Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice from the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathology.

Liver biopsy is required when clinically important information about the diagnosis, prognosis or management of a patient cannot be obtained by safer means, or for research purposes. There are several approaches to liver biopsy but predominantly percutaneous or transvenous approaches are used. A wide choice of needles is available and the approach and type of needle used will depend on the clinical state of the patient and local expertise but, for non-lesional biopsies, a 16-gauge needle is recommended. Many patients with liver disease will have abnormal laboratory coagulation tests or receive anticoagulation or antiplatelet medication. A greater understanding of the changes in haemostasis in liver disease allows for a more rational, evidence-based approach to peri-biopsy management. Overall, liver biopsy is safe but there is a small morbidity and a very small mortality so patients must be fully counselled. The specimen must be of sufficient size for histopathological interpretation. Communication with the histopathologist, with access to relevant clinical information and the results of other investigations, is essential for the generation of a clinically useful report.

Increasing engagement with liver disease management across the UK: follow-up cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Liver disease is an increasing cause of premature mortality. Early detection of liver disease in primary care gives opportunity to intervene and change outcomes. Engagement in liver disease care by NHS bodies responsible for primary care pathway development could drive improvements. The formation of integrated care systems (ICS) in England provides an opportunity to reassess engagement with liver disease nationally. AIM: To update the level of engagement with community chronic liver disease management amongst ICSs and health authorities across the UK. DESIGN & SETTING: A cross-sectional follow up survey to ICS and UK Health Boards. METHOD: Questions used for a previous survey in 2020 were adapted and sent electronically to NHS bodies responsible for health care across the UK using a Freedom of Information request. Quantitative analysis used Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: There were 67 responses from 68 possible ICS and Health Board areas representing 99% UK coverage. 27% had a named individual responsible for liver disease. Monitoring of local liver disease health statistics happened in 34% of all UK areas. Comprehensive care pathways were available in 24/67 (36%) of areas, an increase from 26% in the 2020 survey. Areas with no liver pathways in place fell from 58% to 36% between the two surveys. Regional variations persist, with Wales and Scotland moving towards comprehensive coverage. Almost double the number of areas were making use of transient elastography within community pathways of care, up from 25% to 46%. CONCLUSION: The results of this re-survey highlight improvements, but emphasise the need to build on regional success to further reduce inequality in care commissioning.

Quality standards for the management of alcohol-related liver disease: consensus recommendations from the British Association for the Study of the Liver and British Society of Gastroenterology ARLD special interest group.

OBJECTIVE: Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) is the most common cause of liver-related ill health and liver-related deaths in the UK, and deaths from ALD have doubled in the last decade. The management of ALD requires treatment of both liver disease and alcohol use; this necessitates effective and constructive multidisciplinary working. To support this, we have developed quality standard recommendations for the management of ALD, based on evidence and consensus expert opinion, with the aim of improving patient care. DESIGN: A multidisciplinary group of experts from the British Association for the Study of the Liver and British Society of Gastroenterology ALD Special Interest Group developed the quality standards, with input from the British Liver Trust and patient representatives. RESULTS: The standards cover three broad themes: the recognition and diagnosis of people with ALD in primary care and the liver outpatient clinic; the management of acutely decompensated ALD including acute alcohol-related hepatitis and the posthospital care of people with advanced liver disease due to ALD. Draft quality standards were initially developed by smaller working groups and then an anonymous modified Delphi voting process was conducted by the entire group to assess the level of agreement with each statement. Statements were included when agreement was 85% or greater. Twenty-four quality standards were produced from this process which support best practice. From the final list of statements, a smaller number of auditable key performance indicators were selected to allow services to benchmark their practice and an audit tool provided. CONCLUSION: It is hoped that services will review their practice against these recommendations and key performance indicators and institute service development where needed to improve the care of patients with ALD.

Quality standards for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): consensus recommendations from the British Association for the Study of the Liver and British Society of Gastroenterology NAFLD Special Interest Group.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is common, affecting approximately 25% of the general population. The evidence base for the investigation and management of NAFLD is large and growing, but there is currently little practical guidance to support development of services and delivery of care. To address this, we produced a series of evidence-based quality standard recommendations for the management of NAFLD, with the aim of improving patient care. A multidisciplinary group of experts from the British Association for the Study of the Liver and British Society of Gastroenterology NAFLD Special Interest Group produced the recommendations, which cover: management of people with, or at risk of, NAFLD before the gastroenterology or liver clinic; assessment and investigations in secondary care; and management in secondary care. The quality of evidence for each recommendation was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. An anonymous modified Delphi voting process was conducted individually by each member of the group to assess the level of agreement with each statement. Statements were included when agreement was 80% or greater. From the final list of statements, a smaller number of auditable key performance indicators were selected to allow services to benchmark their practice. It is hoped that services will review their practice against our recommendations and key performance indicators and institute service development where needed to improve the care of patients with NAFLD.

Engagement with community liver disease management across the UK: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Liver disease is an increasing cause of premature mortality in the UK. Its management in primary care is not well understood. It is unclear what role commissioning bodies are playing in liver disease in the UK. AIM: To assess the level of engagement with community chronic liver disease management among clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and health authorities across the UK. DESIGN & SETTING: A cross-sectional survey to all UK CCGs and health authorities. METHOD: Survey questions were developed by the British Liver Trust, in collaboration with topic experts, and evaluated structures in place relating to liver disease management at commissioning and health board level. RESULTS: There were 159 responses representing 99% UK coverage of CCGs and health boards. Twenty per cent reported an individual responsible for liver disease within their organisation, with 40% and 29% reporting having pathways in place to respond to abnormal liver blood tests and liver disease more generally, respectively. All those reporting use of pathways reported using national guidelines to guide content. Twenty-five per cent made use of transient elastography (FibroScan) and 16% of direct serum fibrosis markers (for example, enhanced liver fibrosis [ELF] score), which are both part of current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. There was marked regional variation in all areas of engagement surveyed, with Wales having exceptionally high levels of engagement in all areas in contrast to the other nations. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey should be used as a catalyst to highlight necessary regional improvements to the primary care management of chronic liver disease across the UK.

Cost of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in Europe and the USA: The GAIN study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) leads to cirrhosis and is associated with a substantial socioeconomic burden, which, coupled with rising prevalence, is a growing public health challenge. However, there are few real-world data available describing the impact of NASH. METHODS: The Global Assessment of the Impact of NASH (GAIN) study is a prevalence-based burden of illness study across Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) and the USA. Physicians provided demographic, clinical, and economic patient information via an online survey. In total, 3,754 patients found to have NASH on liver biopsy were stratified by fibrosis score and by biomarkers as either early or advanced fibrosis. Per-patient costs were estimated using national unit price data and extrapolated to the population level to calculate the economic burden. Of the patients, 767 (20%) provided information on indirect costs and health-related quality of life using the EuroQOL 5-D (EQ-5D; n = 749) and Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire - Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (CLDQ-NAFLD) (n = 723). RESULTS: Mean EQ-5D and CLDQ-NAFLD index scores were 0.75 and 4.9, respectively. For 2018, the mean total annual per patient cost of NASH was €2,763, €4,917, and €5,509 for direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs, respectively. National per-patient cost was highest in the USA and lowest in France. Costs increased with fibrosis and decompensation, driven by hospitalisation and comorbidities. Indirect costs were driven by work loss. CONCLUSIONS: The GAIN study provides real-world data on the direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs associated with NASH, including patient-reported outcomes in Europe and the USA, showing a substantial burden on health services and individuals. LAY SUMMARY: There has been little research into the socioeconomic burden associated with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The GAIN study provides real-world data on the direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs associated with NASH, including patient-reported outcomes in five European countries (UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy) and the USA. Mean total annual per patient cost of NASH was estimated at €2,763, €4,917, and €5,509 for the direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect cost categories, respectively.