Evidence Hub

Mortality, Hepatic Decompensation, and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Lean vs. Non-lean MASLD Cirrhosis: A Veterans Affairs Cohort Study

Basile Njei, C. Mezzacappa, Binu V. John, M. Serper, David E. Kaplan, T. Taddei, N. Mahmud

Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2025

15,155 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has a global prevalence of 25%. Studies on incident liver and cardiovascular outcomes in lean (Body mass index: BMI < 25 kg/m2, or < 23 kg/m2 for Asians) vs. non-lean individuals with MASLD have reported mixed results. We aimed to compare incident clinical outcomes and mortality between lean and non-lean individuals with compensated MASLD cirrhosis in a large national cohort. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed compensated MASLD cirrhosis in the Veterans Health Administration between 01/2008 and 05/2021. The primary outcome was incident hepatic decompensation, and secondary outcomes were incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess association. Fine and Gray competing risk regression was used where applicable. The study included 15155 patients with MASLD cirrhosis: 1,597 lean and 13558 non-lean patients. Included patients were mostly male (95%), median age was 67 years, and 72.8% were non-Hispanic white. At baseline, the prevalence of diabetes was lower in lean vs. non-lean individuals (46.7 vs. 73.9%, p < 0.001). In multivariable models, lean status was associated with a 64% increased risk of all-cause mortality (aHR = 1.64) but decreased risk of hepatic decompensation (aSHR = 0.67). Lean individuals experienced significantly higher rates of cardiovascular-related mortality (aHR =…

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: 15,155 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