Tsochatzis, Emmanuel

Background: Noninvasive tests (NITs) are used to risk-stratify metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. The aim was to survey global patterns of real-world use of NITs. Methods: A 38-item survey was designed by the Global NASH Council. Providers were asked about risks for advanced fibrosis, which NITs (cutoff values) they use to risk-stratify liver disease, monitor progression, and which professional guidelines they follow. Results: A total of 321 participants from 43 countries completed the survey (54% hepatologists, 28% gastroenterologists, and 18% other). Of the respondents, 85% would risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity (82%), or abnormal liver enzymes (73%). Among NITs to rule out significant or advanced fibrosis, transient elastography (TE) and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) were most used, followed by NAFLD Fibrosis Score, Enhanced Liver Fibrosis, and magnetic resonance elastography. The cutoffs for ruling out significant fibrosis varied considerably between practices and from guidelines, with only 50% using TE <8 kPa, 65% using FIB-4 <1.30 for age <65, and 41% using FIB-4 <2.00 for age ≥65. Similar variability was found for ruling in advanced fibrosis, where thresholds of FIB-4 ≥2.67 and TE ≥10 kPa were used by 20% and 17%, respectively. To establish advanced fibrosis, 48% would use 2 NITs while 23% would consider 1 NIT, and 17% would confirm with liver biopsy. TE was used by >75% to monitor, and 66% would monitor (intermediate or high risk) annually. Finally, 65% follow professional guideline recommendations regarding NITs. Conclusions: In clinical practice, there is variability in NIT use and their thresholds. Additionally, there is suboptimal adherence to professional societies’ guidelines.

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.

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.