Bansal, Meena B.

ABSTRACT Introduction Metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and steatohepatitis (MASH) represent a spectrum of liver conditions that can gradually progress to cirrhosis. Sodium‐glucose co‐transporter‐2 (SGLT‐2) inhibitors have shown benefits in reducing hepatic steatosis and liver‐related events in MASLD. This study aims to assess whether SGLT‐2 inhibitors are associated with a reduced risk of all‐cause mortality and disease‐specific outcomes in patients with MASH cirrhosis and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed using TriNetX. Patients with T2D and MASH cirrhosis on SGLT‐2 inhibitors were matched 1:1 with other glucose‐lowering drugs (oGLDs) based on demographics, comorbidities and medications. Primary outcomes included all‐cause mortality, hepatic decompensation and major adverse liver outcomes (MALO). Cox‐proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results A total of 51 427 patients with MASH cirrhosis and T2D were identified, of which 6833 (13.28%) were on SGLT‐2 inhibitors. Patients on SGLT‐2 inhibitors ( n = 6449, mean age 63.7 years, 52.9% female) were matched with 6449 individuals (mean age 63.9 years, 53.5% female) on oGLDs. The SGLT‐2 inhibitors cohort had statistically significantly lower risk of all‐cause mortality (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.53–0.63), hepatic decompensation (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.81–0.90) and MALO (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.83–0.93). Conclusion SGLT‐2 inhibitors are associated with a reduced risk of all‐cause mortality in patients with MASH cirrhosis and T2DM, which may be partly attributable to a lower risk of hepatic decompensation and subsequent events. Further studies are warranted as SGLT‐2 inhibitors may serve as an adjunctive therapy for patients with MASH cirrhosis.

This practice recommendation serves as an update to the 2023 AASLD Practice Guidance on the clinical assessment and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), now known as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and provides implementable guidance on patient selection for treatment, consideration of comorbidities, and monitoring of treatment safety and efficacy of semaglutide. FDA-indication and Practice Recommendation: The Wegovy formulation, whose main ingredient is semaglutide, received accelerated FDA approval in August 2025 for treating MASH with moderate-to-advanced fibrosis (consistent with stages F2–F3 fibrosis), based on interim results of the phase 3 ESSENCE trial where 72 weeks of 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous injection resulted in achievement of both primary histologic endpoints: (1) resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis (62.9% vs. 34.3% placebo, p <0.001) and (2) ≥1 stage reduction in liver fibrosis without worsening of MASH (36.8% vs. 22.4% placebo, p <0.001); final approval awaits long-term outcomes. Patient Selection: Candidates should have MASH with stage 2–3 fibrosis, identified using non-invasive tests (NITs) such as VCTE (8–15 kPa), MRE (3.1–4.4 kPa), or ELF (9.2–10.5), rather than liver biopsy, which is impractical and unnecessary for most patients. In those with VCTE (15–20 kPa), MRE (4.4–5 kPa), or ELF (10.5–11.3), an individualized decision to treat should be based on exclusion of cirrhosis with another confirmatory NIT, or cross-sectional imaging excluding nodular-appearing liver contour and signs of portal hypertension, or a platelet count of <150,000/mm 3 . While semaglutide is not approved to treat patients with MASH cirrhosis (VCTE >20 kPa, MRE>5.0 kPa, ELF>11.3, and/or evidence of portal hypertension), those with compensated cirrhosis who are receiving semaglutide for another FDA-approved indication should be monitored carefully. Monitoring and Safety: Semaglutide showed a favorable hepatic safety profile in the ESSENCE trial, with no discontinuations due to liver enzyme elevations. Routine hepatic panels are recommended only as clinically indicated. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting), generally mild and transient; patient education and dose titration help improve tolerance. Clinicians should monitor for rare but serious risks, including acute kidney injury (from dehydration), symptomatic gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, thyroid C-cell tumors, retinopathy progression, and lean mass loss. Treatment Response and Concomitant Therapy: Lifestyle modification remains the cornerstone of MASLD/MASH management alongside semaglutide. Combination use of resmetirom with semaglutide 2.4mg/week has not been studied. While no NITs reliably predict histologic response at the individual patient level, reductions from baseline to 72 weeks of treatment suggest significant improvement in MASH resolution (ALT ≥17 U/L or ≥20%) and fibrosis improvement (VCTE LSM ≥30%; MRE LSM ≥20%; ELF ≥0.5). Non-response may be suspected if ALT or NITs worsen. The benefit is uncertain if a suboptimal response occurs, and may require an individualized approach and further follow-up.

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) ≥ 10 mmHg) is a severe complication of chronic liver disease, with increased risk of variceal bleeding and liver decompensation (at HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg). This study evaluated the performance of multiparametric (mp)MRI for diagnosing CSPH and predicting liver decompensation, compared to ultrasound‐based shear wave elastography (SWE) and blood tests. Methods In this prospective single‐centre study (2018–2022), 59 patients (M 30, mean age 52.7 years) underwent mpMRI and HVPG measurement, with an average interval of 32 ± 31 days. The mpMRI protocol included 2D/3D MR elastography (MRE), T 1 /proprietary iron‐compensated T 1 (cT 1 )/T 1ρ mapping, gadoxetate‐enhanced dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI (DCE‐MRI) of the liver and spleen, SWE and blood tests. Statistical analyses included Mann–Whitney U tests, ROC analysis, logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models. Results CSPH was present in 13 patients (22%). Several MRI parameters showed high diagnostic performance for CSPH (AUC ≥ 0.8), with spleen stiffness‐2D MRE (AUC 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–0.98) and liver uptake on DCE‐MRI (AUC 0.83, 95% CI 0.70–0.96) performing best, while SWE had AUCs of 0.63 (95% CI 0.45–0.81) for liver and 0.67 (95% CI 0.44–0.89) for spleen. Combining spleen stiffness‐2D MRE and liver uptake achieved an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86–1.00) for diagnosing CSPH. For predicting decompensation, spleen stiffness‐3D MRE and liver uptake rate had AUCs of 0.83 (95% CI 0.68–0.99) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.70–0.95), respectively, outperforming SWE. Conclusions Spleen stiffness measured with MRE combined with gadoxetate liver uptake (measured with DCE‐MRI) can diagnose CSPH and predict liver decompensation, with superior performance compared to SWE. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03436550

Goals: Our aim was to perform a national survey of provider attitudes, practices, and knowledge regarding weight loss and MASLD medications in patients with MASLD. Background: While weight loss is a cornerstone in the management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), FDA-approved medications for weight loss remain underutilized. Results: We conducted a survey before resmetirom approval of hepatology and gastroenterology providers practicing in 44 states. Surveys were sent to 747 providers with 304 complete responses (41%), of whom 260 (86%) work at a liver transplant center. While nearly all respondents (96%) believed that weight loss medications could benefit patients with MASLD, 77% have never/rarely prescribed them due to low comfort (81%). Among weight loss medication prescribers, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists were preferred (66%). In contrast, 63% had prescribed off-label medications for MASLD in the past 12 months, most commonly vitamin E (30%) and GLP-1 receptor agonists (25%). The top reported barriers to prescribing weight loss medications were lack of training/unfamiliarity, cost/insurance coverage, and side-effects, which may be explained by low formal obesity education and lack of knowledge (only 33% of FDA-approved medications for weight loss were correctly identified by >50% of providers). Overall, there was reasonable provider-reported adherence to the 2023 AASLD practice guidance for MASLD. Conclusions: This nationwide survey of hepatology and gastroenterology providers before resmetirom demonstrates that while off-label prescribing for MASLD was common, weight loss medication prescription rates remain very low due to low comfort possibly from insufficient education despite strong beliefs that they can benefit patients with MASLD.