Use of FibroScan-AST (FAST) Score and Fibrosis-4 Index to Identify Advanced Liver Fibrosis in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease

Background: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is highly prevalent in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and advanced fibrosis is the strongest predictor of liver-related morbidity and mortality. Therefore, early noninvasive risk stratification is critical. While the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index and vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) are widely used, the newer FibroScan-AST (FAST) score has shown promise in detecting at-risk metabolic-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with significant fibrosis. Evidence comparing the FAST and FIB-4 indices in Middle Eastern T2D populations remains limited. We compared the diagnostic performances of these models for advanced fibrosis in Saudi patients with T2D and MASLD. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 273 patients diagnosed with T2D and MASLD. All patients underwent VCTE. To identify advanced fibrosis, we used liver stiffness measurement (LSM) as a surrogate marker for liver biopsy. We calculated the FAST and FIB-4 indices for each patient. To assess the diagnostic performance of these scores, we evaluated their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: In this cohort study, 26.4% of participants had a high-risk FAST score (>0.35; median: 0.13). Patients with high-risk FAST scores (>0.35) were younger, had higher BMIs, elevated liver enzyme levels, and poorer glycemic control than those in the lower-risk groups. High-risk FAST scores were strongly correlated with elevated LSM, FIB-4, and controlled attenuation parameter values (p < 0.001). The FAST score demonstrated better performance than the FIB-4 index in detecting advanced fibrosis. It showed higher accuracy (85.4% vs. 77.3%), sensitivity (82.0% vs. 48.0%), and negative predictive value (95.5% vs. 87.8%) while maintaining a similar specificity. The AUROC values were 0.936 (95% CI: 0.901–0.971) for the FAST score compared to 0.711 (95% CI: 0.625–0.797) for the FIB-4 index. Conclusions: The FAST score demonstrated better diagnostic accuracy than the FIB-4 index and identified patients with poor metabolic control and obesity as being at the highest risk among Saudi patients with T2D and MASLD. These findings support the integration of other elastography-based tests into stepwise fibrosis screening pathways for diabetic populations, potentially improving the early detection of advanced fibrosis and patient outcomes.