Inequities in primary liver cancer in Europe: The state of play.

Given the increasing burden of liver cancer in Europe, it is crucial to investigate how social determinants of health (SDoH) affect liver cancer risk factors and access to care in order to improve health outcomes equitably. This paper summarises the available evidence on the differential distribution of liver cancer risk factors, incidence, and health outcomes in the European Economic Area and the United Kingdom from an SDoH perspective. Vulnerable and marginalised populations have low socio-economic and educational levels and are the most affected by liver cancer risk factors. Reasons for this include varied access to hepatitis B virus vaccination and limited access to viral hepatitis B and C screening, harm reduction, and treatment. Additionally, alcohol-related liver disease remains highly prevalent among individuals with low education, insecure employment, economic instability, migrants, and deprived populations. Moreover, significant variation exists across Europe in the proportion of adults with steatotic liver disease, overweight/obesity, and diabetes, based on geographical area, gender, socio-economic and educational background, and density of ultra-processed food outlets. Inequities in cirrhosis mortality rates have been reported, with the highest death rates among individuals living in socio-economically disadvantaged areas and those with lower educational levels. Furthermore, insufficient healthcare access for key populations with primary liver cancer is influenced by complex healthcare systems, stigmatisation, discrimination, low education, language barriers, and fear of disclosure. These challenges contribute to inequities in liver cancer care pathways. Future studies are needed to explore the different SDoH-interlinked effects on liver cancer incidence and outcomes in European countries. The ultimate goal is to develop evidence-based multilevel public health interventions that reduce the SDoH impact in precipitating and perpetuating the disproportionate burden of liver cancer in specific populations.

A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature.

The principal limitations of the terms NAFLD and NASH are the reliance on exclusionary confounder terms and the use of potentially stigmatising language. This study set out to determine if content experts and patient advocates were in favor of a change in nomenclature and/or definition. A modified Delphi process was led by three large pan-national liver associations. The consensus was defined a priori as a supermajority (67%) vote. An independent committee of experts external to the nomenclature process made the final recommendation on the acronym and its diagnostic criteria. A total of 236 panelists from 56 countries participated in 4 online surveys and 2 hybrid meetings. Response rates across the 4 survey rounds were 87%, 83%, 83%, and 78%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change. The terms "nonalcoholic" and "fatty" were felt to be stigmatising by 61% and 66% of respondents, respectively. Steatotic liver disease was chosen as an overarching term to encompass the various aetiologies of steatosis. The term steatohepatitis was felt to be an important pathophysiological concept that should be retained. The name chosen to replace NAFLD was metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. There was consensus to change the definition to include the presence of at least 1 of 5 cardiometabolic risk factors. Those with no metabolic parameters and no known cause were deemed to have cryptogenic steatotic liver disease. A new category, outside pure metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, termed metabolic and alcohol related/associated liver disease (MetALD), was selected to describe those with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140-350 g/wk and 210-420 g/wk for females and males, respectively). The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported and nonstigmatising, and can improve awareness and patient identification.

A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature.

The principal limitations of the terms NAFLD and NASH are the reliance on exclusionary confounder terms and the use of potentially stigmatising language. This study set out to determine if content experts and patient advocates were in favor of a change in nomenclature and/or definition. A modified Delphi process was led by three large pan-national liver associations. The consensus was defined a priori as a supermajority (67%) vote. An independent committee of experts external to the nomenclature process made the final recommendation on the acronym and its diagnostic criteria. A total of 236 panelists from 56 countries participated in 4 online surveys and 2 hybrid meetings. Response rates across the 4 survey rounds were 87%, 83%, 83%, and 78%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change. The terms "nonalcoholic" and "fatty" were felt to be stigmatising by 61% and 66% of respondents, respectively. Steatotic liver disease was chosen as an overarching term to encompass the various aetiologies of steatosis. The term steatohepatitis was felt to be an important pathophysiological concept that should be retained. The name chosen to replace NAFLD was metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. There was consensus to change the definition to include the presence of at least 1 of 5 cardiometabolic risk factors. Those with no metabolic parameters and no known cause were deemed to have cryptogenic steatotic liver disease. A new category, outside pure metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, termed metabolic and alcohol related/associated liver disease (MetALD), was selected to describe those with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140-350 g/wk and 210-420 g/wk for females and males, respectively). The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported and nonstigmatising, and can improve awareness and patient identification.

Post-liver transplantation patient experience.

Given improvements in post-transplant patient and graft survival, there is a growing need to focus on patient experience and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Though liver transplantation can be life-saving, it can also be associated with significant morbidity and complications. Patient HRQOL improves after transplantation, but it may not improve to that of age-matched cohorts. Understanding patient experience and the factors that contribute to it, including physical and psychological health, immunosuppression and medication adherence, return to employment or school, financial burden, and expectations, helps when thinking creatively about potential interventions to improve HRQOL.

A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature.

The principal limitations of the terms NAFLD and NASH are the reliance on exclusionary confounder terms and the use of potentially stigmatising language. This study set out to determine if content experts and patient advocates were in favour of a change in nomenclature and/or definition. A modified Delphi process was led by three large pan-national liver associations. The consensus was defined a priori as a supermajority (67%) vote. An independent committee of experts external to the nomenclature process made the final recommendation on the acronym and its diagnostic criteria. A total of 236 panellists from 56 countries participated in 4 online surveys and 2 hybrid meetings. Response rates across the 4 survey rounds were 87%, 83%, 83%, and 78%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change. The terms "nonalcoholic" and "fatty" were felt to be stigmatising by 61% and 66% of respondents, respectively. Steatotic liver disease was chosen as an overarching term to encompass the various aetiologies of steatosis. The term steatohepatitis was felt to be an important pathophysiological concept that should be retained. The name chosen to replace NAFLD was metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). There was consensus to change the definition to include the presence of at least 1 of 5 cardiometabolic risk factors. Those with no metabolic parameters and no known cause were deemed to have cryptogenic steatotic liver disease. A new category, outside pure metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, termed metabolic and alcohol related/associated liver disease (MetALD), was selected to describe those with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140-350 g/wk and 210-420 g/wk for females and males, respectively). The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported and non-stigmatising, and can improve awareness and patient identification.

LiverScreen project: study protocol for screening for liver fibrosis in the general population in European countries.

BACKGROUND: The development of liver cirrhosis is usually an asymptomatic process until late stages when complications occur. The potential reversibility of the disease is dependent on early diagnosis of liver fibrosis and timely targeted treatment. Recently, the use of non-invasive tools has been suggested for screening of liver fibrosis, especially in subjects with risk factors for chronic liver disease. Nevertheless, large population-based studies with cost-effectiveness analyses are still lacking to support the widespread use of such tools. The aim of this study is to investigate whether non-invasive liver stiffness measurement in the general population is useful to identify subjects with asymptomatic, advanced chronic liver disease. METHODS: This study aims to include 30,000 subjects from eight European countries. Subjects from the general population aged ≥ 40 years without known liver disease will be invited to participate in the study either through phone calls/letters or through their primary care center. In the first study visit, subjects will undergo bloodwork as well as hepatic fat quantification and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by vibration-controlled transient elastography. If LSM is ≥ 8 kPa and/or if ALT levels are ≥1.5 x upper limit of normal, subjects will be referred to hospital for further evaluation and consideration of liver biopsy. The primary outcome is the percentage of subjects with LSM ≥ 8kPa. In addition, a health economic evaluation will be performed to assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of such an intervention. The project is funded by the European Commission H2020 program. DISCUSSION: This study comes at an especially important time, as the burden of chronic liver diseases is expected to increase in the coming years. There is consequently an urgent need to change our current approach, from diagnosing the disease late when the impact of interventions may be limited to diagnosing the disease earlier, when the patient is asymptomatic and free of complications, and the disease potentially reversible. Ultimately, the LiverScreen study will serve as a basis from which diagnostic pathways can be developed and adapted to the specific socio-economic and healthcare conditions in each country. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03789825 ).

Endpoints and design of clinical trials in patients with decompensated cirrhosis: Position paper of the LiverHope Consortium.

Management of decompensated cirrhosis is currently geared towards the treatment of complications once they occur. To date there is no established disease-modifying therapy aimed at halting progression of the disease and preventing the development of complications in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. The design of clinical trials to investigate new therapies for patients with decompensated cirrhosis is complex. The population of patients with decompensated cirrhosis is heterogeneous (i.e., different etiologies, comorbidities and disease severity), leading to the inclusion of diverse populations in clinical trials. In addition, primary endpoints selected for trials that include patients with decompensated cirrhosis are not homogeneous and at times may not be appropriate. This leads to difficulties in comparing results obtained from different trials. Against this background, the LiverHope Consortium organized a meeting of experts, the goal of which was to develop recommendations for the design of clinical trials and to define appropriate endpoints, both for trials aimed at modifying the natural history and preventing progression of decompensated cirrhosis, as well as for trials aimed at managing the individual complications of cirrhosis.

Personalised human albumin in patients with cirrhosis and ascites: design and rationale for the ALB-TRIAL - a randomised clinical biomarker validation trial.

INTRODUCTION: Human albumin is used in the treatment of complications of cirrhosis. However, the use of long-term human albumin administration is costly and resource demanding for both patients and healthcare systems. A precision medicine approach with biomarkers to predict human albumin treatment response, so-called predictive biomarkers, could make this a viable treatment option in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ALB-TRIAL is a multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial. We aim to validate a predictive biomarker, consisting of a panel of circulating metabolites, to predict the treatment response to human albumin in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. All enrolled patients are stratified into a high-expected or low-expected effect stratum of human albumin based on the biomarker outcome. After stratification, patients in each group are randomised into either active treatment (20% human albumin) or corresponding placebo (0.9% NaCl) every 10th day for 6 months. The primary outcome is the cumulative number of liver-related events (composite of decompensation episodes, transjugular intrahepatic shunt insertion, liver transplantation and death). Key secondary outcomes include time-to-event analysis of primary outcome components, an analysis of the total healthcare burden and a health economic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial obtained ethical and regulatory approval in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary and Spain through the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) from 13 February 2023, while UK approvals from the Health Regulatory Authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and Research Ethics Committee are pending. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences, communicated to relevant stakeholders and in the public registry of CTIS, following trial completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05056220 EU CT: 2022-501006-34-01.

Correction: Monitoring progress towards elimination of hepatitis B and C in the EU/EEA.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000841.].

What to do about hepatocellular carcinoma: Recommendations for health authorities from the International Liver Cancer Association.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major public health problem worldwide for which the incidence and mortality are similar, pointing to the lack of effective treatment options. Knowing the different issues involved in the management of HCC, from risk factors to screening and management, is essential to improve the prognosis and quality of life of affected individuals. This document summarises the current state of knowledge and the unmet needs for all the different stakeholders in the care of liver cancer, meaning patients, relatives, physicians, regulatory agencies and health authorities so that optimal care can be delivered to patients. The document was commissioned by the International Liver Cancer Association and was reviewed by senior members, including two ex-presidents of the Association. This document lays out the recommended approaches to the societal management of HCC based on the economic status of a given region.

Stigmatization is common in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and correlates with quality of life.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Stigmatization is a well-documented problem of some diseases. Perceived stigma is common in alcohol-related liver disease and hepatitis C, but little information exists on stigma in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Aim of the study was to investigate frequency and characteristics of perceived stigma among patients with NAFLD. METHODS: One-hundred and ninety-seven patients seen at the liver clinic were included: a study group of 144 patients with NAFLD, 50 with cirrhosis (34 compensated, 16 decompensated), and a control group of 53 patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. Quality-of-life was assessed by chronic liver disease questionnaire (CLDQ). Perceived stigma was assessed using a specific questionnaire for patients with liver diseases categorized in 4 domains: stereotypes, discrimination, shame, and social isolation. RESULTS: Perceived stigma was common in patients with NAFLD (99 patients, 69%) and affected all 4 domains assessed. The frequency was slightly higher, yet not significant, in patients with NAFLD cirrhosis vs those without (72% vs 67%, respectively; p = 0.576). In patients without cirrhosis perceived stigma was unrelated to stage of disease, since frequency was similar in patients with no or mild fibrosis compared to those with moderate/severe fibrosis (66% vs 68%, respectively). There were no differences in perceived stigma between patients with compensated cirrhosis and these with decompensated cirrhosis. Among patients with cirrhosis, stigmatization was more common in alcohol-related vs NAFLD-cirrhosis, yet differences were only significant in two domains. In patients with NAFLD, perceived stigma correlated with poor quality-of-life, but not with demographic or clinical variables. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived stigmatization is common among patients with NAFLD independently of disease stage, is associated with impaired quality-of-life, and may be responsible for stereotypes, discrimination, shame, and social isolation, which may affect human and social rights of affected patients.

Monitoring progress towards elimination of hepatitis B and C in the EU/EEA.

This paper presents data on selected indicators to show progress towards elimination goals and targets for hepatitis B and hepatitis C in the 31 countries of the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA). A monitoring system was developed by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which combined newly collected data from EU/EEA countries along with relevant data from existing sources. Data for 2017 were collected from the EU/EEA countries via an online survey. All countries provided responses. In 2017, most countries reporting data had not reached prevention targets for childhood hepatitis B vaccination and for harm reduction services targeting people who inject drugs (PWID). Four of 12 countries had met the target for proportion of people living with chronic HBV diagnosed and seven of 16 met this target for hepatitis C. Data on diagnosed cases treated were lacking for hepatitis B. Of 12 countries reporting treatment data for hepatitis B, only Iceland met the target. This first collection of data across the EU/EEA highlighted major issues with data completeness and quality and in the indicators that were used, which impairs a clear overview of progress towards the elimination of hepatitis. The available data, whilst incomplete, suggest that as of 2017, the majority of the EU/EEA countries were far from meeting most of the 2020 targets, in particular those relating to harm reduction and diagnosis. It is critical to improve the data collected in order to develop more effective services for hepatitis prevention, diagnosis, and treatment that are needed in order to meet the 2030 elimination targets.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A patient guideline.

This patient guideline is intended for all patients at risk of or living with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). NAFLD is the most frequent chronic liver disease worldwide and comes with a high disease burden. Yet, there is a lot of unawareness. Furthermore, many aspects of the disease are still to be unravelled, which has an important impact on the information that is given (or not) to patients. Its management requires a close interaction between patients and their many healthcare providers. It is important for patients to develop a full understanding of NAFLD in order to enable them to take an active role in their disease management. This guide summarises the current knowledge relevant to NAFLD and its management. It has been developed by patients, patient representatives, clinicians and scientists and is based on current scientific recommendations, intended to support patients in making informed decisions.

Redefining fatty liver disease: an international patient perspective.

Despite its increased recognition as a major health threat, fatty liver disease associated with metabolic dysfunction remains largely underdiagnosed and undertreated. An international consensus panel has called for the disease to be renamed from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and has suggested how the disease should be diagnosed. This Viewpoint explores the call from the perspective of patient advocacy groups. Patients are well aware of the negative consequences of the NAFLD acronym. This advocacy group enthusiastically endorses the call to reframe the disease, which we believe will ultimately have a positive effect on patient care and quality of life and, through this effect, will reduce the burden on health-care systems. For patients, policy makers, health planners, donors, and non-hepatologists, the new acronym MAFLD is clear, squarely placing the disease as a manifestation of metabolic dysfunction and improving understanding at a public health and patient level. The authors from representative patient groups are supportive of this change, particularly as the new acronym is meaningful to all citizens as well as governments and policy makers, and, above all, is devoid of any stigma.