, same-year work it out-cites.Maps to 0 to 100: Each ratio (1.0 = field average) maps 1.0 to 50, 3.0 to 75, 9.0 to 90; the field+year percentile maps directly (top 1% -> ~99). The available measures are averaged. When none is available yet (very recent work), this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.2.5x FWCI, top 18% of field-year vs field760.4534.4OpenAlex, NIH iCite fwci / citation_normalized_percentile / relative_citation_ratio
Influential citationsCitations that genuinely build on the work rather than mention it in passing (Semantic Scholar's influential-citation measure). A sharper signal of real impact than a raw count.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 15 influential citations maps to 50, and none maps to 0. When Semantic Scholar has no measure for the work, this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.0 influential00.200.0Semantic Scholar influentialCitationCount
Citation velocityCitations received in the trailing twelve months (estimated from yearly citation counts: this year's so far plus the share of last year's that falls inside the window), judged as a rate rather than a lifetime total. Momentum is what a frontier index cares about: a result being taken up fast right now is landing, whether its lifetime pile is large or still small. Where an expected field citation rate is known, the momentum is also read relative to it, so a fast-moving result in a quiet field is not overlooked.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 30 citations in the last twelve months maps to 50. When NIH iCite provides the field's expected rate, this is blended evenly with the ratio of observed to expected momentum.1 in last 12 months30.351.1OpenAlex, NIH iCite counts_by_year / field_citation_rate
Novelty67
Novelty sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Conceptual noveltyHow genuinely new the contribution is, measured at publication from the work's OWN content, not its date: how atypical its combination of research areas is versus all prior work, and whether it builds on a broad, deep base rather than only the newest papers in a fast-moving area. This is what separates a real advance from a recent-but-commodity result, and it needs no forward citations, so it is stable for brand-new work. An honestly noisy proxy (even state-of-the-art novelty measures agree only moderately with expert judgment), so it carries bounded weight and never drives the ranking alone.Maps to 0 to 100: Two publication-time signals, each 0-100. The primary one is atypical combination: how unusual the work's median pairing of research topics is versus the prior literature, by pointwise mutual information (a pairing made far more often than chance scores low). The second, foundational reach (the median age of the work's references and the share older than five years), can only lift it: when reach is higher, the score rises by 35% of the gap, and it is never lowered. When only one signal is measurable it is used alone; when neither is (a work too thin in topics or references), this sub-metric is left out and Novelty is computed from the other three. A review is damped to 60%.Median topic pairing Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment x Diabetes Treatment and Management (3,923 prior works made this pairing); builds on refs a median 3.4y deep450.4520.4OpenAlex topics + referenced_works (publication-time)
RecencyHow recently the work appeared. The frontier is now, so newer scores higher.Maps to 0 to 100: Exponential decay with a 12-month half-life from the publication date.This month980.3029.3OpenAlex publication_date
Attention accelerationWhether attention is rising: citations in the latest full year versus the year before. Accelerating interest signals an active, opening frontier.Maps to 0 to 100: Latest/prior-year ratio: 1x maps to 50, 2x to 75, 4x to 100. The prior year counts as at least 3 citations, so a jump from one citation to a few is not read as explosive growth. With no citations in the latest full year it reads as unknown, and unknown is neutral (50).Not enough history500.105.0OpenAlex counts_by_year
Edge of reviewPreprints sit ahead of the peer-review process and brand-new papers have only just cleared it. Both earn novelty here (while a preprint is discounted under Evidence), because that is where the frontier forms first.Maps to 0 to 100: Preprint 95; any other record 80 when under 6 months old, 65 under 18 months, 45 after that.Peer-reviewed record800.1512.0OpenAlex type / publication_date
ProvenanceAll sources

Sources and data

The source figures behind this entry, grouped by the source that holds them: up to five citation indices cross-checked, field-normalized impact, then real-world reach (Wikipedia, community discussion, clinical trials, released data and public funding) where it exists. Each value links to its record.

OpenAlex

Primary record
Total citations
1
Field-weighted citation impact
2.5x field average
Citation percentile
Top 18% of its field-year
Citations, recent 12 months
1
Publication date
2026-11-01

Crossref

Citations
1
Works it builds on
25

Semantic Scholar

Citations, all versions
1
Influential citations
0

OpenCitations

Citations
0

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registered clinical trials
1 (to phase 2)

Figures quoted in the write-up

FigureValueSource
Relative receptor potency balance (Abstract: a pharmacologically distinct once-weekly GLP-1-glucagon receptor co-agonist)a relative receptor potency balance of approximately 2:1The Lancet
Study centres (Abstract)176 academic and community centres in 26 countriesThe Lancet
Fibrosis improvement of at least one stage, placebo (Abstract)16 (21%) of 77 participantsThe Lancet
Fibrosis improvement of at least one stage, semaglutide (Abstract: open-label group)16 (25%) of 65 participantsThe Lancet
Discontinuation for adverse events at 10 mg (Abstract)nine (11%) of 79 participantsThe Lancet
Discontinuation for adverse events at 4 mg and 7 mg (Abstract)range 3-4%The Lancet
Discontinuation for adverse events on placebo (Abstract)one (1%)The Lancet
MASH resolution, 7 mg against placebo (Abstract)49·5 percentage points (95% CI 31·4 to 64·2; p<0·0001)The Lancet
Fibrosis improvement against placebo, by dose (Abstract: key secondary endpoint)difference vs placebo 21·7 percentage points [7·1 to 35·7; p=0·0038] in the efinopegdutide 4 mg group, 30·4 percentage points [15·4 to 44·3; p<0·0001] in the efinopegdutide 7 mg group, and 13·0 percentage points [-1·2 to 26·8; p=0·072] in the efinopegdutide 10 mg groupThe Lancet
Efinopegdutide doses (Abstract: randomly assigned 1:1:1:1:1 to the three doses, placebo or open-label semaglutide, all subcutaneous once weekly)efinopegdutide (4 mg, 7 mg, or 10 mg)The Lancet
Semaglutide dose (Abstract)open-label semaglutide 2·4 mgThe Lancet
Participants analysed (Abstract: received at least one dose; 1704 screened; 239 with F2 and 142 with F3 fibrosis; mean age 53 years)381 (99%) of 386 randomly assignedThe Lancet
Primary endpoint time point (Abstract: MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis)at week 52The Lancet
MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis, efinopegdutide (Abstract: week 52; all p<0·0001 against placebo)31 (56%) of 55 at 4 mg, 31 (63%) of 49 at 7 mg, 35 (61%) of 57 at 10 mgThe Lancet
MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis, placebo (Abstract)seven (13%) of 53 participantsThe Lancet
MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis, semaglutide (Abstract: open-label group)26 (53%) of 49 participantsThe Lancet
Fibrosis improvement of at least one stage, efinopegdutide (Abstract: without worsening of steatohepatitis; p=0·0038, p<0·0001 and p=0·072 against placebo)32 (43%) of 75 at 4 mg, 39 (52%) of 75 at 7 mg, 26 (34%) of 77 at 10 mgThe Lancet
For the authors

Show this score where your work lives

A badge for your lab page, your CV or the paper's code repository. It links readers to this entry, and it always carries the entry's current score.
This paper's Frontier Score badge, as it appears where you place itLive preview
<a href="https://frontierresearch.co/breakthroughs/efficacy-and-safety-of-efinopegdutide-in-adults-with-met-w7225655521?utm_source=badge&amp;utm_medium=badge&amp;utm_campaign=author-kit"><img src="https://frontierresearch.co/api/badge/W7225655521.svg" alt="Frontier Score for this paper" height="20"></a>

For a lab or personal website, a CV page, or anywhere that takes HTML.

The number is live. The badge is drawn from the same signals as this page, so it never shows a score the entry does not. Every entry is re-checked weekly against the same public sources, and a result's standing eases as it ages, so the active edge of the field stays on top. How scoring works

Your other papers. The free paper check shows any paper's field-weighted citation impact, its citations in five open indexes and any retraction on record, whether or not it is in the index, and the researcher check does it for your whole record from your ORCID iD.

Something wrong or out of date? Write to hello@frontierresearch.co and the entry will be corrected.

Biomedicine & HealthThe whole field

Back to the Frontier Index, or browse every breakthrough by date.

The Frontier Brief

The week's Biomedicine & Health, scored.

Every Monday, up to six of the week's new Biomedicine & Health entries in the index, each with its score and a one-line read on why it matters, then the week's best from the rest of the frontier. What you get

Prefer a feed reader? Follow Biomedicine & Health by RSS

One email a week: up to six of the week's new Biomedicine & Health entries, scored, then the best elsewhere. Unsubscribe anytime.