Cortez‐Pinto, Helena

Excessive alcohol consumption represents an important burden for health systems worldwide and is a major cause of liver- and cancer-related deaths. Alcohol consumption is mostly assessed by self-report that often underestimates the amount of drinking. While alcohol use disorders identification test - version C is the most widely used test for alcohol use screening, in patients with liver disease the use of alcohol biomarker could help an objective assessment. The amount of alcohol that leads to significant liver disease depends on gender, genetic background, and coexistence of comorbidities (i.e., metabolic syndrome factors). All patients with alcohol-associated liver disease are recommended to follow complete abstinence and they should be treated within multidisciplinary teams. Abstinence slows down and even reverses the progression of liver fibrosis and can help recompensate patients with complicated cirrhosis. Whether there is a safe amount of alcohol in the general population is a matter of intense debate. Large epidemiological studies showed that the safe amount of alcohol to avoid overall health-related risks is lower than expected even in the general population. Even one drink per day can increase cancer-related death. In patients with any kind of chronic liver disease, especially in those with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, no alcohol intake is recommended. This review article discusses the current evidence supporting the deleterious effects of small-to-moderate amounts of alcohol in the general population and in patients with underlying chronic 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.

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.

Objective Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) ranges from never-decompensated ALD (ndALD) to the life-threatening decompensated phenotype, known as alcohol-related hepatitis (AH). A multidimensional study of the clinical, histological and molecular features of these subtypes is lacking. Design Two large cohorts of patients were recruited in an international, observational multicentre study: a retrospective cohort of patients with ndALD (n=110) and a prospective cohort of patients with AH (n=225). Clinical, analytical, immunohistochemistry and hepatic RNA microarray analysis of both disease phenotypes were performed. Results Age and mean alcohol intake were similar in both groups. AH patients had greater aspartate amino transferase/alanine amino transferase ratio and lower gamma-glutamyl transferase levels than in ndALD patients. Patients with AH demonstrated profound liver failure and increased mortality. One-year mortality was 10% in ndALD and 50% in AH. Histologically, steatosis grade, ballooning and pericellular fibrosis were similar in both groups, while advanced fibrosis, Mallory-Denk bodies, bilirubinostasis, severe neutrophil infiltration and ductular reaction were more frequent among AH patients. Transcriptome analysis revealed a profound gene dysregulation within both phenotypes when compare to controls. While ndALD was characterised by deregulated expression of genes involved in matrisome and immune response, the development of AH resulted in a marked deregulation of genes involved in hepatocyte reprogramming and bile acid metabolism. Conclusions Despite comparable alcohol intake, AH patients presented with worse liver function compared with ndALD patients. Bilirubinostasis, severe fibrosis and ductular reaction were prominent features of AH. AH patients exhibited a more profound deregulation of gene expression compared with ndALD patients.