Boursier, Jérôme

Background: Cenicriviroc (CVC) is a novel, orally administered antagonist of chemokine receptor types 2/5 that has demonstrated antifibrotic activity in a phase 2b study of patients with NASH. This phase 2, open-label, rollover study investigated the long-term safety and tolerability of CVC in patients with NASH and stage 0–4 liver fibrosis. Methods: Eligible patients who completed the phase 2 CENTAUR study or reached a predefined endpoint in the phase 3 AURORA study were rolled over and received open-label CVC 150 mg once daily. Safety assessments were conducted at the start of the study, and patients were seen in the clinic every 3 months until the study sponsor terminated CVC development. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), treatment-related TEAEs, adverse event severity, and clinical laboratory assessments. Results: A total of 167 patients were enrolled, with a median treatment duration of 33.6 months. Before study termination, 36 patients (21.6%) prematurely discontinued the study. Treatment-related TEAEs were reported in 28 patients (16.8%). The most common treatment-related TEAEs were 4 cases of diarrhea (2.4%) and 2 cases each (1.2%) of abdominal pain, nausea, alanine aminotransferase increased, aspartate aminotransferase increased, hypertriglyceridemia, myalgia, pruritus, and rash. The majority of these treatment-related events were mild in intensity, and none were life-threatening. There were no clinically meaningful changes in hepatic function, chemistry, or liver parameters from baseline to the end of the study. Conclusions: In this rollover study, CVC 150 mg once daily was well tolerated in patients with NASH and stage 0–4 liver fibrosis. No new safety signals were reported, and these data further support the safety and tolerability of CVC.

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.