From “MAFLD” to “MASLD”: Was This Revolution Worth It? A Head-to-Head Comparison of MAFLD and MASLD Criteria in Estimating Liver Disease Progression and Cardiovascular Risk in Real Life

Background/Objectives: In the present study, the Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) diagnostic criteria were applied to evaluate the relative performance in predicting short-term advanced fibrosis (AF) progression (AFpr) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as well as an ancillary outcome, i.e., the occurrence of acute cardiovascular events (ACEs) in steatotic liver disease (SLD) patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data stored in the University Hospital (UH)’s Official Health Documents Digitization Archive of 931 SLD patients, with a follow-up of 3 years. Based on the Body Mass Index (BMI), patients were subdivided into lean “L” (BMI < 25 kg/m2) (n = 134) and not-lean “NL” (n = 797), and, subsequently, into NL-MASLD (n = 206), NL-MASLD/MAFLD (n = 481), NL-MAFLD (n = 110), L-MASLD (n = 39), L-MASLD/MAFLD (n = 68), and L-MAFLD (n = 27). All study outcomes (AFpr, HCC, and ACE) were primarily evaluated in NL-SLD and by conducting a sub-analysis of L-SLD individuals. Results: MASLD and MAFLD criteria similarly estimated [p = 0.076] the overall 3-year risk of AF progression in NL-SLD. In the L-SLD sub-analysis, MAFLD criteria better estimated the overall 3-year risk of AF progression [p = 0.006]. Multivariate competing risk analysis (adjusted for sex, age, diabetes, steatosis, and fibrosis severity) revealed diabetes [adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) = 2.113, p = 0.001], high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (aHR = 1.441; p = 0.02), and Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (aHR = 1.228; p = 0.03) as being associated with AF progression in L-MAFLD. Compared to MAFLD, MASLD diagnostic criteria similarly estimated the 3-year risk of HCC occurrence both in NL [HR = 1.104, C.I. 95%: 0.824–1.593, p = 0.741] and L [HR = 1.260, C.I. 95%: 0.768–2.104, p = 0.701] patients. Finally, no significant differences were reported between the MAFLD or MASLD criteria for ACE risk occurrence in all study groups. Conclusions: The MAFLD criteria better estimate the AF progression risk, limited to L-SLD patients.