Guideline-based management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease in the primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is increasing worldwide. Primary care providers play a critical role in the screening, diagnosis, and management of MASLD and/or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), though they can face challenges in this setting, particularly where healthcare resources are limited and barriers to care exist. To address these challenges, several guidelines have been developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for the clinical assessment and management of patients with MASLD/MASH. AIMS: To provide a unified, simple-to-understand, practical guide for MASLD screening, diagnosis, and management based on current guideline recommendations, for use by primary care providers in daily practice. METHODS: Evidence-based recommendations from several international guidelines were summarized, focusing on the similarities and differences between them. RESULTS: Recommendations are broadly aligned across the guidelines, but several key differences are evident. Practical guidance is provided on screening, identifying target populations for risk stratification, initial evaluation of individuals with suspected MASLD, surveillance, risk stratification and referral, as well as approaches to the management of MASLD and associated comorbidities, with specific considerations for the primary care setting. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers are ideally placed to identify at-risk individuals, implement evidence-based interventions to prevent the development of fibrosis and cirrhosis, and effectively manage comorbidities. Equipping primary care providers with the necessary knowledge and tools to effectively manage MASLD/MASH may help to improve patient outcomes and reduce the burden of liver disease.

Role of Insulin Resistance in the Development of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in People With Type 2 Diabetes: From Bench to Patient Care.

Insulin resistance is implicated in both the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and its progression from steatosis to steatohepatitis, cirrhosis, and even hepatocellular carcinoma, which is known to be more common in people with type 2 diabetes. This article reviews the role of insulin resistance in the metabolic dysfunction observed in obesity, type 2 diabetes, atherogenic dyslipidemia, and hypertension and how it is a driver of the natural history of NAFLD by promoting glucotoxicity and lipotoxicity. The authors also review the genetic and environmental factors that stimulate steatohepatitis and fibrosis progression and their relationship with cardiovascular disease and summarize guidelines supporting the treatment of NAFLD with diabetes medications that reduce insulin resistance, such as pioglitazone or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists.

Pharmacological Approaches to Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Current and Future Therapies.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and its more severe form, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), can promote the development of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes. Similarly, type 2 diabetes confers the greatest risk for the development of NASH, especially when associated with obesity. Although lifestyle changes are critical to success, early implementation of pharmacological treatments for obesity and type 2 diabetes are essential to treat NASH and avoid disease progression. This article reviews current guidance regarding the use of pharmacological agents such as pioglitazone, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in the setting of NAFLD and NASH. It also reviews the latest information on new drugs currently being investigated for the treatment of NASH.

Making Sense of the Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Clinical Practice Guidelines: What Clinicians Need to Know.

Standards of care summarized in clinical practice guidelines for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) offer clinicians a streamlined diagnostic and management approach based on the best available evidence. These recommendations have changed a great deal in recent years; today, there is a clear focus on screening for the early identification and risk stratification of patients at high risk of steatohepatitis and clinically significant fibrosis to promote timely referrals to specialty care when needed. This article reviews and provides the rationale for current guidelines for NAFLD screening, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring and addresses barriers to providing evidence-based NAFLD care and how to overcome them. The current paradigm of care calls for primary care clinicians and specialists to work together, within a multidisciplinary care team familiar with obesity and diabetes care, to provide comprehensive management of these complex patients.

Global survey of stigma among physicians and patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with fatty liver disease may experience stigma from the disease or comorbidities. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to understand stigma among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and healthcare providers. METHODS: Members of the Global NASH Council created two surveys about experiences/attitudes toward NAFLD and related diagnostic terms: a 68-item patient and a 41-item provider survey. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 1,976 patients with NAFLD across 23 countries (51% Middle East/North Africa [MENA], 19% Europe, 17% USA, 8% Southeast Asia, 5% South Asia) and 825 healthcare providers (67% gastroenterologists/hepatologists) across 25 countries (39% MENA, 28% Southeast Asia, 22% USA, 6% South Asia, 3% Europe). Of all patients, 48% ever disclosed having NAFLD/NASH to family/friends; the most commonly used term was "fatty liver" (88% at least sometimes); "metabolic disease" or "MAFLD" were rarely used (never by >84%). Regarding various perceptions of diagnostic terms by patients, there were no substantial differences between "NAFLD", "fatty liver disease (FLD)", "NASH", or "MAFLD". The most popular response was being neither comfortable nor uncomfortable with either term (56%-71%), with slightly greater discomfort with "FLD" among the US and South Asian patients (47-52% uncomfortable). Although 26% of patients reported stigma related to overweight/obesity, only 8% reported a history of stigmatization or discrimination due to NAFLD. Among providers, 38% believed that the term "fatty" was stigmatizing, while 34% believed that "nonalcoholic" was stigmatizing, more commonly in MENA (43%); 42% providers (gastroenterologists/hepatologists 45% vs. 37% other specialties, p = 0.03) believed that the name change to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (or MASLD) might reduce stigma. Regarding the new nomenclature, the percentage of providers reporting "steatotic liver disease" as stigmatizing was low (14%). CONCLUSIONS: The perception of NAFLD stigma varies among patients, providers, geographic locations and sub-specialties. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Over the past decades, efforts have been made to change the nomenclature of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to better align with its underlying pathogenetic pathways and remove any potential stigma associated with the name. Given the paucity of data related to stigma in NAFLD, we undertook this global comprehensive survey to assess stigma in NAFLD among patients and providers from around the world. We found there is a disconnect between physicians and patients related to stigma and related nomenclature. With this knowledge, educational programs can be developed to better target stigma in NAFLD among all stakeholders and to provide a better opportunity for the new nomenclature to address the issues of stigma.

Artificial intelligence-assisted digital pathology for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: current status and future directions.

The worldwide prevalence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is increasing, causing a significant medical burden, but no approved therapeutics are currently available. NASH drug development requires histological analysis of liver biopsies by expert pathologists for trial enrolment and efficacy assessment, which can be hindered by multiple issues including sample heterogeneity, inter-reader and intra-reader variability, and ordinal scoring systems. Consequently, there is a high unmet need for accurate, reproducible, quantitative, and automated methods to assist pathologists with histological analysis to improve the precision around treatment and efficacy assessment. Digital pathology (DP) workflows in combination with artificial intelligence (AI) have been established in other areas of medicine and are being actively investigated in NASH to assist pathologists in the evaluation and scoring of NASH histology. DP/AI models can be used to automatically detect, localise, quantify, and score histological parameters and have the potential to reduce the impact of scoring variability in NASH clinical trials. This narrative review provides an overview of DP/AI tools in development for NASH, highlights key regulatory considerations, and discusses how these advances may impact the future of NASH clinical management and drug development. This should be a high priority in the NASH field, particularly to improve the development of safe and effective therapeutics.

A global action agenda for turning the tide on fatty liver disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Fatty liver disease is a major public health threat due to its very high prevalence and related morbidity and mortality. Focused and dedicated interventions are urgently needed to target disease prevention, treatment, and care. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We developed an aligned, prioritized action agenda for the global fatty liver disease community of practice. Following a Delphi methodology over 2 rounds, a large panel (R1 n = 344, R2 n = 288) reviewed the action priorities using Qualtrics XM, indicating agreement using a 4-point Likert-scale and providing written feedback. Priorities were revised between rounds, and in R2, panelists also ranked the priorities within 6 domains: epidemiology, treatment and care, models of care, education and awareness, patient and community perspectives, and leadership and public health policy. The consensus fatty liver disease action agenda encompasses 29 priorities. In R2, the mean percentage of "agree" responses was 82.4%, with all individual priorities having at least a super-majority of agreement (> 66.7% "agree"). The highest-ranked action priorities included collaboration between liver specialists and primary care doctors on early diagnosis, action to address the needs of people living with multiple morbidities, and the incorporation of fatty liver disease into relevant non-communicable disease strategies and guidance. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus-driven multidisciplinary fatty liver disease action agenda developed by care providers, clinical researchers, and public health and policy experts provides a path to reduce the prevalence of fatty liver disease and improve health outcomes. To implement this agenda, concerted efforts will be needed at the global, regional, and national levels.

Serum identification of at-risk MASH: The metabolomics-advanced steatohepatitis fibrosis score (MASEF).

BACKGROUND: Early identification of those with NAFLD activity score ≥ 4 and significant fibrosis (≥F2) or at-risk metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) is a priority as these patients are at increased risk for disease progression and may benefit from therapies. We developed and validated a highly specific metabolomics-driven score to identify at-risk MASH. METHODS: We included derivation (n = 790) and validation (n = 565) cohorts from international tertiary centers. Patients underwent laboratory assessment and liver biopsy for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. Based on 12 lipids, body mass index, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase, the MASEF score was developed to identify at-risk MASH and compared to the FibroScan-AST (FAST) score. We further compared the performance of a FIB-4 + MASEF algorithm to that of FIB-4 + liver stiffness measurements (LSM) by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE). RESULTS: The diagnostic performance of the MASEF score showed an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.79), 0.69, 0.74, 0.53, and 0.85 in the derivation cohort, and 0.79 (95% CI 0.75-0.83), 0.78, 0.65, 0.48, and 0.88 in the validation cohort, while FibroScan-AST performance in the validation cohort was 0.74 (95% CI 0.68-0.79; p = 0.064), 0.58, 0.79, 0.67, and 0.73, respectively. FIB-4+MASEF showed similar overall performance compared with FIB-4 + LSM by VCTE ( p = 0.69) to identify at-risk MASH. CONCLUSION: MASEF is a promising diagnostic tool for the assessment of at-risk MASH. It could be used alternatively to LSM by VCTE in the algorithm that is currently recommended by several guidance publications.

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.

Implementation of a liver health check in people with type 2 diabetes.

As morbidity and mortality related to potentially preventable liver diseases are on the rise globally, early detection of liver fibrosis offers a window of opportunity to prevent disease progression. Early detection of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease allows for initiation and reinforcement of guidance on bodyweight management, risk stratification for advanced liver fibrosis, and treatment optimisation of diabetes and other metabolic complications. Identification of alcohol-related liver disease provides the opportunity to support patients with detoxification and abstinence programmes. In all patient groups, identification of cirrhosis ensures that patients are enrolled in surveillance programmes for hepatocellular carcinoma and portal hypertension. When considering early detection strategies, success can be achieved from applying ad-hoc screening for liver fibrosis in established frameworks of care. Patients with type 2 diabetes are an important group to consider case findings of advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, as up to 19% have advanced fibrosis (which is ten times higher than the general population) and almost 70% have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Additionally, patients with type 2 diabetes with alcohol use disorders have the highest proportion of liver-related morbidity of people with type 2 diabetes generally. Patients with type 2 diabetes receive an annual diabetes review as part of their routine clinical care, in which the health of many organs are considered. Yet, liver health is seldom included in this review. This Viewpoint argues that augmenting the existing risk stratification strategy with an additional liver health check provides the opportunity to detect advanced liver fibrosis, thereby opening a window for early interventions to prevent end-stage liver disease and its complications, including hepatocellular carcinoma.

Impact of Type 2 Diabetes on the Outcomes of Solid Organ Transplantations in the U.S.: Data From a National Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a major driver of chronic diseases around the globe. The aim was to assess the impact of T2D on the outcomes of solid organ transplantations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from 2006 to 2021 to collect data for all patients age ≥18 years who received a lung, heart, liver, or kidney transplant in the U.S. RESULTS: We included 462,692 solid organ transplant recipients: 31,503 lung, 38,004 heart, 106,639 liver, and 286,440 kidney transplantations. The prevalence of pretransplantation T2D was 15% in lung, 26% in heart, 25% in liver, and 30% in kidney transplant recipients, increasing over time. Posttransplantation mortality was significantly higher among transplant recipients with T2D versus those without T2D (lung 32.1% vs. 29.3% [3 years], 46.4% vs. 42.6% [5 years]; P < 0.01; heart 11.2% vs. 9.1% [1 year], 24.4% vs. 20.6% [5 years]; P < 0.0001; liver 10.6% vs. 8.9% [1 year], 26.2% vs. 22.0% [5 years]; P < 0.0001; kidney 5.3% vs. 2.5% [1 year], 20.8% vs. 10.1% [5 years]; P < 0.0001). Independent association of pretransplantation T2D with higher posttransplantation mortality was significant after adjustment for clinicodemographic confounders (adjusted hazard ratio in lung transplant recipients 1.08 [95% CI 1.03-1.13]; heart 1.26 [1.20-1.32]; liver 1.25 [1.21-1.28]; kidney 1.65 [1.62-1.68]; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of T2D in solid organ transplantation candidates is increasing. In all solid organ transplantations, pretransplantation T2D was independently associated with higher posttransplantation mortality, most profoundly in kidney transplantations.

Identification of High-Risk Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Endocrinology Clinics.

The twin epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes continue to increase worldwide, so does the associated chronic liver disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Although NAFLD has been thought of as a benign liver disease, current evidence suggests that it is a complex liver disease that, for approximately 20% of patients, can progress to fibrosis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplant, and death. It is important to note that, given NAFLD's association with metabolic syndrome, the number one cause of death among those with NAFLD is related to cardiovascular diseases. In addition, NAFLD is associated with impaired patient-reported outcomes and a significant economic burden. As such, efforts are now aimed at using noninvasive tests (NITs) to identify patients with NAFLD and those who are at risk of liver disease progression and adverse outcomes in endocrinology practices whereby appropriate risk stratification and referrals can be undertaken. In this review, we discuss the most common NITs used and provide a simple clinically relevant algorithm using these NITs to identify patients with NAFLD who are at risk of adverse outcomes and subsequent clinical management and referral.

Posttransplant Diabetes Mellitus: Recent Developments in Pharmacological Management of Hyperglycemia.

CONTEXT: The management of solid-organ transplantation is rapidly evolving, and posttransplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM), which is increasingly common, is a barrier to transplant success, adversely impacting infection rates, allograft survival, cardiovascular disease, quality of life, and overall mortality. Currently, the management of PTDM relies primarily on intensified insulin therapy. However, emerging studies report that several noninsulin glucose-lowering agents are safe and effective in improving metabolic control and enhancing treatment adherence. More importantly, their use in PTDM can potentially transform the long-term management of these complex patients, as some glucose-lowering agents may provide benefits beyond glycemic control. For instance, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors may offer cardiorenal protection, and pioglitazone may treat nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). This review will focus on the pharmacological management of PTDM and the emerging evidence for noninsulin glucose-lowering agents in this population. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Evidence from observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: PTDM adversely affects the outcomes of infection, organ survival, cardiovascular events, and mortality. Insulin therapy has been the drug of choice but is associated with weight gain and hypoglycemia. In contrast, noninsulin agents appear safe and may provide additional benefits, such as cardiorenal protection with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA, and cardiometabolic benefits with pioglitazone, in patients undergoing solid-organ transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal care of patients with PTDM requires close monitoring and the early involvement of the endocrinologist as part of a multidisciplinary team. Noninsulin glucose-lowering agents will likely play an increasing role as more long-term, controlled studies become available in this setting.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and associated mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes, pre-diabetes, metabolically unhealthy, and metabolically healthy individuals in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is high among subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the prevalence and outcomes of NAFLD among individuals with pre-diabetes (PreD) and metabolically healthy and metabolically unhealthy individuals without T2D are not known. Our aim was to assess prevalence and mortality of NAFLD among these four groups. METHODS: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III (1988-1994) with mortality data (follow up to 2019) via linkage to the National Death Index was utilized. NAFLD was defined by ultrasound and absence of other liver diseases and excess alcohol use. Pre-D was defined as fasting plasma glucose values of 100-125 mg/dL and/or HbA1c level between 5.7 %-6.4 % in the absence of established diagnosis of T2D. Metabolically healthy (MH) was defined if all of the following criteria were absent: waist circumference of ≥102 cm (men) or ≥ 88 cm (women) or BMI of ≥30; blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/85 mmHg or using BP-lowering medication; triglyceride level ≥ 150 mg/dL or using lipid-lowering medication; lipoprotein cholesterol level of <40 mg/dL (men) or < 50 mg/dL (women); homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) score ≥ 2.5; C-reactive protein (CRP) level of >2 mg/L; Pre-D and T2D. Metabolically unhealthy (MU) individuals were defined as the presence of any component of metabolic syndrome but not having Pre-D and T2D. Competing risk analyses of cause-specific mortality were performed. FINDINGS: 11,231 adults (20-74y) were included: mean age 43.4 years; 43.9 % male; 75.4 % white, 10.8 % Black, and 5.4 % Mexican American, 18.9 % NAFLD, 7.8 % T2D; 24.7 % PreD; 44.3 % MU; and 23.3 % in MH individuals. In multivariable adjusted logistic model, as compared to MH individuals, the highest risk of having NAFLD were in T2D individuals (Odd Ratio [OR] = 10.88 [95 % confidence interval: 7.33-16.16]), followed by Pre-D (OR = 4.19 [3.02-5.81]), and MU (OR = 3.36 [2.39-4.71]). During a median follow up of 26.7 years (21.2-28.7 years), 3982 died. NAFLD subjects had significantly higher age-adjusted mortality than non-NAFLD (32.7 % vs. 28.7 %, p < .001). Among subjects with NAFLD, the highest age-standardized cumulative mortality was observed among those with T2D (41.3 %), followed by with Pre-D (35.1 %), MU subjects (30.0 %), and MH subjects (21.9 %) (pairwise p-values<.04 vs. MH). Multivariable adjusted cox models showed that NAFLD with T2D had a higher risk of all-causes and cardiac-specific deaths (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 4.71 [2.23-9.96] and HR = 20.01 [3.00-133.61]), followed by NAFLD with Pre-D (HR = 2.91 [1.41-6.02] and HR = 10.35 [1.57-68.08]) and metabolically unhealthy NAFLD (HR = 2.59 [1.26-5.33] and HR = 6.74 [0.99-46.03]) compared to metabolically healthy NAFLD. In addition to older age, independent predictors of mortality among NAFLD with T2D included high CRP, CVD, CKD, high FIB-4, and active smoking. Similarly, among NAFLD with PreD, high CRP, CKD, CVD, hypertension, and active smoking were associated with mortality. Finally, CVD and active smoking were predictors of mortality among metabolically unhealthy NAFLD, and active smoking was the only mortality risk among metabolically healthy NAFLD subjects. INTERPRETATION: Metabolic abnormality impacts both prevalence and outcomes of subjects with NAFLD.

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 global research priority agenda to advance public health responses to fatty liver disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: An estimated 38% of adults worldwide have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). From individual impacts to widespread public health and economic consequences, the implications of this disease are profound. This study aimed to develop an aligned, prioritised fatty liver disease research agenda for the global health community. METHODS: Nine co-chairs drafted initial research priorities, subsequently reviewed by 40 core authors and debated during a three-day in-person meeting. Following a Delphi methodology, over two rounds, a large panel (R1 n = 344, R2 n = 288) reviewed the priorities, via Qualtrics XM, indicating agreement using a four-point Likert-scale and providing written feedback. The core group revised the draft priorities between rounds. In R2, panellists also ranked the priorities within six domains: epidemiology, models of care, treatment and care, education and awareness, patient and community perspectives, and leadership and public health policy. RESULTS: The consensus-built fatty liver disease research agenda encompasses 28 priorities. The mean percentage of 'agree' responses increased from 78.3 in R1 to 81.1 in R2. Five priorities received unanimous combined agreement ('agree' + 'somewhat agree'); the remaining 23 priorities had >90% combined agreement. While all but one of the priorities exhibited at least a super-majority of agreement (>66.7% 'agree'), 13 priorities had <80% 'agree', with greater reliance on 'somewhat agree' to achieve >90% combined agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting this multidisciplinary consensus-built research priorities agenda can deliver a step-change in addressing fatty liver disease, mitigating against its individual and societal harms and proactively altering its natural history through prevention, identification, treatment, and care. This agenda should catalyse the global health community's efforts to advance and accelerate responses to this widespread and fast-growing public health threat. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: An estimated 38% of adults and 13% of children and adolescents worldwide have fatty liver disease, making it the most prevalent liver disease in history. Despite substantial scientific progress in the past three decades, the burden continues to grow, with an urgent need to advance understanding of how to prevent, manage, and treat the disease. Through a global consensus process, a multidisciplinary group agreed on 28 research priorities covering a broad range of themes, from disease burden, treatment, and health system responses to awareness and policy. The findings have relevance for clinical and non-clinical researchers as well as funders working on fatty liver disease and non-communicable diseases more broadly, setting out a prioritised, ranked research agenda for turning the tide on this fast-growing public health threat.