Managing diabetes and liver disease association.

There is strong association between liver diseases and diabetes (DM) which is higher than expected by a chance association of two very common disorders. It can be classified into three categories: Liver disease related to diabetes, hepatogenous diabetes (HD), and liver disease occurring coincidentally with DM. The criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes associating liver disease are the same for primary diabetes. Two hours post glucose load is a better screening test for HD. HbA1c may not be suitable for diagnosis or monitoring of diabetes associating advanced liver disease. Apart from the increased cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 DM (T2 DM) and NAFLD, the cardiovascular and retinopathy risk is low in HD. Patients with metabolic derangement should be screened for NAFLD which in turn may predict T2 DM development. Similarly, patients with established T2 DM should also be screened for NAFLD which further contributes to diabetes worsening. Diabetes is a significant risk factor for progression of the chronic liver disease. It is associated with poor patient survival. Treatment of diabetes associating liver disease appears beneficial. Metformin, if tolerated and not contraindicated, is recommended as a first-line therapy for patients with diabetes and chronic liver disease (CLD). If the hepatic disease is severe, insulin secretagogues should be avoided because of the increased risk of hypoglycaemia. Pioglitazone may be useful in patients with fatty liver disease. DPP-4 inhibitors showed effectiveness and safety for the treatment of T2 DM in CLD patients up to those with child B stage. GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors exhibit positive effects on weight and are associated with minimal risk of hypoglycaemia. Insulin must be used with caution, as hypoglycaemia may be a problem. Insulin analogues are preferred in the context of hypoglycaemia Statins can be used to treat dyslipidaemia in NAFLD, also the use of angiotensin II receptor antagonist for hypertension is safe and beneficial Given the clear association between diabetes mellitus and hepatocellular carcinoma, the strict control of glycaemia with insulin sensitizers can be essential in its prevention. The addition of DM to the currently used scores (Child-Pugh and MELD scores) may enhance the sensitivity and the specificity for prediction of morbidity and mortality rates in cirrhotic patients. In the new era of directly acting antiviral agents (DAAs) for HCV treatment, it is recommended to follow up lipid profile and blood sugar levels following SVR in order to adjust doses of medications used in diabetic (SVR is associated with reduction in insulin requirements) and dyslipidaemic patients (rebound increase in the lipid profile after clearing the virus may increase risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)). The issues of post liver transplant diabetes and relation between DM and chronic HBV are highlighted. This narrative review and Consensus-based practice guidance (under revision and criticism) are based on a formal review and analysis of the recently published world literature on the topic (Medline search up to September 2017); and the experience of the authors and independent reviewers.

Asian-Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) consensus guidelines on invasive and non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis: a 2016 update.

Hepatic fibrosis is a common pathway leading to liver cirrhosis, which is the end result of any injury to the liver. Accurate assessment of the degree of fibrosis is important clinically, especially when treatments aimed at reversing fibrosis are being evolved. Despite the fact that liver biopsy (LB) has been considered the "gold standard" of assessment of hepatic fibrosis, LB is not favored by patients or physicians owing to its invasiveness, limitations, sampling errors, etc. Therefore, many alternative approaches to assess liver fibrosis are gaining more popularity and have assumed great importance, and many data on such approaches are being generated. The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set up a working party on liver fibrosis in 2007, with a mandate to develop consensus guidelines on various aspects of liver fibrosis relevant to disease patterns and clinical practice in the Asia-Pacific region. The first consensus guidelines of the APASL recommendations on hepatic fibrosis were published in 2009. Due to advances in the field, we present herein the APASL 2016 updated version on invasive and non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis. The process for the development of these consensus guidelines involved review of all available published literature by a core group of experts who subsequently proposed consensus statements followed by discussion of the contentious issues and unanimous approval of the consensus statements. The Oxford System of the evidence-based approach was adopted for developing the consensus statements using the level of evidence from one (highest) to five (lowest) and grade of recommendation from A (strongest) to D (weakest). The topics covered in the guidelines include invasive methods (LB and hepatic venous pressure gradient measurements), blood tests, conventional radiological methods, elastography techniques and cost-effectiveness of hepatic fibrosis assessment methods, in addition to fibrosis assessment in special and rare situations.