Global Consensus Streamlines MASLD/MASH Care
"We have developed consensus recommendations for busy clinicians."
-
09/23/2025
-
by Amy Pfeiffer
A multinational panel has unified competing guidance on metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease and steatohepatitis, producing algorithms for screening, risk stratification, lifestyle therapy, management of cardiometabolic comorbidities, and the use of resmetirom, the first FDA-approved medication for noncirrhotic metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis with F2–F3 fibrosis.
"Through an in-depth review of recent MASLD [metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease] guidelines or similar documents from around the world, and the Delphi process with global MASH experts, we have developed consensus recommendations for busy clinicians," noted the panel members.
Sixty-one guidance documents published between 2018 and January 2025 were reviewed and areas of disagreement were resolved through a four-round Delphi process, noted study author Zobair M. Younossi, of the Beatty Liver and Obesity Research Program, at Inova Health System, in Falls Church, Virginia.
"Although our results are grounded in sound methodology, it is important to point out that these recommendations are not meant to replace existing, recent guidelines," wrote Dr. Younossi and colleagues. "The goal of this process was to address areas of discordance in recommendations among the guidelines and provide easy-to-use guidance for the care of patients with MASLD."
MASLD affects roughly a third of adults; metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) drives fibrosis, cirrhosis, HCC risk, poor quality of life, and substantial costs. Prior variability across societies’ recommendations has hindered implementation; the new consensus aims to standardize the first steps of evaluation and the introduction and monitoring of resmetirom in routine practice.
Clinicians should identify high-risk MASLD in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D); those with obesity plus at least one cardiometabolic risk factor; or anyone with persistent aminotransferase elevations 6 months of more after alternative causes are excluded. Alcohol use should be assessed to distinguish MASLD from Met-ALD and ALD, and diagnosis should be assigned using standardized alcohol thresholds. Comorbidity screening for CVD, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and CKD is recommended.
Patients with FIB-4 under 1.3 (under 2 if 65 years or older) are low risk and can remain in primary care with retesting every 1 to 3 years. Those at or above the cutoff should undergo vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) or another validated second-line NIT; liver stiffness of 8 kPa or more indicates risk for advanced fibrosis and merits specialty evaluation.
The panel recommended a Mediterranean-style, plant-forward diet; reduced ultraprocessed and sugar-sweetened foods; and prescribed 150 to 300 minutes/week of moderate or 75 to 150 minutes/week of vigorous activity. Weight-loss benchmarks are 5% or more (3% to 5% if normal/lean BMI) for steatosis, 7% to 10% for inflammation, and 10% or greater for fibrosis improvement.
Dr. Younossi and colleagues also recommended prioritizing GLP-1 receptor agonists for patients with T2D, obesity, or both until MASH labeling is granted. SGLT2 inhibitors and other medications treat diabetes but are not MASH-targeted therapies. Routine vitamin E for MASH is not recommended given limited benefit and potential risks, but some legacy guidance allows selective use in patients without diabetes or cirrhosis.
The consensus recommendations outline a clear, noninvasive test (NIT)-based pathway for initiating and monitoring resmetirom therapy. Patients considered eligible are those with noncirrhotic MASH and evidence of F2–F3 fibrosis by NITs.
Treatment should be initiated when vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) indicates a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) in the high range consistent, but not exceeding the threshold typically associated with cirrhosis. For patients with borderline LSM values just below this range, a second concordant noninvasive test (NIT) confirming advanced fibrosis is required before proceeding. When LSM approaches the upper end of the moderate range, cirrhosis must be carefully excluded through both a second NIT and supporting clinical or laboratory data, such as platelet counts. Resmetirom should not be prescribed if LSM is above the cirrhotic threshold or if cirrhosis is otherwise diagnosed.
Once treatment is initiated, monitoring is structured and systematic. Safety assessments should be performed at 3, 6, and 12 months. A 6-month VCTE may be used to gauge early trends, although these results should not drive treatment decisions on their own. The critical assessment point is at 12 months, when efficacy or futility should be judged using NITs. A reduction in LSM of 30% or more is considered a clinically meaningful improvement. Importantly, a lack of ALT improvement at this stage should not, by itself, lead to treatment discontinuation. Instead, futility should only be declared if two separate NITs demonstrate concordant worsening.
Conflict of interest statements are available in the published article below.
Source: Gasroenterology
Summary content
7 Key Takeaways
-
1
Developed a paper-based colorimetric sensor array for chemical threat detection.
-
2
Can detect 12 chemical agents, including industrial toxins.
-
3
Production cost is under 20 cents per chip.
-
4
Utilizes dye-loaded silica particles on self-adhesive paper.
-
5
Provides rapid, simultaneous identification through image analysis.
-
6
Inspired by the mammalian olfactory system for pattern recognition.
-
7
Future developments include a machine learning-enabled reader device.
The guidelines emphasize four-hour gastric emptying studies over two-hour testing. How do you see this affecting diagnostic workflows in practice?
Dr. Staller: Moving to a four-hour solid-meal scintigraphy will actually simplify decision-making. The two-hour reads miss a meaningful proportion of delayed emptying; standardizing on four hours reduces false negatives and the “maybe gastroparesis” purgatory that leads to repeat testing. Practically, it means closer coordination with nuclear medicine (longer slots, consistent standardized meal), updating order sets to default to a four-hour protocol, and educating front-line teams so patients arrive appropriately prepped. The payoff is fewer equivocal studies and more confident treatment plans.
Metoclopramide and erythromycin are the only agents conditionally recommended for initial therapy. How does this align with what is being currently prescribed?
Dr. Staller: This largely mirrors real-world practice. Metoclopramide remains the only FDA-approved prokinetic for gastroparesis, and short “pulsed” erythromycin courses are familiar to many of us—recognizing tachyphylaxis limits durability. Our recommendation is “conditional” because the underlying evidence is modest and patient responses are heterogeneous, but it formalizes what many clinicians already do: start with metoclopramide (lowest effective dose, limited duration, counsel on neurologic adverse effects) and reserve erythromycin for targeted use (exacerbations, bridging).
Several agents, including domperidone and prucalopride, received recommendations against first-line use. How will that influence discussions with patients who ask about these therapies?
Dr. Staller: Two points I share with patients: evidence and access/safety. For domperidone, the data quality is mixed, and US access is through an FDA IND mechanism; you’re committing patients to EKG monitoring and a non-trivial administrative lift. For prucalopride, the gastroparesis-specific evidence isn’t strong enough yet to justify first-line use. So, our stance is not “never,” it’s just “not first.” If someone fails or cannot tolerate initial therapy, we can revisit these options through shared decision-making, setting expectations about benefit, monitoring, and off-label use. The guideline language helps clinicians have a transparent, evidence-based conversation at the first visit.
The guidelines suggest reserving procedures like G-POEM and gastric electrical stimulation for refractory cases. In your practice, how do you decide when a patient is “refractory” to medical therapy?
Dr. Staller: I define “refractory” with three anchors.
1. Adequate trials of foundational care: dietary optimization and glycemic control; an antiemetic; and at least one prokinetic at appropriate dose/duration (with intolerance documented if stopped early).
2. Persistent, function-limiting symptoms: ongoing nausea/vomiting, weight loss, dehydration, ER visits/hospitalizations, or malnutrition despite the above—ideally tracked with a validated instrument (e.g., GCSI) plus nutritional metrics.
3. Objective correlation: delayed emptying on a standardized 4-hour solid-meal study that aligns with the clinical picture (and medications that slow emptying addressed).
At that point, referral to a center with procedural expertise for G-POEM or consideration of gastric electrical stimulation becomes appropriate, with multidisciplinary evaluation (GI, nutrition, psychology, and, when needed, surgery).
What role do you see dietary modification and glycemic control playing alongside pharmacologic therapy in light of these recommendations?
Dr. Staller: They’re the bedrock. A small-particle, lower-fat, calorie-dense diet—often leaning on nutrient-rich liquids—can meaningfully reduce symptom burden. Partnering with dietitians early pays dividends. For diabetes, tighter glycemic control can improve gastric emptying and symptoms; I explicitly review medications that can slow emptying (e.g., opioids; consider timing/necessity of GLP-1 receptor agonists) and encourage continuous glucose monitor-informed adjustments. Pharmacotherapy sits on top of those pillars; without them, medications will likely underperform.
The guideline notes “considerable unmet need” in gastroparesis treatment. Where do you think future therapies or research are most urgently needed?
Dr. Staller: I see three major areas.
1. Truly durable prokinetics: agents that improve emptying and symptoms over months, with better safety than legacy options (e.g., next-gen motilin/ghrelin agonists, better-studied 5-HT4 strategies).
2. Endotyping and biomarkers: we need to stop treating all gastroparesis as one disease. Clinical, physiologic, and microbiome/omic signatures that predict who benefits from which therapy (drug vs G-POEM vs GES) would transform care.
3. Patient-centered trials: larger, longer RCTs that prioritize validated symptom and quality-of-life outcomes, include nutritional endpoints, and reflect real-world medication confounders.
Our guideline intentionally highlights these gaps to hopefully catalyze better trials and smarter referral pathways.
Dr. Staller is with the Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.