Timely diagnosis and staging of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease using transient elastography and clinical parameters.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is no standardized guideline to screen, image, or refer patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to a specialist. In this study, we used transient elastography (TE) to examine the fibrosis stages at which patients are first diagnosed with NAFLD. Subsequently, we analyzed metabolic markers to establish cut-offs beyond which noninvasive imaging should be considered to confirm NAFLD/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis fibrosis in patients. METHODS: Charts spanning July 2015-April 2018 for 116 NAFLD patients who had TE performed were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analysis of metabolic markers was conducted. RESULTS: At the first hepatology visit, TE showed 73% F0-F2 and 27% F3-F4. Univariate analysis showed that high-density lipoproteins (HDL), hemoglobin A1c (A1c), aspartate transaminase (AST), and alanine transaminase (ALT) were significantly different between the F0-F2 and F3-F4 groups. Multivariate analysis showed that AST (P = 0.01) and A1c (P = 0.05) were significantly different. Optimal cut-offs for these markers to detect liver fibrosis on TE were AST >43 U/L and A1c >6.6%. The logistic regression function combining these two variables to reflect the probability (P) of the patient having advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) on TE yielded the formula: P = e R /(1 + e R ), where R = -8.56 + 0.052 * AST + 0.89 * A1c. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that >25% of patients presenting to a specialist for NAFLD may have advanced fibrosis (F3-F4). Diabetes (A1c >6.6%) and AST >43 U/L were the most predictive in identifying NAFLD patients with advanced fibrosis on imaging. We proposed a formula that may be used to prioritize NAFLD patients at higher risk of having advanced fibrosis for specialist referral and imaging follow-up.

Listing Practices for Morbidly Obese Patients at Liver Transplantation Centers in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The effect of morbid obesity on liver transplant outcomes has yielded mixed results. The aim of this study was to determine listing practices for morbidly obese patients at liver transplant centers in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 19-item survey was created to assess liver transplant evaluation and listing practices for morbidly obese patients. All adult liver transplant medical and surgical directors in the United States were contacted by e-mail, which provided an Internet link to an online survey. RESULTS: We sent a total of 187 surveys by e-mail, with responses received from 46 physicians (24.7% response rate). A policy on evaluation and listing of obese patients was present at 70.5% of institutions, with most (54.5%) reporting that their body mass index cutoff for transplant was 40 kg/m2, but a range of 35 kg/m2 to unlimited was noted. Most respondents agreed that patients with high body mass index were less likely to be evaluated for transplant. Respondents reported increased complication rates among obese patients, with the most common being poor wound healing and increased infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Most medical and surgical liver transplant directors have a strong appreciation of the possible morbidity risks associated with performing liver transplants in morbidly obese patients and have policies in effect to minimize these risks.

Training directors have positive perceptions of a competency-based gastroenterology and transplant hepatology fellowship program.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine approved a pilot competency-based transplant hepatology (TH) training program. This program allows gastroenterology (GI) and TH fellowships to be completed in 3 years. We investigated the perceptions and beliefs of GI and TH division and fellowship program directors on the competency-based TH training program. METHODS: All current GI and TH division and fellowship program directors from the 162 fellowship programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were invited via e-mail to anonymously complete the online survey. The survey questioned their perceptions of the 3-year combined GI and TH training program. RESULTS: A total of 116 participants completed the survey (∼38% response rate). Most respondents were GI fellowship directors (61%); 15% were GI and hepatology division directors, 19% were TH fellowship directors, 14% were TH division directors, and 5% were GI division directors. Most of the respondents were in favor of the pilot program (85%). Only 63% of all respondents believed that graduates of the pilot program would achieve the same level of competency in GI as those who completed the traditional program. Overall, 71% believed incorporation of the 3-year training model would increase interest and participation in TH fellowships. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the academic GI and TH division and fellowship program directors embrace competency-based fellowship education and TH subspecialty training during the designated 3-year GI fellowship. Future studies will be needed to reevaluate these beliefs after several years.