Next Article in Journal
Minimally Invasive Surgery and Recurrence Risk in Borderline Ovarian Tumours: A 10-Year Cohort Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Association of Phoenixin-14 with Body Mass Index Categories and Proteinuria in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes
Previous Article in Journal
Technical Feasibility and Early Outcomes of Anatomical Laparoscopic Female Radical Cystectomy with Round Ligament Fixation to Prevent Vaginal Vault Prolapse
Previous Article in Special Issue
Selected Emerging Biomarkers in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Clinical Insights and Implications for Precision Care
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

MASH in Type 2 Diabetes: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Therapeutic Management—A Narrative Review

by
Adela Gabriela Ştefan
1,†,
Adina Mitrea
2,†,
Diana Clenciu
2,*,
Ionela Mihaela Vladu
2,*,
Maria Magdalena Roşu
3,
Diana Cristina Protasiewicz-Timofticiuc
3,
Theodora Claudia Radu-Gheonea
2,
Ion-Cristian Efrem
4,
Anca Maria Amzolini
5,
Beatrice Elena Vladu
6,
Ana-Maria Efrem
7,
Delia-Viola Reurean Pintilei
8,9,
Eugen Moţa
10 and
Maria Moţa
10
1
Department of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases, Calafat Municipal Hospital, 205200 Calafat, Romania
2
Department of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
3
Department of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases, Faculty of Midwives and Nursing, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
4
Department of Internal Medicine—Medical Semiology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
5
Department of Medical Semiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
6
Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
7
Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Haţieganu” Cluj-Napoca, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
8
Department of Medical-Surgical and Complementary Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Biological Sciences, “Stefan cel Mare” University, 720229 Suceava, Romania
9
Consultmed Medical Centre, Department of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases, 700544 Iasi, Romania
10
Doctoral School, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this paper.
Medicina 2026, 62(2), 325; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62020325
Submission received: 30 December 2025 / Revised: 28 January 2026 / Accepted: 3 February 2026 / Published: 5 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus)

Abstract

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has emerged as one of the greatest challenges for the modern public health system and serves as the foundation for the development of advanced stages, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), which may progress to fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MASLD and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) mutually exacerbate one another. MASLD increases the incidence of T2DM and the risk of complications in patients already affected. T2DM accelerates progression to MASH, which has become the second leading cause of liver transplantation and end-stage liver disease, and is associated with hepatic decompensation, cirrhosis, HCC, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. MASLD and MASH are strongly linked to T2DM and obesity, pathogenesis including genetic polymorphisms, environmental factors, and multiple metabolic disturbances: insulin resistance (IR), gut dysbiosis, altered adipokine signaling, such as reduced adiponectin alongside increased pro-inflammatory cytokines. Inflammation plays a central role in the development of HCC in MASH, even in the absence of significant fibrosis. The Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) should be used as a first-line noninvasive tool to assess fibrosis risk. Additionally, ultrasound-based transient elastography (FibroScan) supports clinicians in assessing steatosis and fibrosis severity. Histologically, MASH is characterized by steatosis, lobular inflammatory changes, and ballooning degeneration of hepatocytes, with or without associated fibrosis. Accurately diagnosing and stratifying MASLD based on fibrosis risk is crucial to identify patients who may benefit from pharmacological treatment or can be managed only with lifestyle interventions. Patients should attain above 10% weight loss through lifestyle modifications. Resmetirom is recommended in F2/F3 fibrosis stages. For treating T2DM, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and coagonists, sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, metformin (if glomerular filtration rate exceeds 30 mL/min), and insulin (in decompensated cirrhosis) are preferred. Clinical insights derived from trials are expected to optimize quality of life and long-term outcomes in patients with MASH.

1. Introduction

Hepatic steatosis was first described by Addison in 1836 [1,2,3], but it was not until 1980 that the term nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) was used. This term described a progressive form of hepatic steatosis, characterized by histological features resembling steatohepatitis associated with alcohol consumption, but occurring in individuals withoutexcessive alcohol consumption [1,4]. Subsequently, the term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was introduced six years later, in 1986 [1,5]. As interest in fatty liver pathology grew, the components of metabolic syndrome (MetS) were delineated, highlighting various metabolic disorders linked to NAFLD, including hypertriglyceridemia, insulin resistance (IR), and hyperinsulinemia [1,2,6]. Due to this strong interconnection, the nomenclature shifted again in 2020, when NAFLD was replaced by metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), a change that introduced updated diagnostic criteria that allowed more permissive alcohol intake thresholds and removed the steatohepatitis subcategory [1,7].
However, some experts argued that the term “fat” carried stigmatizing connotations, which led to the introduction of the designation metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) in 2023 [1,8]. With the growing prevalence of MetS, MASLD has emerged as one of the greatest challenges for the modern public health system, now representing the leading cause of chronic liver diseases [9,10,11,12]. MASLD spans a wide clinical spectrum and serves as the foundation for the development of more advanced stages, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), which may progress to fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [8,13].
MASLD currently affects an estimated 38% of the global adult population [1,14,15,16], along with a considerable proportion (7–14%) of adolescents and young adults [1,17]. Its prevalence is highest in Latin America (44.4%) and lowest in Western Europe (25.1%). Forecasts remain concerning, with MASLD global burden projected to reach 55.4% by 2040, largely fueled by the escalating incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity [1,15,16,18,19]. Rapid increases in obesity and T2DM across North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia [1,20] have contributed to a MASLD prevalence of 39.43% in the general population and a truly alarming 68.71% among individuals with T2DM [1,21]. It is estimated that 20–30% of MASLD cases progress to MASH, with the prevalence of MASH in the general population projected to increase by 63% by 2030 [10,22]. MASH is likewise strongly linked to T2DM, with a prevalence of 37% in patients with T2DM, compared with 5–14% in the general population [10,14,23]. A recently published meta-analysis reported a MASLD prevalence of 65.33% among subjects with T2DM, with the highest rates observed in Eastern Europe (80.62%) and the Middle East (71.24%). The same study documented a MASH prevalence of 66.44% in this population, alongside substantial rates of significant fibrosis (40.78%) and advanced fibrosis (15.49%) [24].
MASLD and T2DM mutually exacerbate one another. MASLD not only increases the incidence of T2DM but also the risk of complications in patients already affected. Conversely, T2DM accelerates progression to MASH, advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, and HCC [25,26,27]. MASH has become the second leading cause of liver transplantation and end-stage liver disease [25,28], and is associated with hepatic decompensation, cirrhosis, HCC, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cardiovascular disease [11,29,30]. Consequently, the coexistence of MASLD and T2DM results in a markedly increased risk of adverse outcomes, with most deaths among patients with MASLD being attributed to cardiovascular events (40%), whereas only 4–8% are attributed to HCC and/or cirrhosis [14,31]. This review highlights recent advances in the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis approaches, and treatment of MASH in individuals with T2DM. This narrative review is based on a comprehensive evaluation of the available literature. Studies were identified through searches of PubMed and Scopus using combinations of keywords related to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), type 2 diabetes mellitus, and emerging therapeutic strategies. Priority was given to peer-reviewed clinical trials, meta-analyses, and high-quality observational studies published in English. Preclinical studies were included when relevant for mechanistic insight. Exclusion criteria included case reports, conference abstracts, editorials, non-peer-reviewed articles, and publications lacking sufficient methodological rigor or relevance to the scope of this review.

2. MASH Pathogenesis

MASLD and MASH have reached pandemic proportions and are strongly linked to T2DM and obesity (Figure 1) [32].
Current evidence favors the “multiple hits” model, indicating that the pathogenesis of MASH is far more intricate than the original hypothesis proposed by Day and James, which suggested that obesity leads to increased hepatic fat accumulation, requiring an additional “hit” to trigger inflammation and fibrosis [33,34,35]. The updated concept highlights a constellation of interacting factors, including genetic polymorphisms, environmental factors, and a spectrum of metabolic disturbances (Figure 2): IR, gut dysbiosis, and altered adipokine signaling. The latter is characterized by reduced adiponectin alongside increased pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) [32,34]. These mechanisms enhance intestinal permeability, facilitating the translocation of bacterial endotoxins to the liver, thereby intensifying inflammation and promoting the onset of MASLD and its progression to MASH. In addition, the imbalance between reactive oxygen species (ROS) and antioxidant defenses induces oxidative stress, which further amplifies inflammation, fibrosis, and cellular death [33,36]. Inflammation plays a central role in the development of HCC in MASH, even in the absence of significant fibrosis, highlighting distinct pathogenic mechanisms compared with fibrosis-driven HCC [37,38,39].

2.1. Genetic and Epigenetic Risk Factors

In terms of genetic susceptibility, polymorphisms in the PNPLA3, HSD17B13, TM6SF2, MBOAT7, FATP5, and ApoC-III genes, alongside epigenetic changes, confer a higher risk for the onset of MASLD and its progression to MASH [25,33,40,41,42,43]. Epigenetic mechanisms modulate the expression of these genes, with chromatin remodeling and DNA methylation representing the key regulatory processes involved [33,44].

2.2. Hormonal Factors

The development of visceral adiposity is influenced by multiple mechanisms, including hormonal, physiological, and anatomical factors, with differences between sex-specific groups. Males typically display an android pattern, marked by increased visceral fat accumulation, whereas females exhibit a gynoid pattern, characterized by increased subcutaneous fat [45,46]. Estrogens play a crucial role in premenopause by reducing lipolysis that occurs in subcutaneous adipocytes [45,47], leading to substantial subcutaneous fat storage, along with enhanced lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity in females [45,48]. Testosterone, in contrast, inhibits LPL activity [44,47]. Excess hepatic lipid accumulation primarily results from intensified visceral adipose tissue lipolysis, hepatic de novo lipogenesis (DNL) activation, and the consumption of hypercaloric or high-fat diets [49,50].

2.3. Diet and Lifestyle

High-calorie diets, especially those high in sugar and fat, lead to caloric surplus, promoting weight gain and hepatic fat accumulation [51]. In recent years, the Western diet, comprising ultra-processed foods such as fried items, pastries, sweets, and sugar-sweetened beverages, all rich in trans fats, saturated fats, and overall caloric density, has been linked to enhanced hepatic fat accumulation and stimulation of hepatic lipogenesis. These effects have been observed especially in diets high in fructose [33,52]. Such dietary patterns contribute to MASLD and MASH progression by inducing metabolic alterations, including IR, inflammation, increased visceral adiposity, and obesity [53]. Reduced physical activity further exacerbates IR and obesity [33]. Additionally, moderate alcohol consumption, smoking, and sleep disturbances markedly elevate the risk of developing MASH [54,55].

2.4. Insulin Resistance

IR is a central contributor to MASLD development [45,56], inducing adipose tissue’s resistance to insulin’s antilipolytic effects, resulting in elevated circulating free fatty acids (FFAs), which are subsequently stored in the liver as triglycerides (TG) [49,57]. To mitigate FFAs-induced toxicity, adipose tissue responds through hypertrophy and hyperplasia, activating common inflammatory pathways and macrophages and generating lipotoxic lipids. This cascade triggers cellular stress, promotes inflammation, leads to tissue remodeling, and ultimately to fibrogenesis [22,58,59]. Lipotoxicity, exacerbated by the effects of IR, correlates with both steatohepatitis severity and hepatic fibrosis, explaining the high prevalence of hepatosteatosis and moderate-to-advanced fibrosis in individuals with T2DM [22,45,60].

2.5. Intestinal Microbiota

Several factors, including metabolic disorders, diet, and comorbid conditions, can alter the composition of the intestinal microbiota, which in turn modulates energy balance by altering the absorption of calories from food and alcohol [42,61]. Individuals who develop MASH exhibit a reduced amount of beneficial bacteria, such as Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, alongside an overrepresentation of Proteobacteria and Enterobacteriaceae [62]. In patients with MASH and MASLD, the gut microbiota often generates elevated levels of endotoxins, especially lipopolysaccharides, which enter the portal circulation and trigger hepatic inflammation [33,63]. Microbial metabolites, such as imidazole propionate and trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), promote metabolic dysregulation and exacerbate hepatosteatosis and fibrosis [33,64]. Additionally, bacterial components, such as flagellin and peptidoglycans, can activate the immune system, inducing the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-1β, TNF-α), which stimulate hepatic inflammation and fibrosis [65,66].

3. MASH Diagnosis

MASLD frequently lacks clinical manifestations or manifests with nonspecific symptoms and is diagnosed based on evidence of ≥5% hepatic fat accumulation, in association with at least one of the following criteria (Table 1) [67,68,69]:
Routine yearly assessment for MASLD is recommended for individuals presenting with two or more metabolic risk factors, including obesity (particularly abdominal obesity), hyperglycemia, and dyslipidemia—defined by hypertriglyceridemia and decreased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c)— as well as hypertension and hypothyroidism [67,70,71]. To confirm MASLD, practitioners should first exclude potential liver disease etiologies. These include alcohol-related hepatotoxicity, viral hepatitis B or C— screened via hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb), hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb), hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody + HCV ribonucleic acid (RNA) assays—and autoantibodies, including anti-mitochondrial antibody (AMA), antinuclear antibody (ANA), anti-smooth muscle antibody (ASMA), and immunoglobulins. Furthermore, alpha-1 antitrypsin (A1AT), hemochromatosis, endocrinopathies (Cushing’s syndrome, hypothyroidism), or genetic disorders [67,71] should be ruled out. Patients with an elevated risk of fibrosis warrant referral to a hepatologist (Figure 3) [67,70,72].
The Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), derived from platelet count, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and age, should be used as a first-line noninvasive tool to assess hepatic fibrosis risk associated with MASLD [67,72]. Individuals with FIB-4 values below 1.3 (or below 2.0 in those aged ≥65 years) who do not have T2DM or present fewer than two metabolic risk factors should undergo annual reassessment. In contrast, patients with elevated FIB-4 scores and/or T2DM or at least two metabolic risk factors require additional evaluation using the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) test and elastography, including vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) or magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), to accurately stage hepatic fibrosis. Noninvasive diagnostic modalities are undergoing rapid development [67,73,74]. Patients with markedly abnormal results warrant referral to a hepatologist. Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for confirming MASH and is recommended when noninvasive procedures yield conflicting results [67].
An article published by our team demonstrated that elevated values of biomarkers such as TG, non-HDL-c-to-HDL-c ratio (NHHR), homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) are predictors for MASLD in patients with T2DM [75]. Furthermore, in two additional studies conducted by our team, we underscored the relevance of the triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index for the assessment of MASLD in patients with MetS, the biomarker levels showing a significant correlation with the severity of hepatic steatosis assessed by liver biopsy [76,77,78]. Nevertheless, it should be noted that while emerging biomarkers such as TyG, NHHR, and AIP show promising associations with MASH severity and cardiometabolic risk, the current evidence is largely derived from observational and hypothesis-generating studies. Further prospective validation in large, independent cohorts is required before their routine clinical implementation.
Histologically, MASH is characterized by hepatic steatosis, lobular inflammatory changes, and ballooning degeneration of hepatocytes, occurring with or without associated fibrosis (Figure 4) [79,80]. Patients with isolated steatosis experience a slower rate of fibrosis progression compared with those diagnosed with MASH, with an average progression of one fibrosis stage over 14.3 years versus 7.1 years, respectively [81,82]. However, approximately 20% of patients with MASH exhibit rapid progression to more severe forms of steatohepatitis and significant fibrosis [81]. Although fibrosis is not required for the diagnosis of MASH, its presence is the key prognostic factor for adverse outcomes in patients with MASLD, being strongly linked to increased liver-related mortality [31].
In light of the limitations, particularly those related to the risks and complications associated with liver biopsy, such as hemorrhage, procedural pain, hypotension, pneumothorax, visceral injury, and, in rare cases, mortality, the ultrasound-based transient elastography, commonly referred to as FibroScan, is an Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved technique that supports clinicians in assessing liver stiffness measurement (LSM), expressed in kilopascals (kPa), with values varying according to disease stage [45,83,84]. These values are closely associated with fibrosis severity. The assessment is based on an ultrasonic attenuation wave operating at 3.5 megahertz (MHz), while hepatic fat content is quantified using the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), expressed in decibels per meter (dB/m) [45,85]. Accordingly, steatosis severity in patients with MASLD or MASH is evaluated based on CAP score threshold values (Table 2) [45,86,87].
The fibrosis stage is assessed using LSM cutoff values (Table 3) [45,88]. LSM values typically range from 2.5 to 75 kPa [45,83]. Accurate interpretation depends on key reliability parameters, including the interquartile range (IQR), which indicates measurement variability and should remain below 30% [45,89], as well as the success rate, defined as the ratio of successful to total measurements, which should be not less than 60% [45,83,90]. Fibrosis severity in patients with MASLD or MASH is staged according to the NASH Clinical Research Network Scoring System, ranging from F0 to F4 (Figure 5) [86,90]. In addition, XL probes have been designed to facilitate evaluation of patients with higher levels of adiposity [45,88].

4. MASH Therapeutic Management

As previously highlighted, accurately diagnosing and stratifying MASLD based on fibrosis risk is crucial to identify patients who may benefit from pharmacological treatment and those who can be managed only with lifestyle interventions (Figure 6) [67,75,91,92].
Management of patients with MASLD without evidence of MASH or significant fibrosis is centered primarily on lifestyle interventions, including smoking cessation, along with appropriate management of associated cardiovascular and renal risk factors. Patients with overweight or obesity should be encouraged to achieve at least 10% reduction in body weight through lifestyle interventions, with the addition of pharmacologic or surgical obesity treatments when indicated. Evaluation, conducted at least annually, should include systematic reassessment of progression to advanced hepatic disease [67].

4.1. Lifestyle Interventions: Diet and Physical Activity

Commitment to a healthy lifestyle, encompassing balanced nutrition and consistent physical activity, constitutes the first-line intervention in the management of both T2DM and MASLD. Energy-restricted diets and exercise interventions not only enhance glycemic control but also decrease hepatic steatosis and may even result in remission of MASH [25,93]. Consequently, lifestyle intervention represents the most evidence-based therapeutic approach for MASLD, although sustained long-term efficacy remains suboptimal [81,94]. MASH regression has been observed in approximately 58% of patients achieving weight loss greater than 5% of baseline body weight, with response rates increasing to nearly 90% among those attaining weight loss greater than 10% [81,95]. Nutritional strategies should be personalized, favoring hypocaloric regimens such as low-fat, low-carbohydrate, or Mediterranean dietary patterns. Additionally, isocaloric high-protein diets have demonstrated efficacy in reducing hepatic steatosis and inflammatory activity in patients with T2DM [81,96].
Physical activity has been associated with reductions in hepatic steatosis and improvements in liver stiffness [81,97], independent of dietary interventions [98]. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was shown to improve hepatic steatosis, with optimal benefits observed among individuals engaging in more than 250 min of exercise per week [81,99]. According to the 2024 European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL)–European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)–European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) guideline recommendations, patients should perform moderate-intensity physical activity for more than 150 min weekly, or vigorous-intensity exercise for over 75 min weekly, to mitigate hepatic steatosis. Furthermore, a body weight reduction exceeding 5% is associated with a reduction in hepatic steatosis, a 7–10% reduction is required to achieve improvements in hepatic inflammation, and a weight loss greater than 10% is necessary to ameliorate fibrosis [92]. Nonetheless, lifestyle interventions exert gradual effects, require sustained adherence over the medium to long term, may be undermined by factors such as psychological stress and sedentary behavior [81,95], and exercise alone does not significantly improve fibrosis or histological features [81,100].

4.2. Surgical Treatment

Bariatric surgery effectively promotes MASH resolution, with T2DM representing the only baseline factor adversely influencing MASH improvement in the absence of fibrosis progression [25,101]. Conversely, bariatric procedures may induce T2DM remission in early MASLD, emphasizing the role of hepatic injury in post-surgical metabolic outcomes [25,102]. Histological amelioration of ballooning and lobular inflammation occurs in about three-quarters of patients with steatohepatitis [81,103]. Among patients with obesity and MASH undergoing bariatric surgery, 84% experienced MASH resolution, 56% had fibrosis resolution, and 70% showed fibrosis regression five years after surgery [104,105]. Additionally, bariatric surgery markedly reduced the risk of major adverse hepatic and cardiovascular events in this population [104,106].

4.3. Thyroid Hormone Receptor β Agonists

Resmetirom is a liver-targeted, thyroid hormone receptor β-selective agonist, the first treatment that has received approval, representing a pivotal progress in managing adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and moderate to advanced fibrosis [104,107]. Alongside antisteatogenic effects, resmetirom exhibited increased circulating adiponectin levels and improvements in atherogenic lipid profile, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c), TG, apolipoprotein B (ApoB), and ApoC-III [108,109,110]. No clinically meaningful effects were observed in body weight, glycemic control, heart rate, or blood pressure [107]. The ability of resmetirom to reduce hepatic lipid content, as well as plasma levels of atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins, was further supported by findings from the 52-week MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 phase 3 trial [111]. Notably, recent data from the phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH trial demonstrated that both primary histological endpoints, resolution of MASH and improvement in fibrosis, were achieved after 52 weeks of resmetirom therapy [107,108]. Following its FDA approval in the United States in March 2024, emerging real-world evidence has supported its tolerability and effectiveness in routine clinical practice, while also revealing limitations related to access and reimbursement. In Europe, a positive Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) opinion was issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in June 2025, with wider availability expected in the coming months [112].
Beyond resmetirom, two additional thyroid hormone receptor β selective agonists, ASC41 and VK2809, are currently undergoing evaluation in phase 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [108].

4.4. Antidiabetic Treatment

Suboptimal glycemic and weight control hasten cirrhosis progression, highlighting the necessity for a holistic treatment strategy targeting multiple cardiometabolic contributors to MASLD that relies on pharmacological interventions with broad beneficial effects [113].

4.4.1. Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RA) and Coagonists

Growing evidence highlights the clinical relevance of GLP-1 RA as an effective therapy for T2DM and obesity [114,115]. Despite the absence of this receptor’s expression on hepatocytes, GLP-1 RA has been shown to exert indirect hepatic effects through improvements in IR, glycemic control, and body weight [114]. Beyond these metabolic benefits, GLP-1 signaling also plays a significant role in modulating inflammatory pathways, as well as exerting antifibrotic effects through inhibition of hepatic stellate cell activation, and reduction in oxidative stress and profibrotic cytokine release [116].
Semaglutide, a GLP-1 RA, was approved by the FDA in September 2025 for the treatment of adults with MASH and moderate to advanced fibrosis [117]. Interim histology-based results, at week 72, demonstrated that 62.9% of participants treated with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide administered at a dose of 2.4 mg achieved MASH resolution without worsening fibrosis, in comparison with 34.3% in the placebo group, while fibrosis improvement without steatohepatitis worsening occurred in 36.8% versus 22.4% of participants, respectively. Furthermore, concurrent steatohepatitis resolution and fibrosis improvement were achieved in 32.7% of patients receiving semaglutide, compared to 16.1% of placebo-treated patients. Participants treated with semaglutide experienced a mean body weight decrease of 10.5%, and 2.0% in those receiving placebo [118]. The ESSENCE phase 3 clinical trial is ongoing and will continue for a total duration of 240 weeks to assess whether the histological improvements in inflammation and fibrosis observed at 72 weeks translate into clinically meaningful reductions in mortality, liver transplantation, and other liver-related outcomes [117,118]. Recent cohort data represent the first direct comparison of GLP-1 RA and long-acting insulin treatment in T2DM, indicating a decreased risk of cirrhosis and HCC among patients receiving GLP-1 RA [119,120].
Another GLP-1 RA, liraglutide, administered at 1.8 mg daily, was demonstrated to induce MASH resolution compared with placebo, while fibrosis progression occurred in 9% of patients receiving liraglutide versus 36% of those in the placebo group in the LEAN phase 2 trial [81,121].
Emerging therapeutic strategies include dual and triple incretin agonists combining GLP-1 with glucagon or glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) signaling to potentiate metabolic outcomes [122].
Tirzepatide is the first single-molecule agonist with combined GLP-1 and GIP receptor activity authorized for the treatment of T2DM and obesity [104]. In a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 trial, the effects of once-weekly tirzepatide at doses of 1, 5, 10, and 15 mg on MASH-related biomarkers were evaluated over 26 weeks in patients with T2DM versus once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg and placebo. Higher tirzepatide doses were linked to improvements in several biomarkers [104,123]. Data from a SURPASS-3 phase 3 sub-study demonstrated that 52 weeks of tirzepatide treatment was associated with significantly greater reductions in hepatic fat content compared with insulin degludec [124]. Tirzepatide is being investigated in the ongoing phase 2b SYNERGY-NASH trial in patients with MASH and stage 2 and 3 fibrosis, with or without T2DM [104].
In a 54-week trial, once-daily cotadutide, a GLP-1/glucagon dual receptor agonist, demonstrated improvements in MASH-related biomarkers, as well as in FIB-4 and NAFLD Fibrosis Score, compared with placebo [104,125]. Evidence from a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study indicates that pemvidutide, another GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonist, effectively reduces hepatic steatosis, inflammatory biomarkers, and body weight in patients with MASH [114,126]. Similarly, survodutide induced substantial weight loss and achieved histological MASH resolution alongside fibrosis improvement after one year of therapy [114,127]. Efinopegdutide demonstrated significantly greater relative hepatic fat reductions compared with semaglutide 1.0 mg in an open-label phase 2a study [104,128]. Efinopegdutide is being investigated in a phase 2 trial comparing its effects with placebo and semaglutide 2.4 mg on liver histology in individuals with MASH and stage 2 or stage 3 fibrosis [104]. Evidence suggests that mazdutide may be effective in addressing obesity, diabetes, and hepatic complications, including fibrosis and steatosis [113,129].
Retatrutide, a triple GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon receptor coagonist, is under investigation for obesity management. In a 48-week phase 2 study, once-weekly retatrutide at doses of 1, 4, 8, and 12 mg produced significant weight loss up to 24.2% compared with placebo [104,130]. Relative hepatic fat reductions at 24 weeks were nonlinearly related to weight loss, approaching 82.4% among participants treated with retatrutide 12 mg [104,131].
Efocipegtrutide, a GLP-1/GIP/glucagon triple receptor agonist, is currently under investigation for MASH. Phase 1b/2a data in patients with obesity and MASLD without T2DM [104,132] showed that once-weekly eficopegtrutide produced significantly greater relative reductions in hepatic fat compared with placebo after 8 weeks. A phase 2 trial assessing its impact on liver histology in patients with MASH and fibrosis stages 1–3 is ongoing [133].

4.4.2. Long-Acting Amylin Analogs

Cagrilintide has been assessed for its therapeutic potential in obesity and T2DM and is currently under investigation for its effects compared with semaglutide or placebo in individuals with MASH and substantial fibrosis or cirrhosis [113].

4.4.3. Sodium–Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors (SGLT2i)

SGLT2i acts by preventing glucose reabsorption in the proximal renal tubules, resulting in glucosuria, improved insulin sensitivity, and weight loss. These metabolic effects may translate into reduced inflammation and hepatic steatosis, potentially mediated by increased adipose lipolysis, lower ectopic fat deposition, and regulation of hepatic adenosine monophosphate (AMP)-activated protein kinase activity [134,135].
Evidence from preclinical and early-phase clinical studies, including dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials, suggests beneficial effects on liver enzymes, hepatic steatosis, and fibrosis-associated biomarkers [136,137]. It is worth noting that dapagliflozin represents the most advanced therapy under investigation, specifically in patients with MASH, in a phase 3 trial with complete enrollment, and results pending publication [9,134]. A small pilot study showed that empagliflozin was associated with reductions in steatosis, hepatocyte ballooning, and fibrosis after 24 weeks of therapy in individuals with T2DM and MASH, compared with baseline and a historical control group [108,138]. Similarly, canagliflozin treatment resulted in improvement across all MASH histological components, including fibrosis, after one year compared with baseline, with sustained benefits over five years [108,139]. Consistently, a 72-week randomized trial of ipragliflozin in individuals with T2DM and MASLD demonstrated greater MASH resolution and fibrosis regression, with NAFLD activity score improvement mainly attributable to reduced hepatocyte ballooning [108,140].

4.4.4. Metformin

Although early small, uncontrolled studies suggested that metformin reduces liver enzyme levels and improves insulin sensitivity, robust evidence for histological improvement in MASH is lacking. Nevertheless, observational studies support continued metformin use in patients with T2DM and MASLD-driven advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis due to associations with improved survival and reduced cancer risk, unless contraindicated [92].

4.4.5. Insulin

While no placebo-controlled trials specifically assessed insulin therapy in MASH, several studies incorporated insulin-based treatment arms. These studies neither assessed histological liver improvement nor demonstrated significant reductions in hepatic steatosis, body weight, or liver enzymes [58].

4.5. Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor (PPAR) Agonists

PPAR plays a pivotal role in the regulation of fatty acid metabolism, inflammatory processes, and fibrogenesis [108].
Pioglitazone, a PPARγ agonist, improves insulin sensitivity and has been shown to reduce insulin resistance, hepatic steatosis, alongside histological improvements in inflammation and hepatocyte ballooning [119]. Pooled network meta-analysis data indicated that pioglitazone outperformed placebo in promoting MASH resolution and improving fibrosis [12,141]. However, its clinical use is constrained by notable adverse effects, including weight gain, increased risk of osteoporosis among postmenopausal women, a debated association with bladder cancer, and exacerbation of heart failure in patients with underlying cardiac disease [12,119]. Recent phase 2 randomized controlled trial (RCT) data indicate that PXL065, a deuterium-stabilized R-pioglitazone enantiomer, provides a comparable reduction in hepatic lipid content, along with MASH and fibrosis improvements with a reduced burden of PPARγ-typical adverse effects in individuals with MASH [108,142,143].
Saroglitazar is a dual PPARα/γ agonist and was associated with significant improvement in IR, steatosis, and liver enzymes [81,144]. Clinical trials assessing liver histology are currently in progress [92].
Lanifibranor, a pan-PPAR agonist, has demonstrated dose-dependent MASH resolution alongside regression of hepatic fibrosis stage and is currently under investigation in a phase 3 trial [81,145].

4.6. Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF) Analogs

FGF21 is a metabolic hormone with a central role in the regulation of energy balance, glucose homeostasis, and lipid metabolism [142].
The long-acting FGF21 analog, pegozafermin, is being investigated as a potential therapy for MASH and severe hypertriglyceridemia. In a phase 2b trial, fibrosis improvement of at least one stage without worsening steatohepatitis and MASH resolution without fibrosis progression was achieved [31,146]. The phase 3 study will assess long-term effects on fibrosis regression in patients with MASH and compensated cirrhosis (F4 stage) over 24 months [31,113].
Efruxifermin represents another long-acting FGF21 analog under investigation. Results from a phase 2b trial confirmed at least one-stage fibrosis improvement without worsening steatohepatitis [31,147]. Ongoing phase 3 trials aim to further evaluate the efficacy of efruxifermin in MASLD patients with varying degrees of fibrosis [31].
Aldafermin is a FGF19 analog with inhibitory effects on bile acid production and regulatory effects on metabolic homeostasis [113]. Available studies have revealed beneficial effects on hepatic steatosis, but have not yet demonstrated a significant improvement in histologic fibrosis [31,148,149].

4.7. Farnesoid X Receptor (FXR) Agonist

As a bile acid-sensing nuclear receptor predominantly expressed in the liver and intestine, FXR plays a central role in MASH pathogenesis by regulating gene networks involved in cholesterol and bile acid homeostasis, hepatic gluconeogenesis and lipogenesis, and also exerts important effects on inflammatory pathways [81,114,150].
Obeticholic acid (OCA) is the most extensively studied FXR agonist. Despite demonstrating antifibrotic efficacy in a phase 3 trial [151], failure to achieve MASH resolution and unfavorable safety concerns resulted in the premature discontinuation of its development for MASH [114].
In a phase 2 clinical trial, tropifexor was evaluated in patients with MASH and stage 1–3 fibrosis. Early results demonstrated safety and significant reductions in hepatic steatosis, liver enzyme levels, and body weight [81,152].
However, cilofexor reduced hepatic steatosis and decreased primary bile acid levels without significantly affecting fibrosis in a phase 2 trial [81,153].
Vonafexor demonstrated significant reductions in hepatic fat content, liver enzyme levels, and body weight in a phase 2 study, highlighting its potential as a valuable therapeutic candidate in ongoing MASH research [33,154].
Several other FXR agonists are undergoing clinical assessment. EDP305 demonstrated reductions in hepatic steatosis in non-cirrhotic MASH in a phase 2 study and is currently being evaluated in patients with MASH and stage 2 and stage 3 fibrosis in a phase 2b trial [81,155]. In a phase 2 study, TERN-101 reduced liver enzymes in patients with stage 1 to 3 fibrosis and improved inflammation and fibrosis [81].

4.8. Lipogenesis Inhibitors

4.8.1. Stearoyl-Coenzyme A Desaturase 1 (SCD1) Modulators

SCD1 modulators decrease monounsaturated fatty acid production, thereby attenuating lipotoxicity [33]. In a phase 2b trial, Aramchol was associated with resolution of steatohepatitis without fibrosis progression and reduction in fibrosis severity by at least one stage without worsening MASH [9,31,156]. Encouraging outcomes led to the initiation of the phase 3 trial, which was subsequently suspended following an interim open-label analysis that confirmed improvement across histology, imaging, and biomarker endpoints [9].

4.8.2. Acetyl-Coenzyme A Carboxylase (ACC) Inhibitors

In a RCT performed in individuals with MASLD, firsocostat, an ACC inhibitor, produced a moderate reduction in hepatic steatosis and improved liver fibrosis, although it also caused an elevation in plasma TG [81,108]. Another ACC inhibitor, clesacostat, demonstrated greater reduction in hepatic steatosis, although it also led to higher plasma TG elevations [108]. Nevertheless, safety concerns prompted the premature discontinuation of clesacostat monotherapy development [9].
PF-05221304 is a highly potent, reversible inhibitor targeting ACC1/2 that reduced hepatic lipid accumulation as much as 65% in a phase 2 trial [33,81,157].

4.8.3. Diacylglycerol Acyltransferase 2 (DGAT2) Inhibitors

Ervogastat effectively reduces hepatic fat and, unlike ACC inhibitors, additionally lowers plasma TG levels [9,158].
Phase 2 studies demonstrated that ION224 improved liver histology without fibrosis progression, highlighting its potential to reduce hepatic steatosis and inflammation in MASH [33].

4.8.4. Fatty Acid Synthase (FASN) Inhibitors

FASN inhibitors suppress DNL, thereby mitigating lipotoxicity, hepatic inflammation, and fibrosis. After leading to a moderately reduced hepatic steatosis, with concomitant improvements in biochemical, inflammatory, and fibrosis-related biomarkers in patients with MASH in a phase 2a study [159], denifanstat achieved notable MASH resolution in phase 2b clinical trial and obtained FDA breakthrough designation [134,160].

4.9. Antifibrotic and Anti-Inflammatory Agents

In a phase 2b study, cenicriviroc, a dual chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2) and chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) antagonist, improved liver fibrosis without worsening MASH, although no significant histological MASH resolution was observed [81,113,161]. However, the subsequent phase 3 clinical trial was stopped ahead of schedule after an interim analysis failed to demonstrate efficacy [113,162].
Belapectin, a galectin-3 inhibitor, reduced hepatic venous pressure gradient and showed potential for preventing esophageal varices in patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis in a phase 2a trial subgroup analysis [33,163]. Subsequently, a phase 2b/3 study was initiated to further investigate its clinical benefits [33,113].
Selonsertib, an apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1 (ASK1) inhibitor, demonstrated significant reductions in hepatic fibrosis, apoptosis, and necrosis serum biomarkers, and improvements in liver enzyme profiles [33]. Although it was well tolerated in two phase 3 clinical trials, selonsertib failed to improve hepatic fibrosis without exacerbating MASH among participants with stage 3 fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis, and both studies were halted ahead of schedule due to lack of efficacy [9,33,81,164].
Although preliminary studies indicated ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) efficacy, subsequent RCT was unable to demonstrate significant histological benefit in patients with MASH [12,165,166]. Norursodeoxycholic acid, a synthetic UDCA analog, exhibits antifibrotic, anti-inflammatory, and anticholestatic effects in preclinical studies. A recent phase 2 trial suggests improvements in hepatic steatosis and liver enzymes [92,167]. A subsequent phase 2b trial enrolling patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH is underway to assess its efficacy in achieving histological improvement [168]. Berberine ursodeoxycholate, an ionic salt composed of berberine and ursodeoxycholic acid, was associated with a reduction in hepatic steatosis, alongside improvements in glucose homeostasis and hepatic enzyme levels, in patients with MASH and T2DM, in a phase 2 study [52,169].
Silymarin exhibited a favorable safety and tolerability profile, may reduce liver enzyme levels, but no significant histological improvement was observed in phase 2 clinical trials [12,92].
Rencofilstat, an analog of cyclosporine A, exerts antifibrotic effects. Its therapeutic potential was demonstrated in a phase 2b study in individuals with MASH and advanced fibrosis (stages F2,3), rencofilstat promoting hepatic function improvement and attenuating portal-systemic shunting [168,170].

4.10. Lipid-Lowering Agents

Evidence from recent clinical trials indicates that statin therapy may decrease hepatic fat accumulation and fibrosis, and ameliorate MASLD and MASH manifestations [81,171]. Yet, the absence of large RCTs with histological endpoints prevents establishing statins as a treatment for MASH; similar limitations apply to ezetimibe and fibrates [12,92].
RCTs have shown that ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid supplementation failed to achieve histological improvement compared with placebo [12,92,172]. Ongoing studies are evaluating a structurally engineered omega-3 fatty acid. A phase 2b trial evaluated icosabutate, an oral semisynthetic free fatty acid receptor 1 (FFAR1) free fatty acid receptor 4 (FFAR4) agonist, showing a potential beneficial effect on surrogate histological endpoints, notably fibrosis regression, despite not achieving the prespecified primary endpoint of MASH resolution without progression of fibrosis [114,173].

4.11. Vitamin E

Vitamin E is a lipid-soluble vitamin with antioxidant properties that exhibits anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic effects. In addition, it inhibits DNL, thereby contributing to a reduction in hepatic lipid accumulation [92]. Observational case–control studies indicate that prolonged vitamin E exposure may reduce the risk of mortality, liver transplantation, and hepatic decompensation in patients with MASH and advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis [92,174]. Although the largest RCT demonstrated improvements in steatohepatitis, steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatic enzymes with vitamin E supplementation at 800 IU/day for a duration of 2 years in MASH among patients without T2DM, data supporting fibrosis improvement are inconclusive [31,92,175]. Given the limited availability of effective therapies prior to recent developments, this agent has been used for MASH in individuals without T2DM. Nonetheless, due to the absence of large-scale phase 3 trials, vitamin E is no longer recommended in the latest clinical guidelines [31,92].

4.12. Probiotics

The bidirectional relationship between MASH and gut microbiota highlights the potential of microbiome-targeted interventions, including probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics, or fecal microbiota transplantation, which may provide a novel therapeutic approach, targeting dysbiosis-driven liver inflammation and damage [176]. Probiotics, specifically Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species, have been associated with steatosis reduction and liver enzyme improvement. Synbiotics, combining probiotics with prebiotics such as fructo-oligosaccharides and inulin, provide an enhanced strategy by supporting the growth of beneficial intestinal bacteria, thereby optimizing microbiota composition and decreasing hepatic steatosis [33,177]. Another emerging approach, fecal microbiota transplantation, involves fecal material transfer from healthy donors to re-establish intestinal microbiome balance, with initial clinical trials reporting enhanced insulin sensitivity and reduced hepatic content [33,178].

4.13. Gene Targeting

GSK4532990, a small interfering RNA therapeutic directed against HSD17B13, is presently being investigated for safety and efficacy in a phase 2b clinical trial involving NASH patients with advanced fibrosis (stage 3) [168].
AZD2693 was initially under investigation in phase 2 trials to determine its safety profile and therapeutic efficacy in decreasing hepatic fat content and fibrosis in individuals with a genetic predisposition; however, development was discontinued following disappointing outcomes in the Phase 2b clinical trial, as reported in late 2025 [33,179].
Given the breadth of therapeutic agents discussed, Table 4 summarizes the most clinically relevant and advanced therapies supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials and phase 2–3 clinical studies, while additional compounds are described in the main text.
Due to the multifactorial nature of MASH, using drug combinations could provide greater therapeutic benefit through synergistic or complementary effects and enhance safety by minimizing the dose of each drug [168]. Semaglutide in combination with cilofexor (FXR agonist) and/or firsocostat (ACC inhibitor) in patients with compensated MASH cirrhosis provided superior benefits for hepatic steatosis and fibrosis biomarkers relative to semaglutide alone [52,180]. Treatment with combined cilofexor and firsocostat in patients with cirrhosis or bridging fibrosis led to superior NASH activity improvements versus placebo or individual agents [52,181]. The combination of ACC and DGAT2 inhibitors effectively lowered hepatic fat and mitigated the side effect of elevated TG [52,157].
Furthermore, cardiovascular disease represents the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with MASH, a burden that is largely attributable to shared cardiometabolic risk factors, including insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and obesity [14,31]. Beyond their hepatic effects, several therapeutic agents discussed in this section—such as GLP-1 receptor agonists, sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, and thyroid hormone receptor β agonists—have demonstrated favorable effects on cardiovascular risk factors, including body weight, glycemic control, and atherogenic lipid profiles [182,183]. Accordingly, cardiovascular considerations are essential when evaluating emerging MASH therapies, particularly in patients with coexisting metabolic disease, as an integrated cardio-hepatic approach may improve overall clinical outcomes.

5. Conclusions

Prompt diagnosis and early clinical management play a pivotal role in improving patient prognosis, given the natural history and progressive course of MASH. Research into non-invasive or serum biomarker approaches holds promise for enhancing diagnostic precision, while the identification of predictive markers may optimize personalized therapeutic interventions.
Clinical insights derived from RCTs are expected to improve the quality of life and long-term outcomes in patients with MASH. Pending comprehensive evidence, prompt action is necessary to mitigate fibrosis advancement and cirrhosis development. This strategy, best implemented by multidisciplinary medical teams, involves T2DM treatments capable of improving steatohepatitis and preventing fibrosis progression, alongside obesity management through lifestyle modification and pharmacotherapy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.G.Ş., M.M., and A.M.; methodology, A.G.Ş., A.M., D.C., and I.M.V.; software, A.M.A., D.C.P.-T., T.C.R.-G., and M.M.R.; validation, M.M., E.M., and I.M.V.; formal analysis, A.M., M.M.R., and D.C.P.-T.; investigation, A.G.Ş., T.C.R.-G., and I.-C.E.; resources, M.M., E.M., and I.M.V.; data curation, A.M., I.-C.E. and B.E.V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G.Ş., D.C., D.-V.R.P., A.M., A.-M.E., and M.M.R.; writing—review and editing, A.G.Ş., M.M., I.M.V., D.-V.R.P., and A.M.A.; visualization, A.G.Ş., M.M., E.M., and A.M.; supervision, M.M., A.M.A., E.M., and I.M.V.; project administration, M.M., I.-C.E., and I.M.V.; funding acquisition, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The article processing charge was funded by the University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to the use of their medical images for publication.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT, underlying model GPT-5.2, for the purposes of preparing graphical materials for Figure 1 and Figure 2. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
A1ATalpha-1 antitrypsin
ACCacetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase
ADNdeoxyribonucleic acid
AIPatherogenic index of plasma
ALTalanine aminotransferase
AMAanti-mitochondrial antibody
AMPadenosine monophosphate
ANAantinuclear antibody
ApoBapolipoprotein B
ApoC-IIIapolipoprotein C-III
ASCVDatherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
ASK1apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1
ASMAanti-smooth muscle antibody
ASTaspartate aminotransferase
CAPcontrolled attenuation parameter
CCR2chemokine receptor 2
CCR5chemokine receptor 5
CHMPCommittee for Medicinal Products for Human Use
CKDchronic kidney disease
CRPC-reactive protein
dB/mdecibels per meter
DGAT2diacylglycerol acyltransferase 2
DNLde novo lipogenesis
EASDEuropean Association for the Study of Diabetes
EASLEuropean Association for the Study of the Liver
EASOEuropean Association for the Study of Obesity
EMAEuropean Medicines Agency
FASNfatty acid synthase
FATP5fatty acid transport protein-5
FDAFood and Drug Administration
FFAR1free fatty acid receptor 1
FFAR4free fatty acid receptor 4
FFAsfree fatty acids
FGFfibroblast growth factor
FIB-4Fibrosis-4 index
FXRfarnesoid X receptor
GLP-1 RAglucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists
HBcAbhepatitis B core antibody
HBsAbhepatitis B surface antibody
HBsAghepatitis B surface antigen
HCChepatocellular carcinoma
HCVhepatitis C virus
HDL-chigh-density lipoprotein cholesterol
HFheart failure
HOMA-IRhomeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance
HSD17B1317-beta hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 13 gene
IL-1βinterleukin-1 beta
IL-6interleukin 6
IRinsulin resistance
kPakilopascals
LDL-clow-density lipoprotein cholesterol
LPLlipoprotein lipase
LPSlipopolysaccharides
LSMliver stiffness measurement
MAFLDmetabolic-associated fatty liver disease
MASHmetabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis
MASLDmetabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease
MBOAT7membrane-bound O-acyltransferase domain-containing protein 7
MetSmetabolic syndrome
MHzmegahertz
NAFLDnonalcoholic fatty liver disease
NASHnonalcoholic steatohepatitis
NHHRnon-HDL-c-to-HDL-c ratio
OCAobeticholic acid
PNPLA3patatin-like phospholipase domain containing 3
PPARperoxisome proliferator-activator receptor
RCTrandomized controlled trial
RNAribonucleic acid
ROSreactive oxygen species
SCD1stearoyl-coenzyme A desaturase 1
SGLT2iSodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors
T2DMtype 2 diabetes mellitus
TGtriglycerides
TLRtoll-like receptor
TM6SF2transmembrane 6 superfamily member 2
TMAOtrimethylamine N-oxide
TNF-αtumor necrosis factor alpha
TyGtriglyceride-glucose
UDCAursodeoxycholic acid

References

  1. Younossi, Z.M.; Kalligeros, M.; Henry, L. Epidemiology of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 2025, 31, S32–S50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lonardo, A.; Leoni, S.; Alswat, K.A.; Fouad, Y. History of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Addison, T. Observations on fatty degeneration of the liver. Guys Hosp. Rep. 1836, 1, 476–485. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ludwig, J.; Viggiano, T.R.; McGill, D.B.; Oh, B.J. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: Mayo Clinic experiences with a hitherto unnamed disease. Mayo Clin. Proc. 1980, 55, 434–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Schaffner, F.; Thaler, H. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Prog. Liver Dis. 1986, 8, 283–298. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cortez-Pinto, H.; Camilo, M.E.; Baptista, A.; De Oliveira, A.G.; De Moura, M.C. Non-alcoholic fatty liver: Another feature of the metabolic syndrome? Clin. Nutr. 1999, 18, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Eslam, M.; Sanyal, A.J.; George, J.; International Consensus Panel. MAFLD: A Consensus-Driven Proposed Nomenclature for Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease. Gastroenterology 2020, 158, 1999–2014.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rinella, M.E.; Lazarus, J.V.; Ratziu, V.; Francque, S.M.; Sanyal, A.J.; Kanwal, F.; Romero, D.; Abdelmalek, M.F.; Anstee, Q.M.; Arab, J.P.; et al. A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature. J. Hepatol. 2023, 79, 1542–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Puengel, T.; Tacke, F. Pharmacotherapeutic options for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Where are we today? Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2024, 25, 1249–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Estes, C.; Razavi, H.; Loomba, R.; Younossi, Z.; Sanyal, A.J. Modeling the epidemic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease demonstrates an exponential increase in burden of disease. Hepatology 2018, 67, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Luthra, R.; Sheth, A. Understanding MASH: An Examination of Progression and Clinical Outcomes by Disease Severity in the TARGET-NASH Database. Adv. Ther. 2025, 42, 1165–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rinella, M.E.; Neuschwander-Tetri, B.A.; Siddiqui, M.S.; Abdelmalek, M.F.; Caldwell, S.; Barb, D.; Kleiner, D.E.; Loomba, R. AASLD Practice Guidance on the clinical assessment and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2023, 77, 1797–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Meroni, M.; Longo, M.; Dongiovanni, P. Cardiometabolic risk factors in MASLD patients with HCC: The other side of the coin. Front. Endocrinol. 2024, 15, 1411706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Younossi, Z.M.; Golabi, P.; Paik, J.M.; Henry, A.; Van Dongen, C.; Henry, L. The global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH): A systematic review. Hepatology 2023, 77, 1335–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Targher, G.; Byrne, C.D.; Tilg, H. MASLD: A systemic metabolic disorder with cardiovascular and malignant complications. Gut 2024, 73, 691–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wong, V.W.; Ekstedt, M.; Wong, G.L.; Hagström, H. Changing epidemiology, global trends and implications for outcomes of NAFLD. J. Hepatol. 2023, 79, 842–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Paik, J.M.; Kabbara, K.; Eberly, K.E.; Younossi, Y.; Henry, L.; Younossi, Z.M. Global burden of NAFLD and chronic liver disease among adolescents and young adults. Hepatology 2022, 75, 1204–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Karlsen, T.H.; Sheron, N.; Zelber-Sagi, S.; Carrieri, P.; Dusheiko, G.; Bugianesi, E.; Pryke, R.; Hutchinson, S.J.; Sangro, B.; Martin, N.K.; et al. The EASL-Lancet Liver Commission: Protecting the next generation of Europeans against liver disease complications and premature mortality. Lancet 2022, 399, 61–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Le, M.H.; Yeo, Y.H.; Zou, B.; Barnet, S.; Henry, L.; Cheung, R.; Nguyen, M.H. Forecasted 2040 global prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease using hierarchical bayesian approach. Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 2022, 28, 841–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). Worldwide trends in underweight and obesity from 1990 to 2022: A pooled analysis of 3663 population-representative studies with 222 million children, adolescents, and adults. Lancet 2024, 403, 1027–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Younossi, Z.M.; Golabi, P.; Paik, J.; Owrangi, S.; Yilmaz, Y.; El-Kassas, M.; Alswat, K.; Alqahtani, S.A. Prevalence of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease in the Middle East and North Africa. Liver Int. 2024, 44, 1061–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abushamat, L.A.; Shah, P.A.; Eckel, R.H.; Harrison, S.A.; Barb, D. The Emerging Role of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2024, 22, 1565–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Younossi, Z.M.; Golabi, P.; de Avila, L.; Paik, J.M.; Srishord, M.; Fukui, N.; Qiu, Y.; Burns, L.; Afendy, A.; Nader, F. The global epidemiology of NAFLD and NASH in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Hepatol. 2019, 71, 793–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Younossi, Z.M.; Golabi, P.; Price, J.K.; Owrangi, S.; Gundu-Rao, N.; Satchi, R.; Paik, J.M. The Global Epidemiology of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2024, 22, 1999–2010.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Gancheva, S.; Roden, M.; Castera, L. Diabetes as a risk factor for MASH progression. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2024, 217, 111846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Huang, D.Q.; Wilson, L.A.; Behling, C.; Kleiner, D.E.; Kowdley, K.V.; Dasarathy, S.; Amangurbanova, M.; Terrault, N.A.; Diehl, A.M.; Chalasani, N.; et al. Fibrosis Progression Rate in Biopsy-Proven Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Among People With Diabetes Versus People Without Diabetes: A Multicenter Study. Gastroenterology 2023, 165, 463–472.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. El-Serag, H.B.; Tran, T.; Everhart, J.E. Diabetes increases the risk of chronic liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004, 126, 460–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Devarbhavi, H.; Asrani, S.K.; Arab, J.P.; Nartey, Y.A.; Pose, E.; Kamath, P.S. Global burden of liver disease: 2023 update. J. Hepatol. 2023, 79, 516–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alexander, M.; Loomis, A.K.; van der Lei, J.; Duarte-Salles, T.; Prieto-Alhambra, D.; Ansell, D.; Pasqua, A.; Lapi, F.; Rijnbeek, P.; Mosseveld, M.; et al. Risks and clinical predictors of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma diagnoses in adults with diagnosed NAFLD: Real-world study of 18 million patients in four European cohorts. BMC Med. 2019, 17, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Niederseer, D.; Wernly, B.; Aigner, E.; Stickel, F.; Datz, C. NAFLD and Cardiovascular Diseases: Epidemiological, Mechanistic and Therapeutic Considerations. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Koullias, E.; Papavdi, M.; Koskinas, J.; Deutsch, M.; Thanopoulou, A. Targeting Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD): Available and Future Pharmaceutical Options. Cureus 2025, 17, e76716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Acierno, C.; Caturano, A.; Pafundi, P.C.; Nevola, R.; Adinolfi, L.E.; Sasso, F.C. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes: Pathophysiological mechanisms shared between the two faces of the same coin. Explor. Med. 2020, 1, 287–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Devasia, A.G.; Ramasamy, A.; Leo, C.H. Current Therapeutic Landscape for Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Buzzetti, E.; Pinzani, M.; Tsochatzis, E.A. The multiple-hit pathogenesis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Metabolism 2016, 65, 1038–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Day, C.P.; James, O.F. Steatohepatitis: A tale of two “hits”? Gastroenterology 1998, 114, 842–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Alghamdi, W.; Mosli, M.; Alqahtani, S.A. Gut microbiota in MAFLD: Therapeutic and diagnostic implications. Ther. Adv. Endocrinol. Metab. 2024, 15, 20420188241242937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Dong, B. Molecular mechanisms in MASLD/MASH-related HCC. Hepatology 2025, 82, 1303–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Peiseler, M.; Schwabe, R.; Hampe, J.; Kubes, P.; Heikenwälder, M.; Tacke, F. Immune mechanisms linking metabolic injury to inflammation and fibrosis in fatty liver disease—Novel insights into cellular communication circuits. J. Hepatol. 2022, 77, 1136–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pîrvu, B.F.; Clenciu, D.; Beldie, L.A.; Dica, C.C.; Burticală, M.A.; Ţenea-Cojan, T.Ş.; Mitrea, A.; Amzolini, A.M.; Efrem, I.C.; Mogoş, G.F.R.; et al. The burden of cancer in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2024, 65, 627–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Gabriel-Medina, P.; Ferrer-Costa, R.; Rodriguez-Frias, F.; Ciudin, A.; Augustin, S.; Rivera-Esteban, J.; Pericàs, J.M.; Selva, D.M. Influence of Type 2 Diabetes in the Association of PNPLA3 rs738409 and TM6SF2 rs58542926 Polymorphisms in NASH Advanced Liver Fibrosis. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mahmoudi, S.K.; Tarzemani, S.; Aghajanzadeh, T.; Kasravi, M.; Hatami, B.; Zali, M.R.; Baghaei, K. Exploring the role of genetic variations in NAFLD: Implications for disease pathogenesis and precision medicine approaches. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2024, 29, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Leyh, C.; Coombes, J.D.; Schmidt, H.H.; Canbay, A.; Manka, P.P.; Best, J. MASLD-Related HCC-Update on Pathogenesis and Current Treatment Options. J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gellert-Kristensen, H.; Nordestgaard, B.G.; Tybjaerg-Hansen, A.; Stender, S. High Risk of Fatty Liver Disease Amplifies the Alanine Transaminase-Lowering Effect of a HSD17B13 Variant. Hepatology 2020, 71, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Moretti, V.; Romeo, S.; Valenti, L. The contribution of genetics and epigenetics to MAFLD susceptibility. Hepatol. Int. 2024, 18, 848–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Alpízar Salazar, M.; Olguín Reyes, S.E.; Medina Estévez, A.; Saturno Lobos, J.A.; De Aldecoa Castillo, J.M.; Carrera Aguas, J.C.; Alaniz Monreal, S.; Navarro Rodríguez, J.A.; Alpízar Sánchez, D.M.F. Natural History of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease: From Metabolic Syndrome to Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Medicina 2025, 61, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nauli, A.M.; Matin, S. Why Do Men Accumulate Abdominal Visceral Fat? Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gavin, K.M.; Cooper, E.E.; Raymer, D.K.; Hickner, R.C. Estradiol effects on subcutaneous adipose tissue lipolysis in premenopausal women are adipose tissue depot specific and treatment dependent. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2013, 304, E1167–E1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Santosa, S.; Jensen, M.D. Why are we shaped differently, and why does it matter? Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2008, 295, E531–E535, Erratum in Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2009, 296, E403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ghazanfar, H.; Javed, N.; Qasim, A.; Zacharia, G.S.; Ghazanfar, A.; Jyala, A.; Shehi, E.; Patel, H. Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis and Progression to Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Literature Review. Cancers 2024, 16, 1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Donnelly, K.L.; Smith, C.I.; Schwarzenberg, S.J.; Jessurun, J.; Boldt, M.D.; Parks, E.J. Sources of fatty acids stored in liver and secreted via lipoproteins in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J. Clin. Investig. 2005, 115, 1343–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Hydes, T.; Alam, U.; Cuthbertson, D.J. The Impact of Macronutrient Intake on Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD): Too Much Fat, Too Much Carbohydrate, or Just Too Many Calories? Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 640557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, K.C.; Wu, P.S.; Lin, H.C. Pathogenesis and treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and its fibrosis. Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 2023, 29, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Berná, G.; Romero-Gomez, M. The role of nutrition in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Pathophysiology and management. Liver Int. 2020, 40, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Oh, H.; Sohn, W.; Cho, Y.K. The effects of moderate alcohol consumption on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 2023, 29, S261–S267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Um, Y.J.; Chang, Y.; Jung, H.S.; Cho, I.Y.; Shin, J.H.; Shin, H.; Wild, S.H.; Byrne, C.D.; Ryu, S. Sleep Duration, Sleep Quality, and the Development of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Cohort Study. Clin. Transl. Gastroenterol. 2021, 12, e00417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ushula, T.W.; Mamun, A.; Darssan, D.; Wang, W.Y.S.; Williams, G.M.; Whiting, S.J.; Najman, J.M. Dietary patterns and the risks of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance among young adults: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Clin. Nutr. 2022, 41, 1523–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Samuel, V.T.; Shulman, G.I. Mechanisms for insulin resistance: Common threads and missing links. Cell 2012, 148, 852–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Konings, L.A.M.; Miguelañez-Matute, L.; Boeren, A.M.P.; van de Luitgaarden, I.A.T.; Dirksmeier, F.; de Knegt, R.J.; Tushuizen, M.E.; Grobbee, D.E.; Holleboom, A.G.; Cabezas, M.C. Pharmacological treatment options for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2025, 55, e70003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Pierantonelli, I.; Svegliati-Baroni, G. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Basic Pathogenetic Mechanisms in the Progression From NAFLD to NASH. Transplantation 2019, 103, e1–e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kalavalapalli, S.; Leiva, E.G.; Lomonaco, R.; Chi, X.; Shrestha, S.; Dillard, R.; Budd, J.; Romero, J.P.; Li, C.; Bril, F.; et al. Adipose Tissue Insulin Resistance Predicts the Severity of Liver Fibrosis in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and NAFLD. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2023, 108, 1192–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Protasiewicz-Timofticiuc, D.C.; Bădescu, D.; Moța, M.; Ștefan, A.G.; Mitrea, A.; Clenciu, D.; Efrem, I.C.; Roșu, M.M.; Vladu, B.E.; Gheonea, T.C.; et al. Back to Roots: Dysbiosis, Obesity, Metabolic Syndrome, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Obstructive Sleep Apnea-Is There an Objective Connection? A Narrative Review. Nutrients 2024, 16, 4057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mouzaki, M.; Comelli, E.M.; Arendt, B.M.; Bonengel, J.; Fung, S.K.; Fischer, S.E.; McGilvray, I.D.; Allard, J.P. Intestinal microbiota in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2013, 58, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Carpino, G.; Del Ben, M.; Pastori, D.; Carnevale, R.; Baratta, F.; Overi, D.; Francis, H.; Cardinale, V.; Onori, P.; Safarikia, S.; et al. Increased Liver Localization of Lipopolysaccharides in Human and Experimental NAFLD. Hepatology 2020, 72, 470–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sookoian, S.; Salatino, A.; Castaño, G.O.; Landa, M.S.; Fijalkowky, C.; Garaycoechea, M.; Pirola, C.J. Intrahepatic bacterial metataxonomic signature in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Gut 2020, 69, 1483–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mehal, W.Z.; Loomba, R. The Intestinal Microbiome, Plasma Metabolome, and Liver Transcriptome: A Conspiracy Driving Hepatic Steatosis. Hepatology 2019, 70, 741–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tilg, H.; Zmora, N.; Adolph, T.E.; Elinav, E. The intestinal microbiota fuelling metabolic inflammation. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2020, 20, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Handelsman, Y.; Anderson, J.E.; Bakris, G.L.; Ballantyne, C.M.; Bhatt, D.L.; Bloomgarden, Z.T.; Bozkurt, B.; Budoff, M.J.; Butler, J.; Cherney, D.Z.I.; et al. DCRM 2.0: Multispecialty practice recommendations for the management of diabetes, cardiorenal, and metabolic diseases. Metabolism 2024, 159, 155931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Eslam, M.; Newsome, P.N.; Sarin, S.K.; Anstee, Q.M.; Targher, G.; Romero-Gomez, M.; Zelber-Sagi, S.; Wai-Sun Wong, V.; Dufour, J.F.; Schattenberg, J.M.; et al. A new definition for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: An international expert consensus statement. J. Hepatol. 2020, 73, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Kokkorakis, M.; Muzurović, E.; Volčanšek, Š.; Chakhtoura, M.; Hill, M.A.; Mikhailidis, D.P.; Mantzoros, C.S. Steatotic Liver Disease: Pathophysiology and Emerging Pharmacotherapies. Pharmacol. Rev. 2024, 76, 454–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Stefan, N.; Häring, H.U.; Cusi, K. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Causes, diagnosis, cardiometabolic consequences, and treatment strategies. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019, 7, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kouvari, M.; Valenzuela-Vallejo, L.; Axarloglou, E.; Verrastro, O.; Papatheodoridis, G.; Mingrone, G.; George, J.; Mantzoros, C.S. Thyroid function, adipokines and mitokines in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: A multi-centre biopsy-based observational study. Liver Int. 2024, 44, 848–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Bril, F.; Cusi, K. Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Call to Action. Diabetes Care 2017, 40, 419–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kouvari, M.; Chrysohoou, C.; Damigou, E.; Barkas, F.; Kravvariti, E.; Liberopoulos, E.; Tsioufis, C.; Sfikakis, P.P.; Pitsavos, C.; Panagiotakos, D.; et al. Non-invasive tools for liver steatosis and steatohepatitis predict incidence of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and mortality 20 years later: The ATTICA cohort study (2002–2022). Clin. Nutr. 2024, 43, 900–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kouvari, M.; Valenzuela-Vallejo, L.; Guatibonza-Garcia, V.; Polyzos, S.A.; Deng, Y.; Kokkorakis, M.; Agraz, M.; Mylonakis, S.C.; Katsarou, A.; Verrastro, O.; et al. Liver biopsy-based validation, confirmation and comparison of the diagnostic performance of established and novel non-invasive steatotic liver disease indexes: Results from a large multi-center study. Metabolism 2023, 147, 155666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Efrem, I.C.; Moța, M.; Vladu, I.M.; Mitrea, A.; Clenciu, D.; Timofticiuc, D.C.P.; Diaconu, I.D.; Turcu, A.; Crișan, A.E.; Geormăneanu, C.; et al. A Study of Biomarkers Associated with Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fatty Liver Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ştefan, A.G.; Clenciu, D.; Mitrea, A.; Vladu, I.M.; Protasiewicz-Timofticiuc, D.C.; Roşu, M.M.; Maria, D.T.; Dinu, I.R.; Gheonea, T.C.; Vladu, B.E.; et al. Metabolic Syndrome and Insulin Resistance in Romania. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Amzolini, A.M.; Forţofoiu, M.C.; Barău Abu-Alhija, A.; Vladu, I.M.; Clenciu, D.; Mitrea, A.; Forţofoiu, M.; Matei, D.; Enăchescu, V.; Predescu, O.I.; et al. Triglyceride and glucose index: A useful tool for non-alcoholic liver disease assessed by liver biopsy in patients with metabolic syndrome? Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2021, 62, 475–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Amzolini, A.M.; Forțofoiu, M.C.; Alhija, A.B.; Vladu, I.M.; Clenciu, D.; Mitrea, A.; Forțofoiu, M.; Matei, D.; Diaconu, M.; Tudor, M.S.; et al. Triglyceride and Glucose Index as a Screening Tool for Nonalcoholic Liver Disease in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Steinberg, G.R.; Valvano, C.M.; De Nardo, W.; Watt, M.J. Integrative metabolism in MASLD and MASH: Pathophysiology and emerging mechanisms. J. Hepatol. 2025, 83, 584–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Tacke, F.; Puengel, T.; Loomba, R.; Friedman, S.L. An integrated view of anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic targets for the treatment of NASH. J. Hepatol. 2023, 79, 552–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Portincasa, P.; Khalil, M.; Mahdi, L.; Perniola, V.; Idone, V.; Graziani, A.; Baffy, G.; Di Ciaula, A. Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease: From Pathogenesis to Current Therapeutic Options. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 5640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Singh, S.; Allen, A.M.; Wang, Z.; Prokop, L.J.; Murad, M.H.; Loomba, R. Fibrosis progression in nonalcoholic fatty liver vs nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of paired-biopsy studies. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2015, 13, 643–654.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Castera, L.; Forns, X.; Alberti, A. Non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis using transient elastography. J. Hepatol. 2008, 48, 835–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sandrin, L.; Fourquet, B.; Hasquenoph, J.M.; Yon, S.; Fournier, C.; Mal, F.; Christidis, C.; Ziol, M.; Poulet, B.; Kazemi, F.; et al. Transient elastography: A new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2003, 29, 1705–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Sasso, M.; Beaugrand, M.; de Ledinghen, V.; Douvin, C.; Marcellin, P.; Poupon, R.; Sandrin, L.; Miette, V. Controlled attenuation parameter (CAP): A novel VCTETM guided ultrasonic attenuation measurement for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis: Preliminary study and validation in a cohort of patients with chronic liver disease from various causes. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2010, 36, 1825–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kleiner, D.E.; Brunt, E.M.; Van Natta, M.; Behling, C.; Contos, M.J.; Cummings, O.W.; Ferrell, L.D.; Liu, Y.C.; Torbenson, M.S.; Unalp-Arida, A.; et al. Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2005, 41, 1313–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Petroff, D.; Blank, V.; Newsome, P.N.; Shalimar; Voican, C.S.; Thiele, M.; de Lédinghen, V.; Baumeler, S.; Chan, W.K.; Perlemuter, G.; et al. Assessment of hepatic steatosis by controlled attenuation parameter using the M and XL probes: An individual patient data meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 6, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Eddowes, P.J.; Sasso, M.; Allison, M.; Tsochatzis, E.; Anstee, Q.M.; Sheridan, D.; Guha, I.N.; Cobbold, J.F.; Deeks, J.J.; Paradis, V.; et al. Accuracy of FibroScan Controlled Attenuation Parameter and Liver Stiffness Measurement in Assessing Steatosis and Fibrosis in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Gastroenterology 2019, 156, 1717–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Fraquelli, M.; Rigamonti, C.; Casazza, G.; Conte, D.; Donato, M.F.; Ronchi, G.; Colombo, M. Reproducibility of transient elastography in the evaluation of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease. Gut 2007, 56, 968–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Vidal-Trécan, T.; Julla, J.B.; El Khoury, T.; Venteclef, N.; Riveline, J.P.; Paradis, V.; Valla, D.; Gautier, J.F.; Castera, L. Effectiveness of Six International Guidelines Using Fibrosis-4 and FibroScan for Risk Stratification of Metabolic Dysfunction-associated Steatotic Liver Disease in Type 2 Diabetes. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2025, 23, 2176–2186.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Samimi, S.; Rajabzadeh, S.; Rabizadeh, S.; Nakhjavani, M.; Nakhaei, P.; Avanaki, F.A.; Esteghamati, A. Atherogenic index of plasma is an independent predictor of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2022, 27, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL); European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD); European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO). EASL-EASD-EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). J. Hepatol. 2024, 81, 492–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Romero-Gómez, M.; Zelber-Sagi, S.; Trenell, M. Treatment of NAFLD with diet, physical activity and exercise. J. Hepatol. 2017, 67, 829–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Van Gaal, L.F.; Mertens, J.; Francque, S.; De Block, C. Therapeutic approaches for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Ther. Adv. Endocrinol. Metab. 2021, 12, 20420188211034300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Vilar-Gomez, E.; Martinez-Perez, Y.; Calzadilla-Bertot, L.; Torres-Gonzalez, A.; Gra-Oramas, B.; Gonzalez-Fabian, L.; Friedman, S.L.; Diago, M.; Romero-Gomez, M. Weight Loss Through Lifestyle Modification Significantly Reduces Features of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology 2015, 149, 367–378.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Markova, M.; Pivovarova, O.; Hornemann, S.; Sucher, S.; Frahnow, T.; Wegner, K.; Machann, J.; Petzke, K.J.; Hierholzer, J.; Lichtinghagen, R.; et al. Isocaloric Diets High in Animal or Plant Protein Reduce Liver Fat and Inflammation in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes. Gastroenterology 2017, 152, 571–585.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Oh, S.; So, R.; Shida, T.; Matsuo, T.; Kim, B.; Akiyama, K.; Isobe, T.; Okamoto, Y.; Tanaka, K.; Shoda, J. High-Intensity Aerobic Exercise Improves Both Hepatic Fat Content and Stiffness in Sedentary Obese Men with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 43029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Orci, L.A.; Gariani, K.; Oldani, G.; Delaune, V.; Morel, P.; Toso, C. Exercise-based Interventions for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Meta-analysis and Meta-regression. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 14, 1398–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Oh, S.; Shida, T.; Yamagishi, K.; Tanaka, K.; So, R.; Tsujimoto, T.; Shoda, J. Moderate to vigorous physical activity volume is an important factor for managing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A retrospective study. Hepatology 2015, 61, 1205–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Chen, G.; Banini, B.A.; Do, A.; Gunderson, C.; Zaman, S.; Lim, J.K. Exercise Does Not Independently Improve Histological Outcomes in Biopsy-Proven Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Genes 2023, 14, 1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Verrastro, O.; Panunzi, S.; Castagneto-Gissey, L.; De Gaetano, A.; Lembo, E.; Capristo, E.; Guidone, C.; Angelini, G.; Pennestrì, F.; Sessa, L.; et al. Bariatric-metabolic surgery versus lifestyle intervention plus best medical care in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (BRAVES): A multicentre, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet 2023, 401, 1786–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lautenbach, A.; Wernecke, M.; Mann, O.; Wagner, J.; Wolter, S.; Stoll, F.; Aberle, J. Low-Grade Hepatic Steatosis Is Associated with Long-term Remission of Type 2 Diabetes Independent of Type of Bariatric-Metabolic Surgery. Obes. Surg. 2023, 33, 530–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lee, Y.; Doumouras, A.G.; Yu, J.; Brar, K.; Banfield, L.; Gmora, S.; Anvari, M.; Hong, D. Complete Resolution of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease After Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 17, 1040–1060.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Brouwers, B.; Rao, G.; Tang, Y.; Rodríguez, Á.; Glass, L.C.; Hartman, M.L. Incretin-based investigational therapies for the treatment of MASLD/MASH. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2024, 211, 111675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Lassailly, G.; Caiazzo, R.; Ntandja-Wandji, L.C.; Gnemmi, V.; Baud, G.; Verkindt, H.; Ningarhari, M.; Louvet, A.; Leteurtre, E.; Raverdy, V.; et al. Bariatric Surgery Provides Long-term Resolution of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis and Regression of Fibrosis. Gastroenterology 2020, 159, 1290–1301.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Aminian, A.; Al-Kurd, A.; Wilson, R.; Bena, J.; Fayazzadeh, H.; Singh, T.; Albaugh, V.L.; Shariff, F.U.; Rodriguez, N.A.; Jin, J.; et al. Association of Bariatric Surgery With Major Adverse Liver and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Biopsy-Proven Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. JAMA 2021, 326, 2031–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Harrison, S.A.; Bedossa, P.; Guy, C.D.; Schattenberg, J.M.; Loomba, R.; Taub, R.; Labriola, D.; Moussa, S.E.; Neff, G.W.; Rinella, M.E.; et al. A Phase 3, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Resmetirom in NASH with Liver Fibrosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2024, 390, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Huttasch, M.; Roden, M.; Kahl, S. Obesity and MASLD: Is weight loss the (only) key to treat metabolic liver disease? Metabolism 2024, 157, 155937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Harrison, S.A.; Bashir, M.R.; Guy, C.D.; Zhou, R.; Moylan, C.A.; Frias, J.P.; Alkhouri, N.; Bansal, M.B.; Baum, S.; Neuschwander-Tetri, B.A.; et al. Resmetirom (MGL-3196) for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2019, 394, 2012–2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Harrison, S.A.; Bashir, M.; Moussa, S.E.; McCarty, K.; Pablo Frias, J.; Taub, R.; Alkhouri, N. Effects of Resmetirom on Noninvasive Endpoints in a 36-Week Phase 2 Active Treatment Extension Study in Patients With NASH. Hepatol. Commun. 2021, 5, 573–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Harrison, S.A.; Taub, R.; Neff, G.W.; Lucas, K.J.; Labriola, D.; Moussa, S.E.; Alkhouri, N.; Bashir, M.R. Resmetirom for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Nat. Med. 2023, 29, 2919–2928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Vats, K.; Alam, M.M. Translating Trial to Treatment: A Scoping Review of Resmetirom First Year in Real-World Use for Moderate to Advanced Fibrosis in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis. Cureus 2025, 17, e90268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Cazac-Panaite, G.D.; Lăcătușu, C.M.; Grigorescu, E.D.; Foșălău, A.B.; Onofriescu, A.; Mihai, B.M. Innovative Drugs First Implemented in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Obesity and Their Effects on Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis (MASH)-Related Fibrosis and Cirrhosis. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. He, Y.; Chen, Y.; Qian, S.; van Der Merwe, S.; Dhar, D.; Brenner, D.A.; Tacke, F. Immunopathogenic mechanisms and immunoregulatory therapies in MASLD. Cell Mol. Immunol. 2025, 22, 1159–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Drucker, D.J. The benefits of GLP-1 drugs beyond obesity. Science 2024, 385, 258–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Zheng, Z.; Zong, Y.; Ma, Y.; Tian, Y.; Pang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Gao, J. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor: Mechanisms and advances in therapy. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2024, 9, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Approves Treatment for Serious Liver Disease Known as ‘MASH’. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/fda-approves-treatment-serious-liver-disease-known-mash (accessed on 26 December 2025).
  118. Sanyal, A.J.; Newsome, P.N.; Kliers, I.; Østergaard, L.H.; Long, M.T.; Kjær, M.S.; Cali, A.M.G.; Bugianesi, E.; Rinella, M.E.; Roden, M.; et al. Phase 3 Trial of Semaglutide in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2025, 392, 2089–2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Phoolchund, A.G.S.; Khakoo, S.I. MASLD and the Development of HCC: Pathogenesis and Therapeutic Challenges. Cancers 2024, 16, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Yang, C.T.; Yao, W.Y.; Yang, C.Y.; Peng, Z.Y.; Ou, H.T.; Kuo, S. Lower risks of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma with GLP-1RAs in type 2 diabetes: A nationwide cohort study using target trial emulation framework. J. Intern. Med. 2024, 295, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Armstrong, M.J.; Gaunt, P.; Aithal, G.P.; Barton, D.; Hull, D.; Parker, R.; Hazlehurst, J.M.; Guo, K.; LEAN Trial Team; Abouda, G.; et al. Liraglutide safety and efficacy in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (LEAN): A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Lancet 2016, 387, 679–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Newsome, P.N.; Ambery, P. Incretins (GLP-1 receptor agonists and dual/triple agonists) and the liver. J. Hepatol. 2023, 79, 1557–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Hartman, M.L.; Sanyal, A.J.; Loomba, R.; Wilson, J.M.; Nikooienejad, A.; Bray, R.; Karanikas, C.A.; Duffin, K.L.; Robins, D.A.; Haupt, A. Effects of Novel Dual GIP and GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Tirzepatide on Biomarkers of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2020, 43, 1352–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Gastaldelli, A.; Cusi, K.; Fernández Landó, L.; Bray, R.; Brouwers, B.; Rodríguez, Á. Effect of tirzepatide versus insulin degludec on liver fat content and abdominal adipose tissue in people with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-3 MRI): A substudy of the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 SURPASS-3 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022, 10, 393–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Nahra, R.; Wang, T.; Gadde, K.M.; Oscarsson, J.; Stumvoll, M.; Jermutus, L.; Hirshberg, B.; Ambery, P. Effects of Cotadutide on Metabolic and Hepatic Parameters in Adults With Overweight or Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes: A 54-Week Randomized Phase 2b Study. Diabetes Care 2021, 44, 1433–1442, Erratum in Diabetes Care 2022, 45, 3112. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-er12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Harrison, S.A.; Browne, S.K.; Suschak, J.J.; Tomah, S.; Gutierrez, J.A.; Yang, J.; Roberts, M.S.; Harris, M.S. Effect of pemvidutide, a GLP-1/glucagon dual receptor agonist, on MASLD: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J. Hepatol. 2025, 82, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Sanyal, A.J.; Bedossa, P.; Fraessdorf, M.; Neff, G.W.; Lawitz, E.; Bugianesi, E.; Anstee, Q.M.; Hussain, S.A.; Newsome, P.N.; Ratziu, V.; et al. A Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Survodutide in MASH and Fibrosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2024, 391, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Romero-Gómez, M.; Lawitz, E.; Shankar, R.R.; Chaudhri, E.; Liu, J.; Lam, R.L.H.; Kaufman, K.D.; Engel, S.S.; MK-6024 P001 Study Group. A phase IIa active-comparator-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of efinopegdutide in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J. Hepatol. 2023, 79, 888–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Ji, L.; Jiang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Lv, L.; Gu, J.; Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Deng, H.; Qian, L. 1857-LB: Improvement of Liver Steatosis by Mazdutide in Chinese Participants with Overweight or Obesity—An Exploratory Analysis of GLORY-1. Diabetes 2024, 73, 1857-LB. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Jastreboff, A.M.; Kaplan, L.M.; Frías, J.P.; Wu, Q.; Du, Y.; Gurbuz, S.; Coskun, T.; Haupt, A.; Milicevic, Z.; Hartman, M.L.; et al. Triple-Hormone-Receptor Agonist Retatrutide for Obesity—A Phase 2 Trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023, 389, 514–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Sanyal, A.J.; Kaplan, L.M.; Frias, J.P.; Brouwers, B.; Wu, Q.; Thomas, M.K.; Harris, C.; Schloot, N.C.; Du, Y.; Mather, K.J.; et al. Triple hormone receptor agonist retatrutide for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: A randomized phase 2a trial. Nat. Med. 2024, 30, 2037–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Abdelmalek, M.F.; Choi, J.; Kim, Y.; Seo, K.; Hompesch, M.; Baek, S. LBP03—HM15211, a novel GLP-1/GIP/Glucagon triple-receptor co-agonist significantly reduces liver fat and body weight in obese subjects with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A Phase 1b/2a, multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J. Hepatol. 2020, 73, S124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Abdelmalek, M.F.; Suzuki, A.; Sanchez, W.; Lawitz, E.; Filozof, C.; Cho, H.; Baek, E.; Choi, J.; Baek, S. A phase 2, adaptive randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, 52-week study of HM15211 in patients with biopsy-confirmed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis—Study design and rationale of HM-TRIA-201 study. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2023, 130, 107176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Tantu, M.T.; Farhana, F.Z.; Haque, F.; Koo, K.M.; Qiao, L.; Ross, A.G.; Shiddiky, J.A. Pathophysiology, noninvasive diagnostics and emerging personalized treatments for metabolic associated liver diseases. npj Gut Liver 2025, 2, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Lee, P.C.; Ganguly, S.; Goh, S.Y. Weight loss associated with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibition: A review of evidence and underlying mechanisms. Obes. Rev. 2018, 19, 1630–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Shimizu, M.; Suzuki, K.; Kato, K.; Jojima, T.; Iijima, T.; Murohisa, T.; Iijima, M.; Takekawa, H.; Usui, I.; Hiraishi, H.; et al. Evaluation of the effects of dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, on hepatic steatosis and fibrosis using transient elastography in patients with type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2019, 21, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Kahl, S.; Gancheva, S.; Straßburger, K.; Herder, C.; Machann, J.; Katsuyama, H.; Kabisch, S.; Henkel, E.; Kopf, S.; Lagerpusch, M.; et al. Empagliflozin Effectively Lowers Liver Fat Content in Well-Controlled Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 4, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care 2020, 43, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Lai, L.L.; Vethakkan, S.R.; Nik Mustapha, N.R.; Mahadeva, S.; Chan, W.K. Empagliflozin for the Treatment of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2020, 65, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Akuta, N.; Kawamura, Y.; Fujiyama, S.; Sezaki, H.; Hosaka, T.; Kobayashi, M.; Kobayashi, M.; Saitoh, S.; Suzuki, F.; Suzuki, Y.; et al. SGLT2 Inhibitor Treatment Outcome in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Complicated with Diabetes Mellitus: The Long-term Effects on Clinical Features and Liver Histopathology. Intern. Med. 2020, 59, 1931–1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Takahashi, H.; Kessoku, T.; Kawanaka, M.; Nonaka, M.; Hyogo, H.; Fujii, H.; Nakajima, T.; Imajo, K.; Tanaka, K.; Kubotsu, Y.; et al. Ipragliflozin Improves the Hepatic Outcomes of Patients With Diabetes with NAFLD. Hepatol. Commun. 2022, 6, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Majzoub, A.M.; Nayfeh, T.; Barnard, A.; Munaganuru, N.; Dave, S.; Singh, S.; Murad, M.H.; Loomba, R. Systematic review with network meta-analysis: Comparative efficacy of pharmacologic therapies for fibrosis improvement and resolution of NASH. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2021, 54, 880–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Ciardullo, S.; Muraca, E.; Vergani, M.; Invernizzi, P.; Perseghin, G. Advancements in pharmacological treatment of NAFLD/MASLD: A focus on metabolic and liver-targeted interventions. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2024, 12, goae029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Harrison, S.A.; Thang, C.; Bolze, S.; Dewitt, S.; Hallakou-Bozec, S.; Dubourg, J.; Bedossa, P.; Cusi, K.; Ratziu, V.; Grouin, J.M.; et al. Evaluation of PXL065—Deuterium-stabilized (R)-pioglitazone in patients with NASH: A phase II randomized placebo-controlled trial (DESTINY-1). J. Hepatol. 2023, 78, 914–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Gawrieh, S.; Noureddin, M.; Loo, N.; Mohseni, R.; Awasty, V.; Cusi, K.; Kowdley, K.V.; Lai, M.; Schiff, E.; Parmar, D.; et al. Saroglitazar, a PPAR-α/γ Agonist, for Treatment of NAFLD: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Phase 2 Trial. Hepatology 2021, 74, 1809–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Francque, S.M.; Bedossa, P.; Ratziu, V.; Anstee, Q.M.; Bugianesi, E.; Sanyal, A.J.; Loomba, R.; Harrison, S.A.; Balabanska, R.; Mateva, L.; et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Pan-PPAR Agonist Lanifibranor in NASH. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 1547–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Loomba, R.; Sanyal, A.J.; Kowdley, K.V.; Bhatt, D.L.; Alkhouri, N.; Frias, J.P.; Bedossa, P.; Harrison, S.A.; Lazas, D.; Barish, R.; et al. Randomized, Controlled Trial of the FGF21 Analogue Pegozafermin in NASH. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023, 389, 998–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Harrison, S.A.; Frias, J.P.; Neff, G.; Abrams, G.A.; Lucas, K.J.; Sanchez, W.; Gogia, S.; Sheikh, M.Y.; Behling, C.; Bedossa, P.; et al. Safety and efficacy of once-weekly efruxifermin versus placebo in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (HARMONY): A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2023, 8, 1080–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Rinella, M.E.; Lieu, H.D.; Kowdley, K.V.; Goodman, Z.D.; Alkhouri, N.; Lawitz, E.; Ratziu, V.; Abdelmalek, M.F.; Wong, V.W.; Younes, Z.H.; et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of aldafermin in patients with NASH and compensated cirrhosis. Hepatology 2024, 79, 674–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Marey, M.M.; Belal, M.; Awad, A.A.; Rabea, E.M.; Hassan, M.A.; Abbas, A.W.; Nashwan, A.J. Efficacy and safety of aldafermin in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 2024, 48, 102357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Stan, S.I.; Biciuşcă, V.; Clenciu, D.; Mitrea, A.; Boldeanu, M.V.; Durand, P.; Dănoiu, S. Future therapeutic perspectives in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A focus on nuclear receptors, a promising therapeutic target. Med. Pharm. Rep. 2024, 97, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Sanyal, A.J.; Ratziu, V.; Loomba, R.; Anstee, Q.M.; Kowdley, K.V.; Rinella, M.E.; Sheikh, M.Y.; Trotter, J.F.; Knapple, W.; Lawitz, E.J.; et al. Results from a new efficacy and safety analysis of the REGENERATE trial of obeticholic acid for treatment of pre-cirrhotic fibrosis due to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. J. Hepatol. 2023, 79, 1110–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Anstee, Q.M.; Lucas, K.J.; Francque, S.; Abdelmalek, M.F.; Sanyal, A.J.; Ratziu, V.; Gadano, A.C.; Rinella, M.; Charlton, M.; Loomba, R.; et al. Tropifexor plus cenicriviroc combination versus monotherapy in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: Results from the phase 2b TANDEM study. Hepatology 2023, 78, 1223–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Patel, K.; Harrison, S.A.; Elkhashab, M.; Trotter, J.F.; Herring, R.; Rojter, S.E.; Kayali, Z.; Wong, V.W.; Greenbloom, S.; Jayakumar, S.; et al. Cilofexor, a Nonsteroidal FXR Agonist, in Patients With Noncirrhotic NASH: A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial. Hepatology 2020, 72, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Ratziu, V.; Harrison, S.A.; Loustaud-Ratti, V.; Bureau, C.; Lawitz, E.; Abdelmalek, M.; Alkhouri, N.; Francque, S.; Girma, H.; Darteil, R.; et al. Hepatic and renal improvements with FXR agonist vonafexor in individuals with suspected fibrotic NASH. J. Hepatol. 2023, 78, 479–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Ratziu, V.; Rinella, M.E.; Neuschwander-Tetri, B.A.; Lawitz, E.; Denham, D.; Kayali, Z.; Sheikh, A.; Kowdley, K.V.; Desta, T.; Elkhashab, M.; et al. EDP-305 in patients with NASH: A phase II double-blind placebo-controlled dose-ranging study. J. Hepatol. 2022, 76, 506–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Ratziu, V.; de Guevara, L.; Safadi, R.; Poordad, F.; Fuster, F.; Flores-Figueroa, J.; Arrese, M.; Fracanzani, A.L.; Ben Bashat, D.; Lackner, K.; et al. Aramchol in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 1825–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Calle, R.A.; Amin, N.B.; Carvajal-Gonzalez, S.; Ross, T.T.; Bergman, A.; Aggarwal, S.; Crowley, C.; Rinaldi, A.; Mancuso, J.; Aggarwal, N.; et al. ACC inhibitor alone or co-administered with a DGAT2 inhibitor in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Two parallel, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2a trials. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 1836–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Futatsugi, K.; Cabral, S.; Kung, D.W.; Huard, K.; Lee, E.; Boehm, M.; Bauman, J.; Clark, R.W.; Coffey, S.B.; Crowley, C.; et al. Discovery of Ervogastat (PF-06865571): A Potent and Selective Inhibitor of Diacylglycerol Acyltransferase 2 for the Treatment of Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis. J. Med. Chem. 2022, 65, 15000–15013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Loomba, R.; Mohseni, R.; Lucas, K.J.; Gutierrez, J.A.; Perry, R.G.; Trotter, J.F.; Rahimi, R.S.; Harrison, S.A.; Ajmera, V.; Wayne, J.D.; et al. TVB-2640 (FASN Inhibitor) for the Treatment of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: FASCINATE-1, a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2a Trial. Gastroenterology 2021, 161, 1475–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Loomba, R.; Bedossa, P.; Grimmer, K.; Kemble, G.; Bruno Martins, E.; McCulloch, W.; O'Farrell, M.; Tsai, W.W.; Cobiella, J.; Lawitz, E.; et al. Denifanstat for the treatment of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2024, 9, 1090–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Ratziu, V.; Sanyal, A.; Harrison, S.A.; Wong, V.W.; Francque, S.; Goodman, Z.; Aithal, G.P.; Kowdley, K.V.; Seyedkazemi, S.; Fischer, L.; et al. Cenicriviroc Treatment for Adults With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis and Fibrosis: Final Analysis of the Phase 2b CENTAUR Study. Hepatology 2020, 72, 892–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Anstee, Q.M.; Neuschwander-Tetri, B.A.; Wai-Sun Wong, V.; Abdelmalek, M.F.; Rodriguez-Araujo, G.; Landgren, H.; Park, G.S.; Bedossa, P.; Alkhouri, N.; Tacke, F.; et al. Cenicriviroc Lacked Efficacy to Treat Liver Fibrosis in Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: AURORA Phase III Randomized Study. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2024, 22, 124–134.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Chalasani, N.; Abdelmalek, M.F.; Garcia-Tsao, G.; Vuppalanchi, R.; Alkhouri, N.; Rinella, M.; Noureddin, M.; Pyko, M.; Shiffman, M.; Sanyal, A.; et al. Effects of Belapectin, an Inhibitor of Galectin-3, in Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis With Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension. Gastroenterology 2020, 158, 1334–1345.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Harrison, S.A.; Wong, V.W.; Okanoue, T.; Bzowej, N.; Vuppalanchi, R.; Younes, Z.; Kohli, A.; Sarin, S.; Caldwell, S.H.; Alkhouri, N.; et al. Selonsertib for patients with bridging fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis due to NASH: Results from randomized phase III STELLAR trials. J. Hepatol. 2020, 73, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Stan, S.I.; Biciuşcă, V.; Clenciu, D.; Mitrea, A.; Boldeanu, M.V.; Durand, P.; Dănoiu, S. The therapeutic mechanisms and beneficial effects of ursodeoxycholic acid in the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review. Med. Pharm. Rep. 2024, 97, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Leuschner, U.F.; Lindenthal, B.; Herrmann, G.; Arnold, J.C.; Rössle, M.; Cordes, H.J.; Zeuzem, S.; Hein, J.; Berg, T.; NASH Study Group. High-dose ursodeoxycholic acid therapy for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Hepatology 2010, 52, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Traussnigg, S.; Schattenberg, J.M.; Demir, M.; Wiegand, J.; Geier, A.; Teuber, G.; Hofmann, W.P.; Kremer, A.E.; Spreda, F.; Kluwe, J.; et al. Norursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo in the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 dose-finding trial. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 4, 781–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Harrison, S.A.; Loomba, R.; Dubourg, J.; Ratziu, V.; Noureddin, M. Clinical Trial Landscape in NASH. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2023, 21, 2001–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Harrison, S.A.; Gunn, N.; Neff, G.W.; Kohli, A.; Liu, L.; Flyer, A.; Goldkind, L.; Di Bisceglie, A.M. A phase 2, proof of concept, randomised controlled trial of berberine ursodeoxycholate in patients with presumed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and type 2 diabetes. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 5503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Harrison, S.A.; Mayo, P.; Hobbs, T.; Zhao, C.; Canizares, C.; Foster, R.; McRae, M.P.; Helmke, S.M.; Everson, G.T. Rencofilstat Treatment Improves Liver Function in MASH With Advanced Fibrosis as Quantified by HepQuant DuO. Liver Int. 2025, 45, e70036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Lee, J.I.; Lee, H.W.; Lee, K.S.; Lee, H.S.; Park, J.Y. Effects of Statin Use on the Development and Progression of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Nationwide Nested Case-Control Study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 116, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Sanyal, A.J.; Abdelmalek, M.F.; Suzuki, A.; Cummings, O.W.; Chojkier, M.; EPE-A Study Group. No significant effects of ethyl-eicosapentanoic acid on histologic features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in a phase 2 trial. Gastroenterology 2014, 147, 377–384.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Harrison, S.A.; Alkhouri, N.; Ortiz-Lasanta, G.; Rudraraju, M.; Tai, D.; Wack, K.; Shah, A.; Besuyen, R.; Steineger, H.H.; Fraser, D.A.; et al. A phase IIb randomised-controlled trial of the FFAR1/FFAR4 agonist icosabutate in MASH. J. Hepatol. 2025, 83, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Vilar-Gomez, E.; Vuppalanchi, R.; Gawrieh, S.; Ghabril, M.; Saxena, R.; Cummings, O.W.; Chalasani, N. Vitamin E Improves Transplant-Free Survival and Hepatic Decompensation Among Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis and Advanced Fibrosis. Hepatology 2020, 71, 495–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Sanyal, A.J.; Chalasani, N.; Kowdley, K.V.; McCullough, A.; Diehl, A.M.; Bass, N.M.; Neuschwander-Tetri, B.A.; Lavine, J.E.; Tonascia, J.; Unalp, A.; et al. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 362, 1675–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Sandireddy, R.; Sakthivel, S.; Gupta, P.; Behari, J.; Tripathi, M.; Singh, B.K. Systemic impacts of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) on heart, muscle, and kidney related diseases. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2024, 12, 1433857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Carpi, R.Z.; Barbalho, S.M.; Sloan, K.P.; Laurindo, L.F.; Gonzaga, H.F.; Grippa, P.C.; Zutin, T.L.M.; Girio, R.J.S.; Repetti, C.S.F.; Detregiachi, C.R.P.; et al. The Effects of Probiotics, Prebiotics and Synbiotics in Non-Alcoholic Fat Liver Disease (NAFLD) and Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH): A Systematic Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Lee, D.H.; Jee, J.J.; Lee, Y.S.; Kim, D.Y.; Bang, J.Y.; Lee, H.W.; Koh, H.; Bae, S.H. Fecal microbiota transplantation improves hepatic fibro-inflammation via regulating oxidative stress in experimental NASH. Dig. Liver Dis. 2023, 55, 1521–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Fierce Biotech. AstraZeneca Drops MASH Drug AZD2693 After Disappointing Phase 2b Data. Fierce Biotech, 6 November 2025. Available online: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/astrazeneca-drops-phase-2-stage-mash-drug-over-disappointing-data (accessed on 20 January 2026).
  180. Alkhouri, N.; Herring, R.; Kabler, H.; Kayali, Z.; Hassanein, T.; Kohli, A.; Huss, R.S.; Zhu, Y.; Billin, A.N.; Damgaard, L.H.; et al. Safety and efficacy of combination therapy with semaglutide, cilofexor and firsocostat in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: A randomised, open-label phase II trial. J. Hepatol. 2022, 77, 607–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Loomba, R.; Noureddin, M.; Kowdley, K.V.; Kohli, A.; Sheikh, A.; Neff, G.; Bhandari, B.R.; Gunn, N.; Caldwell, S.H.; Goodman, Z.; et al. Combination Therapies Including Cilofexor and Firsocostat for Bridging Fibrosis and Cirrhosis Attributable to NASH. Hepatology 2021, 73, 625–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee for Diabetes. 9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026. Diabetes Care 2026, 49, S183–S215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee for Diabetes. 10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026. Diabetes Care 2026, 49, S216–S245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Pathophysiological mechanisms that link T2DM and MASLD. T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; MASLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; LPS: lipopolysaccharides; TLR: toll-like receptor; CRP: C-reactive protein; TNF-α: tumor necrosis factor alpha; IL-6: interleukin-6; ROS: reactive oxygen species; FFAs: free fatty acids; DNL: de novo lipogenesis; IR: insulin resistance; ↑: increased; ↓: decreased (adapted from [32]).
Figure 1. Pathophysiological mechanisms that link T2DM and MASLD. T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; MASLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; LPS: lipopolysaccharides; TLR: toll-like receptor; CRP: C-reactive protein; TNF-α: tumor necrosis factor alpha; IL-6: interleukin-6; ROS: reactive oxygen species; FFAs: free fatty acids; DNL: de novo lipogenesis; IR: insulin resistance; ↑: increased; ↓: decreased (adapted from [32]).
Medicina 62 00325 g001
Figure 2. MASH pathogenesis and progression from a healthy liver to HCC. The initial phases of MASLD and MASH remain potentially reversible. MASLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; MASH: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Figure 2. MASH pathogenesis and progression from a healthy liver to HCC. The initial phases of MASLD and MASH remain potentially reversible. MASLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; MASH: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Medicina 62 00325 g002
Figure 3. MASLD evaluation. MASLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; HBsAg: hepatitis B surface antigen; HBsAb: hepatitis B surface antibody; HBcAb: hepatitis B core antibody; HCV: hepatitis C virus; RNA: ribonucleic acid; AMA: anti-mitochondrial antibody; ANA: antinuclear antibody; ASMA: anti-smooth muscle antibody; A1AT: alpha-1 antitrypsin; FIB-4: Fibrosis-4 index. * abdominal obesity, hyperglycemia, hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia, and decreased HDL-c (adapted from [67]).
Figure 3. MASLD evaluation. MASLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; HBsAg: hepatitis B surface antigen; HBsAb: hepatitis B surface antibody; HBcAb: hepatitis B core antibody; HCV: hepatitis C virus; RNA: ribonucleic acid; AMA: anti-mitochondrial antibody; ANA: antinuclear antibody; ASMA: anti-smooth muscle antibody; A1AT: alpha-1 antitrypsin; FIB-4: Fibrosis-4 index. * abdominal obesity, hyperglycemia, hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia, and decreased HDL-c (adapted from [67]).
Medicina 62 00325 g003
Figure 4. Liver biopsy images in patients with T2DM. (a) Macrovesicular steatosis characterized by large intracytoplasmic lipid vacuoles within hepatocytes, with peripheral displacement of nuclei. Hematoxylin–Eosin staining, ×200 (image courtesy of Ion Cristian Efrem). (b) Macrovesicular steatosis associated with mild intralobular inflammatory infiltrate and hepatocyte ballooning degeneration. Hematoxylin–Eosin staining, ×200 (image courtesy of Anca Maria Amzolini).
Figure 4. Liver biopsy images in patients with T2DM. (a) Macrovesicular steatosis characterized by large intracytoplasmic lipid vacuoles within hepatocytes, with peripheral displacement of nuclei. Hematoxylin–Eosin staining, ×200 (image courtesy of Ion Cristian Efrem). (b) Macrovesicular steatosis associated with mild intralobular inflammatory infiltrate and hepatocyte ballooning degeneration. Hematoxylin–Eosin staining, ×200 (image courtesy of Anca Maria Amzolini).
Medicina 62 00325 g004
Figure 5. FibroScan images in patients with T2DM (original images courtesy of Anca Maria Amzolini and Ion Cristian Efrem): (a) S2 F0–F1; (b) S2 F2; (c) S3 F2; (d) S3 F4.
Figure 5. FibroScan images in patients with T2DM (original images courtesy of Anca Maria Amzolini and Ion Cristian Efrem): (a) S2 F0–F1; (b) S2 F2; (c) S3 F2; (d) S3 F4.
Medicina 62 00325 g005
Figure 6. MASLD and MASH management. F0: fibrosis stage 0; F1: fibrosis stage 1; F2: fibrosis stage 2; F3: fibrosis stage 3; F4: fibrosis stage 4; HF: heart failure; ASCVD: atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CKD: chronic kidney disease; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; GLP-1 RA: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; SGLT2i: sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (adapted from [67]).
Figure 6. MASLD and MASH management. F0: fibrosis stage 0; F1: fibrosis stage 1; F2: fibrosis stage 2; F3: fibrosis stage 3; F4: fibrosis stage 4; HF: heart failure; ASCVD: atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CKD: chronic kidney disease; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; GLP-1 RA: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; SGLT2i: sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (adapted from [67]).
Medicina 62 00325 g006
Table 1. MASLD definition.
Table 1. MASLD definition.
Hepatic Steatosis (≥5%) + One of the Three Criteria
1.
Overweight Obesity
2.
T2DM
3.
Evidence of metabolic dysregulation
Abdominal obesity
Hyperglycemia
Hypertension
Elevated TG
Low HDL-c
T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; TG: triglycerides; HDL-c: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
Table 2. Steatosis grade and CAP score ranges.
Table 2. Steatosis grade and CAP score ranges.
Steatosis Grade (Proportion of Affected Hepatocytes)CAP Score (dB/m)
S0 (<5%)≤293
S1 (5–33%)294–309
S2 (34–66%)310–330
S3 (>66%)≥331
S0: absent steatosis; S1: mild hepatic fat accumulation; S2: moderate fat accumulation; S3: extensive hepatic steatosis (adapted from [45]).
Table 3. Fibrosis severity and LSM value ranges.
Table 3. Fibrosis severity and LSM value ranges.
Fibrosis SeverityLSM Value (kPa)
F0–F1≤8.1
F28.2–9.6
F39.7–13.5
F4≥13.6
F0: absent fibrosis; F1: mild fibrosis involving perisinusoidal or portal areas; F2: moderate fibrosis with both perisinusoidal and portal or periportal involvement; F3: advanced fibrosis characterized by septal or bridging fibrosis; F4: cirrhosis (adapted from [45]).
Table 4. Summary of selected pharmacological therapies for MASH, clinical trial phase, and reported outcomes.
Table 4. Summary of selected pharmacological therapies for MASH, clinical trial phase, and reported outcomes.
Therapeutic CategoryAgent(s) MentionedClinical Trial Phase StatedOutcomes Stated in TextTrial Status Stated
Thyroid hormone receptor β agonistsResmetiromPhase 3Reduction in hepatic lipid content; improvement in atherogenic lipid profile; resolution of MASH and improvement in fibrosis after 52 weeksFDA approved (March 2024)
ASC41; VK2809Phase 2 randomized controlled trialsUnder evaluationOngoing
GLP-1 receptor agonistsSemaglutidePhase 3MASH resolution without worsening fibrosis; fibrosis improvement without steatohepatitis worsening; concurrent steatohepatitis resolution and fibrosis improvement; body weight reductionFDA approved (September 2025); Phase 3 ongoing
LiraglutidePhase 2Induced MASH resolution; lower fibrosis progression compared with placeboCompleted
Dual GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonistsTirzepatidePhase 2; Phase 2bImprovement in MASH-related biomarkers; reduction in hepatic fat contentPhase 2b ongoing
CotadutidePhase 2Improvement in MASH-related biomarkers; improvement in FIB-4 and NAFLD Fibrosis ScoreCompleted
PemvidutidePhase 1b/2aReduction in hepatic steatosis, inflammatory biomarkers, and body weightCompleted
SurvodutidePhase 2Histological MASH resolution and fibrosis improvement after one yearOngoing
EfinopegdutidePhase 2a; Phase 2Greater relative hepatic fat reductions compared with semaglutide; effects on liver histology under investigationPhase 2 ongoing
Triple GLP-1/GIP/glucagon receptor agonistsRetatrutidePhase 2Significant weight loss; relative hepatic fat reduction approaching 82.4%Ongoing
EfocipegtrutidePhase 1b/2a;
Phase 2
Greater relative reductions in hepatic fat compared with placeboPhase 2 ongoing
SGLT2 inhibitorsDapagliflozinPhase 3Beneficial effects on liver enzymes, hepatic steatosis, and fibrosis-associated biomarkersEnrollment completed; results pending
EmpagliflozinPilot studyReduction in steatosis, hepatocyte ballooning, and fibrosis after 24 weeksCompleted
CanagliflozinObservational studyImprovement across all MASH histological components, including fibrosisCompleted
IpragliflozinRandomized trial (72 weeks)Greater MASH resolution and fibrosis regression; NAFLD activity score improvement mainly due to reduced hepatocyte ballooningCompleted
PPARγ agonistPXL065Phase 2Reduction in hepatic lipid content; MASH and fibrosis improvements with fewer PPARγ-typical adverse effectsOngoing
Pan-PPAR agonistLanifibranorPhase 3Dose-dependent MASH resolution and regression of hepatic fibrosis stagePhase 3 ongoing
Gene targetingGSK4532990Phase 2bSafety and efficacy under investigation in patients with advanced fibrosis (stage 3)Ongoing
AZD2693Phase 2; Phase 2bIntended to reduce hepatic fat content and fibrosis; disappointing outcomes in phase 2bDiscontinued (late 2025)
FDA: Food and Drug Administration; FIB-4: Fibrosis-4 index; MASH: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis; NAFLD: nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; PPARγ: peroxisome proliferator-activator receptor γ; SGLT2: sodium–glucose cotransporter-2.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ştefan, A.G.; Mitrea, A.; Clenciu, D.; Vladu, I.M.; Roşu, M.M.; Protasiewicz-Timofticiuc, D.C.; Radu-Gheonea, T.C.; Efrem, I.-C.; Amzolini, A.M.; Vladu, B.E.; et al. MASH in Type 2 Diabetes: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Therapeutic Management—A Narrative Review. Medicina 2026, 62, 325. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62020325

AMA Style

Ştefan AG, Mitrea A, Clenciu D, Vladu IM, Roşu MM, Protasiewicz-Timofticiuc DC, Radu-Gheonea TC, Efrem I-C, Amzolini AM, Vladu BE, et al. MASH in Type 2 Diabetes: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Therapeutic Management—A Narrative Review. Medicina. 2026; 62(2):325. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62020325

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ştefan, Adela Gabriela, Adina Mitrea, Diana Clenciu, Ionela Mihaela Vladu, Maria Magdalena Roşu, Diana Cristina Protasiewicz-Timofticiuc, Theodora Claudia Radu-Gheonea, Ion-Cristian Efrem, Anca Maria Amzolini, Beatrice Elena Vladu, and et al. 2026. "MASH in Type 2 Diabetes: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Therapeutic Management—A Narrative Review" Medicina 62, no. 2: 325. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62020325

APA Style

Ştefan, A. G., Mitrea, A., Clenciu, D., Vladu, I. M., Roşu, M. M., Protasiewicz-Timofticiuc, D. C., Radu-Gheonea, T. C., Efrem, I.-C., Amzolini, A. M., Vladu, B. E., Efrem, A.-M., Pintilei, D.-V. R., Moţa, E., & Moţa, M. (2026). MASH in Type 2 Diabetes: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Therapeutic Management—A Narrative Review. Medicina, 62(2), 325. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62020325

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop