Evidence Hub

Limitations of Guideline‐Recommended Risk Stratification in Identifying MASLD Patients for Novel Drug Treatments

M. Franck, K. John, Monika Rau, Andreas Geier, J. Sowa, J. Schattenberg, M. Demir, H. Wedemeyer et al.

Liver international (Print), 2025

291 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend FIB‐4 and transient elastography for non‐invasive risk stratification in metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). These tests can predict the presence or absence of advanced fibrosis, but their accuracy for identifying significant fibrosis in MASLD patients eligible for novel drug treatments remains unclear. In a multicenter cohort of 458 biopsy‐proven MASLD patients, we evaluated the suitability of FIB‐4 for identifying MASLD with histologically significant fibrosis (≥ F2). In a subcohort of 291 patients, we further assessed the diagnostic performance of the guideline‐based sequential use of FIB‐4 and transient elastography. We demonstrate that the recommended risk stratification remains suboptimal for the identification of patients with significant fibrosis, resulting in remarkably high false‐positive and false‐negative rates for FIB‐4 (43% and 26%, respectively). Consequently, guideline‐based risk stratification may misclassify a significant proportion of patients, leading to inappropriate treatment decisions regarding novel MASLD therapies approved for F2/F3 fibrosis.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 291 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