Signant Health Blog

The Scientific Evolution from NASH to MASH | Signant Health

Written by Anthony T. Everhart, MD | Feb 16, 2026 11:55:50 AM

More than 30% of the global population is affected by the world's most common chronic liver disease, a condition that for decades has been fundamentally misnamed. The terminology we've used didn't describe what the disease actually is, but rather what it isn't, creating diagnostic confusion, delaying treatment, and obscuring the true pathophysiology driving liver damage in hundreds of millions of patients worldwide.

In June 2023, the global liver community made a landmark decision to correct this: nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) would be renamed metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) would become metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). This represented a fundamental shift in how we understand and diagnose metabolic liver disease—moving from exclusionary terminology to affirmative, accurate nomenclature that reflects the disease's true nature.

For the clinical research community, this change has significant implications. It affects how we design trials, select patients, develop endpoints, and ultimately bring new therapies to the millions of people affected by this progressive liver condition. Understanding the scientific rationale behind this evolution is essential for anyone involved in metabolic liver disease research.

The Historical Context: Why Change Was Necessary

The term "nonalcoholic fatty liver disease" was coined decades ago when researchers had a limited understanding of the disease's underlying mechanisms. It was a diagnosis of exclusion—defined by what it wasn't rather than what it was.

This created several critical problems. The exclusionary terminology required ruling out all other potential causes before making a diagnosis, creating unnecessary diagnostic complexity and delays. Clinicians struggled with a definition that didn't describe the actual pathophysiology driving liver damage, leading to widespread diagnostic confusion. The terminology failed to capture the true metabolic drivers of the disease, despite growing evidence that metabolic dysfunction was the primary culprit, an incomplete representation of the pathophysiology that left both clinicians and researchers working with an inadequate conceptual framework.

Perhaps most troubling was the stigmatizing language embedded in the term "nonalcoholic." For many patients, the emphasis on alcohol, even in the negative, carried stigma and shame, particularly given that the disease had nothing to do with alcohol consumption. This discouraged open conversations between patients and providers and sometimes delayed diagnosis and treatment, creating barriers to care rooted in nomenclature rather than clinical reality.

The Clinical Reality Gap

As research advanced, the gap between terminology and clinical reality widened dramatically. The connection to metabolic syndrome became undeniable: a majority of diabetes patients showed liver involvement, and the disease clearly stemmed from metabolic dysfunction rather than any other cause.

This created particularly challenging situations for clinicians encountering patients with both metabolic dysfunction and moderate alcohol consumption. Under the old nomenclature, these patients fell into diagnostic limbo. Their metabolic liver disease went unrecognized because they didn't meet the strict alcohol exclusion criteria, leaving them without appropriate diagnosis or treatment pathways despite clear evidence of liver pathology.

Meanwhile, global prevalence reached epidemic proportions, affecting more than 30% of the global population. Despite this health burden, the terminology still didn't reflect what was actually causing liver damage in these individuals. The disconnect between what clinicians observed and what they could formally diagnose had become untenable, making it clear the liver disease community needed nomenclature that more accurately described the disease's true nature.

The Scientific Foundation: Understanding MASH

MASH is an affirmative, descriptive term that identifies the disease by its actual cause: metabolic dysfunction. Rather than listing what the disease isn't, MASH clearly states what it is—liver inflammation driven by metabolic factors.

The parent category, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), requires hepatic steatosis (fat accumulation in the liver) plus at least one of five cardiometabolic risk factors:

  1. Overweight or obesity (BMI ≥25 kg/m² in most populations, or elevated waist circumference)
  2. Type 2 diabetes mellitus
  3. Hypertension (high blood pressure)
  4. Elevated triglycerides (≥150 mg/dL or treatment for elevated triglycerides)
  5. Reduced HDL cholesterol levels (or treatment for reduced HDL-C)

This definition achieves what the old nomenclature could not: it identifies patients based on the pathophysiological mechanisms actually causing their liver disease. MASH specifically refers to cases where metabolic dysfunction has progressed to cause liver inflammation and potential fibrosis—the more severe, progressive form of the disease.

Clinical Implications for Research and Trials

The new nomenclature creates significant opportunities to improve clinical trial design and execution:

  • Better patient stratification becomes possible when inclusion criteria focus on specific cardiometabolic phenotypes rather than simply excluding other causes. Researchers can now design trials targeting patients with particular metabolic profiles most likely to respond to specific interventions.
  • Improved inclusion criteria that focus on what patients have (metabolic dysfunction with specific risk factors) streamline screening and reduce diagnostic ambiguity.
  • More precise classification may help identify effective therapies that previously went unrecognized, as some past trial failures may have resulted from imprecise patient selection where heterogeneous populations mixing different etiologies obscured treatment signals.
  • New research opportunities emerge with Metabolic and Alcohol-Related Liver Disease (MetALD) as a defined category. This previously unstudied population—patients with combined metabolic and alcohol-related pathology—now has clinical recognition, opening new avenues for therapeutic development and intervention research.

Regulatory and Healthcare System Benefits

The nomenclature change has already demonstrated real-world impact across multiple fronts. FDA recognition came quickly, with resmetirom (Rezdiffra) receiving approval in March 2024 as the first drug specifically for MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis. While the FDA approval documents still referenced "NASH," the agency has acknowledged and is transitioning to the new terminology, signaling regulatory acceptance of this evolution.

The clearer diagnostic criteria have also begun to improve insurance coverage decisions. When diagnosis is based on identification of metabolic risk factors rather than exclusion of numerous other conditions, payers can more readily assess medical necessity and approve coverage. This streamlined approach reduces administrative burden and potentially accelerates patient access to appropriate care.

Perhaps most importantly, healthcare provider clarity has improved as the terminology now accurately describes what's happening in the patient's body. This makes patient education easier and reduces the confusion that often surrounds explanations of "nonalcoholic" disease to patients. Providers can speak directly about metabolic dysfunction and its role in liver inflammation, creating more transparent and productive conversations about disease management and lifestyle interventions.

Impact on Clinical Assessment and Technology

For clinical research technology platforms, the nomenclature change necessitates thoughtful adaptation:

  • Healthcare provider clarity improves as the terminology accurately describes what's happening in the patient's body. This makes patient education easier and reduces the confusion that often surrounds explanations of "nonalcoholic" disease to patients.
  • Disease-specific questionnaires and assessments may evolve to better reflect the metabolic dysfunction focus. As the field develops and validates new patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures specific to MASLD and MASH—and potentially distinct measures for MetALD—eClinical platforms will need to incorporate these newly validated instruments.
  • Patient engagement tools benefit from clear, non-stigmatizing language. When eConsent processes and patient communications use affirmative terminology that accurately describes their condition, patients can better understand their diagnosis and the rationale for trial procedures. This transparency supports truly informed consent and may improve retention.
  • Comprehensive monitoring aligned with metabolic health takes on new importance. In MASH trials, monitoring activity levels and tracking glucose patterns through wearables provides valuable context for understanding metabolic dysfunction impact beyond liver-specific measures. These objective, continuous measurements complement traditional assessments.
  • Telemedicine capabilities support the long-term metabolic management that MASH requires. Since metabolic dysfunction is chronic and requires sustained intervention, remote monitoring and virtual visits can support patient engagement over extended study periods while reducing site burden.

Technological Considerations for Future Research

The nomenclature change points toward several technological opportunities:

  • Biomarker development focusing specifically on metabolic dysfunction markers may prove more relevant than generic liver inflammation markers. As we better understand MASH as a metabolic disease, biomarkers reflecting metabolic dysregulation may predict progression and treatment response more accurately.
  • Digital health integration using wearables and sensors for continuous metabolic monitoring could provide richer data on the relationship between metabolic health and liver disease progression.
  • AI-driven patient selection leveraging cardiometabolic risk factor profiles may identify optimal trial populations. Machine learning algorithms could potentially predict which patients with specific metabolic profiles are most likely to progress or respond to interventions.

Looking Forward: The Future of MASH Research

The new nomenclature creates a foundation for precision medicine approaches that were difficult to conceptualize under the old framework. Better phenotyping of metabolic dysfunction enables personalized treatment strategies. As we identify subgroups within MASH based on specific metabolic derangements such as insulin resistance versus dyslipidemia versus obesity, for example, targeted therapies tailored to these distinct pathophysiological profiles may emerge.

This precision understanding also points toward combination therapies addressing multiple metabolic dysfunction pathways simultaneously. Just as cardiovascular disease often requires multiple medications targeting different mechanisms, MASH treatment may move toward rational combinations that address the multifaceted nature of metabolic dysfunction more comprehensively than single agents can achieve.

The clearer understanding of metabolic drivers also enables prevention strategies focusing on metabolic health from early stages, potentially reducing progression from MASLD to MASH. Early intervention in patients with metabolic risk factors but minimal liver involvement may prevent advanced disease, shifting the paradigm from late-stage treatment to early-stage prevention.

Finally, unified nomenclature facilitates international research collaboration, amplifying the global health impact. When researchers worldwide use consistent terminology and diagnostic criteria, data pooling and meta-analyses become more reliable, accelerating knowledge generation and ensuring that insights from trials conducted in different regions can be meaningfully integrated to advance the field.

Conclusion: Embracing Scientific Progress

The change from NASH to MASH isn't merely semantic—it's a meaningful evolution in how we conceptualize, diagnose, and research metabolic liver disease. By embracing this change, the clinical research community can accelerate therapeutic development and ultimately improve outcomes for the millions of people affected by this increasingly common condition.

For more information on how Signant Health supports MASH clinical trials through eCOA solutions, patient engagement tools, and metabolic monitoring capabilities, visit our MASH solutions page.

About the author

Todd Everhart, MD, FACP is the internal medicine leader at Signant. Dr. Everhart is board-certified in internal medicine and a fellow of the American College of Physicians with over 23 years of experience in the practice of medicine and over 12 years of experience in clinical development. Prior to joining Signant, Dr. Everhart held positions of Vice President, Medical Affairs and Vice President, Medical Informatics at Chilltern and Covance, and consulted independently in the areas of medical monitoring, medical data review, data analytics, and physician adoption of technology. He has worked in all phases of clinical development in numerous therapeutic areas including allergy & immunology, cardiovascular, hematology & oncology, infectious disease & HIV, neurology, ophthalmology, psychiatry, respiratory, and rheumatology.