Evidence Hub

Comparison of pharmacological therapies in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis for fibrosis regression and MASH resolution: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Matheus Souza, Lubna Al-Sharif, V. Antunes, Daniel Q. Huang, R. Loomba

Hepatology, 2025

9,324 participants · 84 citations

Abstract

Background and Aims: Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) is a leading cause of liver disease. With the advent of multiple therapeutic targets in late-phase clinical drug development for MASH, there is a knowledge gap to better understand the comparative efficacy of various pharmacological agents. We conducted an updated network meta-analysis to evaluate the relative rank order of the different pharmacological agents for both fibrosis regression and MASH resolution. Approach and Results: We searched PubMed and Embase databases from January 1, 2020 to December 1, 2024, for published randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions in patients with biopsy-proven MASH. The co-primary endpoints were fibrosis improvement ≥1 stage without MASH worsening and MASH resolution without worsening fibrosis. We conducted surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis. A total of 29 randomized controlled trials (n=9324) were included. Pegozafermin, cilofexor + firsocostat, denifanstat, survodutide, obeticholic acid, tirzepatide, resmetirom, and semaglutide were significantly better than placebo in achieving fibrosis regression without worsening MASH. Pegozafermin (SUCRA: 79.92), cilofexor + firsocostat (SUCRA: 71.38), and cilofexor + selonsertib (SUCRA: 69.11) were ranked the most effective interventions. Pegozafermin, survodutide, tirzepatide, efruxifermin, liraglutide, vitamin E + pioglitazone, resmetirom, semaglutide, pioglitazone,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 9,324 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free