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.

Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis: The Patient and Physician Perspective.

Diagnosing and managing metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) remains a major challenge in primary care due to lack of agreement on diagnostic tools, difficulty in identifying symptoms and determining their cause, absence of approved pharmacological treatments, and limited awareness of the disease. However, prompt diagnosis and management are critical to preventing MASLD from progressing to more severe forms of liver disease. This highlights the need to raise awareness and improve understanding of MASLD among both patients and physicians. The patient perspective is invaluable to advancing our knowledge of this disease and how to manage it, as their perspectives have led to the growing recognition that patients experience subtle symptoms and that patient-reported outcomes should be incorporated into drug development. This review and expert opinion examine MASLD and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis from the patient and physician perspective from pre-diagnosis to diagnosis and early care, through to progression to advanced liver damage. Specifically, the paper dives into the issues patients and physicians experience, and, in turn, what is required to improve diagnosis and management, including tips and tools to empower patients and physicians dealing with MASLD.

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 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.

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis diagnosis and treatment from the perspective of patients and primary care physicians: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The global prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is rising. Despite this, NASH is underdiagnosed and does not yet have approved pharmacological treatments. We sought to understand the path to diagnosis, patient interactions with healthcare professionals, treatment regimens, and disease management for patients with NASH. METHODS: Cross-sectional online surveys of patients with a self-reported diagnosis of NASH and healthcare professionals treating patients with NASH were conducted from 10th November 2020, to 1st January 2021. This manuscript focuses on responses from 152 patients with NASH and 101 primary care physicians (PCPs). RESULTS: Patients (n = 152, mean age = 40, SD = 11) and healthcare professionals (n = 226) were located throughout the US. In the most common patient journey, 72% of patients had initial discussions about symptoms with a PCP but only 30% report receiving their NASH diagnosis from a PCP. Almost half of PCPs (47%) were not aware of any clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and management of NASH. For ongoing management of NASH, PCPs most frequently prescribed lifestyle changes such as exercise (89%), lifestyle changes focused on diet (79%), and/or metformin (57%). Other healthcare professionals rarely referred patients to PCPs for treatment, but when they did, the primary reasons were patients struggling with lifestyle modifications (58%), needing to lose weight (46%), and needing treatment of comorbidities (42%). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs may benefit from greater awareness of NASH and guidelines for its diagnosis and treatment. Given the absence of pharmacological treatments approved for NASH, PCPs can offer support in obesity management, comorbidity management, and risk stratification for liver disease progression.

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) with a higher risk of more severe liver disease. Patients with NASH have too much fat deposited in their liver with associated liver inflammation, scarring, and, in some patients, liver failure. Patients with NASH may not experience symptoms until their disease reaches a dangerous point. We wanted to understand how patients with NASH are diagnosed, how they interact with doctors, and how doctors manage their disease. We surveyed 101 primary care doctors and 152 patients with NASH to ask them about their experiences with NASH. Most patients (72%) report having initial discussions about potential NASH symptoms with a primary care doctor, but only 30% receive their NASH diagnosis from a primary care doctor. Almost half of primary care doctors were not aware of guidelines for the diagnosis and management of NASH. To manage patients' NASH, most primary care doctors prescribed lifestyle changes such as exercise (89%), lifestyle changes focused on diet (79%), or metformin (57%). Other types of doctors rarely referred their patients with NASH to primary care doctors for treatment; when they did the main reasons were that their patients were struggling with lifestyle modifications (58%), needed to lose weight (46%), or needed treatment of one of their other conditions (42%). In conclusion, primary care doctors may benefit from greater awareness of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of NASH. Primary care doctors can play an important role in supporting patients with lifestyle change and management of patients' other conditions that may be related to their NASH.Key messagesPrimary care physicians (PCPs) are the most common initial touchpoint for patients with NASH.PCPs lack awareness of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of NASH.Other physicians believe that PCPs can help patients with lifestyle changes, weight loss, and management of comorbidities.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease from a primary care perspective.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) affects up to one-third of the US population. Approximately one-fifth of patients with NAFLD have nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), characterized by hepatocyte damage and inflammation with or without fibrosis. NASH leads to greater risk of liver-related complications and liver-related mortality, with the poorest outcomes seen in patients with advanced fibrosis. NASH is also associated with other metabolic comorbidities and conveys an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and extrahepatic cancers. Despite its high prevalence, NAFLD is frequently underdiagnosed. This is a significant concern, given that early diagnosis of NAFLD is a key step in preventing progression to NASH. In this review, we describe the clinical impact of NASH from the perspective of both the clinician and the patient. In addition, we provide practical guidance on the diagnosis and management of NASH for primary care providers, who play a pivotal role in the frontline care of patients with NASH, and we use case studies to illustrate real-world scenarios encountered in the primary care setting.

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis medical patient journey from the perspective of hepatologists, gastroenterologists and patients: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), the inflammatory subtype of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, is underdiagnosed and expected to become the leading indication for liver transplant in the United States. We aimed to understand the medical journey of patients with NASH and role of hepatologists/gastroenterologists in diagnosing and treating patients with NASH. METHODS: A United States population-based cross-sectional online survey was completed by 226 healthcare professionals (HCPs) who treat patients with NASH and 152 patients with NASH; this study focuses on the patient and 75 hepatologist/gastroenterologist HCP respondents. Tests of differences (chi square, t-tests) between respondent types were performed using SPSS. RESULTS: Most patients reported receiving their diagnosis of NASH from a hepatologist (37%) or gastroenterologist (26%). Hepatologists/gastroenterologists were more likely than other HCPs to use FibroScan (transient elastography) to diagnose NASH and were more likely to distinguish between NASH with or without fibrosis. Hepatologists/gastroenterologists (68%) and patients (52%) agree that hepatologists/gastroenterologists are the primary coordinators of NASH care. The majority of hepatologists/gastroenterologists (85%) are aware of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) clinical practice guidance, and 86% of those aware consider them when diagnosing patients with NASH. Hepatologists/gastroenterologists most frequently recommended exercise (86%), diet (70%), and supplements (58%) for ongoing management of NASH. Pharmaceutical medications for comorbidities were prescribed by a minority of hepatologists/gastroenterologists for their patients with NASH. Hepatologists/gastroenterologists cite difficulty (67%) or unwillingness (64%) to adhere to lifestyle changes as primary reasons patients with NASH discontinue NASH treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatologists/gastroenterologists are considered the coordinators of NASH care. While recognizing that patient adherence to lifestyle changes is the basis for successful treatment, important barriers limit successful implementation.

Incidence of Complications from Percutaneous Biopsy in Chronic Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approaches to liver biopsy have changed over the past decade in patients with chronic liver disease. AIMS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the incidence of all complications and technical failure associated with percutaneous liver biopsy. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library for cohort studies reporting on complications resulting from liver biopsy published between 2010 and 2020. Studies on participants of any age and sex, who underwent any percutaneous biopsy for non-focal liver disease, were selected. All events except mild pain, minor hematoma, vasovagal episodes, fever and fistula were defined as major complications. Random-effect model meta-analyses with and without covariates were performed, to examine the effect of publication year, patient characteristics, outcome collection, and biopsy type on incidences. RESULTS: We identified 30 studies reporting on complications resulting from percutaneous liver biopsy procedures (n = 64,356). Incidence of major complications was 2.44% (95% CI 0.85, 6.75), with mortality at 0.01% (95% CI 0.00, 0.11), hospitalization at 0.65% (95% CI 0.38, 1.11), major bleeding at 0.48% (95% CI 0.22, 1.06), and moderate/severe pain at 0.34% (95% CI 0.08, 1.37). Minor complications at 9.53% (95% CI 3.68, 22.5) were mainly pain at 12.9% (95% CI 5.34, 27.9). Technical failure was high at 0.91% (95% CI 0.27, 3.00). Decreasing patient age significantly increased incidence of hospitalization and major bleeding (P < 0.0001). Hospitalization incidence also significantly increased with disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of major (2.4%) and minor (9.5%) complications, and technical failure (0.91%) in percutaneous liver biopsies continues.

NASH: Connecting the dots with patients in mind.

Liver patient, patient advocate and patient advocacy organization leader describe the requisite actions for connecting patients, physicians, policymakers and global leaders into a global movement to address the epidemic of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

Hepatitis B Virus Screening and Management for Patients With Cancer Prior to Therapy: ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion Update.

PURPOSE: This Provisional Clinical Opinion update presents a clinically pragmatic approach to hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening and management. PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION: All patients anticipating systemic anticancer therapy should be tested for HBV by 3 tests-hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) total immunoglobulin (Ig) or IgG, and antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen-but anticancer therapy should not be delayed. Findings of chronic HBV (HBsAg-positive) or past HBV (HBsAg-negative and anti-HBc-positive) infection require HBV reactivation risk assessment.Patients with chronic HBV receiving any systemic anticancer therapy should receive antiviral prophylactic therapy through and for minimum 12 months following anticancer therapy. Hormonal therapy alone should not pose a substantial risk of HBV reactivation in patients with chronic HBV receiving hormonal therapy alone; these patients may follow noncancer HBV monitoring and treatment guidance. Coordination of care with a clinician experienced in HBV management is recommended for patients with chronic HBV to determine HBV monitoring and long-term antiviral therapy after completion of anticancer therapy.Patients with past HBV infection undergoing anticancer therapies associated with a high risk of HBV reactivation, such as anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies or stem-cell transplantation, should receive antiviral prophylaxis during and for minimum 12 months after anticancer therapy completion, with individualized management thereafter. Careful monitoring may be an alternative if patients and providers can adhere to frequent, consistent follow-up so antiviral therapy may begin at the earliest sign of reactivation. Patients with past HBV undergoing other systemic anticancer therapies not clearly associated with a high risk of HBV reactivation should be monitored with HBsAg and alanine aminotransferase during cancer treatment; antiviral therapy should commence if HBV reactivation occurs.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Hepatitis B Virus Screening for Patients With Cancer Before Therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion Update.

PURPOSE: This updated provisional clinical opinion presents a revised opinion based on American Society of Clinical Oncology panel consensus in the context of an evolving database. CONTEXT: Despite the 2010 provisional clinical opinion recommendation, there is still evidence of suboptimal hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening among patients at high risk for HBV infection or HBV reactivation after chemotherapy. This updated provisional clinical opinion introduces a risk-adaptive strategy to identify and treat patients with HBV infection to reduce their risk of HBV reactivation. PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION: Medical providers should screen by testing patients for HBV infection before starting anti-CD20 therapy or hematopoietic cell transplantation. Providers should also screen patients with risk factors for HBV infection. Screening should include both hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc), because reactivation can occur in patients who are HBsAg positive/anti-HBc positive or HBsAg negative/anti-HBc positive. Either total anti-HBc or anti-HBc immunoglobulin G (not immunoglobulin M) test should be used. Clinicians should start antiviral therapy for HBsAg-positive/anti-HBc-positive patients before or contemporaneously with cancer therapy and monitor HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients for reactivation with HBV DNA and ALT levels, promptly starting antivirals if reactivation occurs. Clinicians can initiate antivirals for HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients anticipating cancer therapies associated with a high risk of reactivation, or they can monitor HBV DNA and ALT levels and initiate on-demand antivirals. For patients who neither have HBV risk factors nor anticipate cancer therapy associated with a high risk of reactivation, current evidence does not support HBV screening before initiation of cancer therapy. Two panel members provided a minority viewpoint, involving a strategy of universal HBsAg and selective anti-HBc testing.