Schattenberg, Jörn M.

Importance Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) represents a high, underprioritized burden among noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Objective To identify cost-effective management approaches to prevent, detect, and treat MASH and liver fibrosis in people living with T2D. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation consisted of a generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) that was conducted for 12 countries (Brazil, Chile, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, and the United States), across all 6 World Health Organization (WHO) regions. A cohort state-transition model simulated liver disease development and its impact on a synthetic cohort, aged 19 years and older and living with T2D, over their lifespan across 10 liver health states. Exposures Using an 80% coverage level, 14 management approaches were compared, including screening via the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) test and Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test or vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) as well as treatment with pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were the average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were used to construct care expansion paths by ranking the management approaches in order of cost-effectiveness. The main measures were the total incremental costs and the total incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of each intervention. Results In this GCEA, the outcomes were evaluated with respect to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. The standard of care had the lowest ACERs in 8 countries (not in Chile, Germany, Saudi Arabia, or the United States). Treatment with intensive lifestyle interventions (ILIs), after screening via ELF or VCTE, was cost-effective in all countries. ILIs and treatment with semaglutide was cost-effective in 11 countries (not in Tanzania); ILIs and treatment with resmetirom was cost-effective in 8 countries (not in Brazil, South Africa, Tanzania, or Thailand). Conclusion and Relevance In this economic evaluation, screening followed by ILIs was found to be a cost-effective management approach for MASH and liver fibrosis among people living with T2D in all countries. Screening followed by pharmacological treatment was cost-effective in most countries. These results can inform health policy decision-making and further the development of WHO recommended interventions to address NCDs.

ABSTRACT Background The continuum of metabolic syndrome encompasses a spectrum of dysfunctions impacting obesity‐linked insulin resistance, glucose homeostasis, lipid metabolism and pro‐inflammatory immune responses. The global prevalence of metabolic diseases, including diabetes, chronic liver disease, cardiometabolic disease and kidney disease, has surged in recent decades, contributing significantly to population mortality. Metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), formerly known as non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease, is a leading cause of liver disease worldwide. MASLD poses a significant global health challenge with its rising prevalence, placing a substantial burden on healthcare systems, impacts patient well‐being and incurs significant economic costs. Addressing MASLD requires a comprehensive understanding of its interconnected factors, including its prevalence, healthcare burden and economic implications. Lack of awareness, imprecise non‐invasive diagnostic methods and ineffective preventive interventions are core components of the MASLD‐related problem. Aim The aim of this article was to summarise the global burden of MASLD from the payer's perspective. Methods We carried out a review of the global comprehensive burden of MASLD. These topics led to discussions and insights by an expert panel during the 7th Metabolic Continuum Roundtable meeting, which took place in November 2023. This meeting focused on the burden, patient‐reported outcomes and health economics, from payor and societal perspectives, and aimed to identify opportunities for improving patient care, optimise resource allocation and mitigate the overall impact on individuals and society related to MASLD. During the roundtable, an emphasis emerged on the need for greater awareness and strategic deployment of diagnostic, therapeutic and preventative measures to address MASLD effectively. Conclusion The global burden of MASLD is high and growing. Prioritising the prevention of metabolic dysregulation and timely therapeutic interventions can yield a holistic strategy to combat MASLD, its progression and potentially lower disease costs. Trial Registration: NCT06309992

Background: Following the adoption of new nomenclature for steatotic liver disease, we aimed to build consensus on the use of International Classification of Diseases codes and recommendations for future research and advocacy. Methods: Through a two-stage Delphi process, a core group (n = 20) reviewed draft statements and recommendations (n = 6), indicating levels of agreement. Following revisions, this process was repeated with a large expert panel (n = 243) from 73 countries. Results: Consensus ranged from 88.8% to 96.9% (mean = 92.3%). Conclusions: This global consensus statement provides guidance on harmonizing the International Classification of Diseases coding for steatotic liver disease and future directions to advance the field.

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.

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.

Background and Aims: With distinct mechanisms of action, the combination of tropifexor (TXR) and cenicriviroc (CVC) may provide an effective treatment for NASH. This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, phase 2b study assessed the safety and efficacy of TXR and CVC combination, compared with respective monotherapies. Approach and Results: Patients (N = 193) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to once-daily TXR 140 μg (TXR140), CVC 150 mg (CVC), TXR 140 μg + CVC 150 mg (TXR140 + CVC), or TXR 90 μg + CVC 150 mg (TXR90 + CVC) for 48 weeks. The primary and secondary end points were safety and histological improvement, respectively. Rates of adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups. Pruritus was the most frequently experienced AE, with highest incidence in the TXR140 group (40.0%). In TXR and combination groups, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) decreased from baseline to 48 weeks (geometric mean change: −21%, TXR140; −16%, TXR140 + CVC; −13%, TXR90 + CVC; and +17%, CVC). Reductions in body weight observed at week 24 (mean changes from baseline: TXR140, −2.5 kg; TXR140 + CVC, −1.7 kg; TXR90 + CVC, −1.0 kg; and CVC, −0.1 kg) were sustained to week 48. At least 1-point improvement in fibrosis stage/steatohepatitis resolution without worsening of fibrosis was observed in 32.3%/25.8%, 31.6%/15.8%, 29.7%/13.5%, and 32.5%/22.5% of patients in the TXR140, CVC, TXR140 + CVC, and TXR90 + CVC groups, respectively. Conclusions: The safety profile of TXR + CVC combination was similar to respective monotherapies, with no new signals. TXR monotherapy showed sustained ALT and body weight decreases. No substantial incremental efficacy was observed with TXR + CVC combination on ALT, body weight, or in histological end points compared with monotherapy.

Abstract Cirrhosis, highly prevalent worldwide, develops after years of hepatic inflammation triggering progressive fibrosis. Currently, the main etiologies of cirrhosis are non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease and alcohol‐related liver disease, although chronic hepatitis B and C infections are still major etiological factors in some areas of the world. Recent studies have shown that liver fibrosis can be assessed with relatively high accuracy noninvasively by serological tests, transient elastography, and radiological methods. These modalities may be utilized for screening for liver fibrosis in at‐risk populations. Thus far, a limited number of population‐based studies using noninvasive tests in different areas of the world indicate that a significant percentage of subjects without known liver disease (around 5% in general populations and a higher rate −18% to 27%‐in populations with risk factors for liver disease) have significant undetected liver fibrosis or established cirrhosis. Larger international studies are required to show the harms and benefits before concluding that screening for liver fibrosis should be applied to populations at risk for chronic liver diseases. Screening for liver fibrosis has the potential for changing the current approach from diagnosing chronic liver diseases late when patients have already developed complications of cirrhosis to diagnosing liver fibrosis in asymptomatic subjects providing the opportunity of preventing disease progression.

Background and Aims Electronic health record (EHR)‐based research allows the capture of large amounts of data, which is necessary in NAFLD, where the risk of clinical liver outcomes is generally low. The lack of consensus on which International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes should be used as exposures and outcomes limits comparability and generalizability of results across studies. We aimed to establish consensus among a panel of experts on ICD codes that could become the reference standard and provide guidance around common methodological issues. Approach and Results Researchers with an interest in EHR‐based NAFLD research were invited to collectively define which administrative codes are most appropriate for documenting exposures and outcomes. We used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on several commonly encountered methodological challenges in the field. After two rounds of revision, a high level of agreement (>67%) was reached on all items considered. Full consensus was achieved on a comprehensive list of administrative codes to be considered for inclusion and exclusion criteria in defining exposures and outcomes in EHR‐based NAFLD research. We also provide suggestions on how to approach commonly encountered methodological issues and identify areas for future research. Conclusions This expert panel consensus statement can help harmonize and improve generalizability of EHR‐based NAFLD research.