Thiele, Maja

Abstract Background and Aims Non‐invasive tests (NITs) are underutilized for diagnosis and risk stratification in metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), despite good accuracy. This study aimed to identify challenges and barriers to the use of NITs in clinical practice. Methods We conducted a qualitative exploratory study in Germany, Italy, United Kingdom and United States. Phase 1 participants (primary care physicians, hepatologists, diabetologists, researchers, healthcare administrators, payers and patient advocates; n = 29) were interviewed. Phase 2 participants (experts in MASLD; n = 8) took part in a group discussion to validate and expand on Phase 1 findings. Finally, we triangulated perspectives in a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic analysis. Results Four themes hindering the use of NITs emerged: (1) limited knowledge and awareness; (2) unclear referral pathways for patients affected by liver conditions; (3) uncertainty over the value of NITs in monitoring and managing liver diseases; and (4) challenges justifying system‐level reimbursement. Through these themes, participants perceived a stigma associated with liver diseases, and primary care physicians generally lacked awareness, adequate knowledge and skills to use recommended NITs. We identified uncertainties over the results of NITs, specifically to guide lifestyle intervention or to identify patients that should be referred to a specialist. Participants indicated an ongoing need for research and development to improve the prognostic value of NITs and communicating their cost‐effectiveness to payers. Conclusions This qualitative study suggests that use of NITs for MASLD is limited due to several individual and system‐level barriers. Multi‐level interventions are likely required to address these barriers.

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.

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.

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.