Velasco, J.A. Velarde-Ruiz

Background: Noninvasive tests are well validated in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, but evidence in metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-associated liver disease (MetALD) and alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is limited. We evaluated noninvasive test–based clinical care pathways for fibrosis risk stratification in MetALD and ALD. Methods: This is a multinational, multicenter, cross-sectional study across 35 centers in 16 countries (2013–2025), including adults with MetALD or ALD. Fibrosis was assessed by liver biopsy and/or vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE). In biopsy-proven participants, we analyzed the sequential pathway (Fibrosis-4 [FIB-4] first, followed by VCTE for indeterminate FIB-4) to identify advanced fibrosis (≥F3). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using the AUC. Results: Among 893 participants (41.3% MetALD and 58.7% ALD), the median age was 52 [43.0–61.0] years, and 79.4% were male. The estimated prevalence of advanced fibrosis was 45% (32.2% in MetALD and 54.0% in ALD). Participants with MetALD had a more dysmetabolic profile but lower fibrosis stages than ALD. Among biopsy-proven participants, FIB-4 AUC was 0.720, and VCTE AUC was 0.833. FIB-4 performed better in MetALD than ALD (AUC 0.773 vs. 0.540), while VCTE accuracy was similar across groups. In the sequential pathways, the false-negative rate for advanced fibrosis (misclassified as low risk) was 6.8% (4.9% MetALD and 11.3% ALD). Conclusions: In biopsy-proven patients, FIB-4 performance was acceptable in MetALD but substantially weaker in ALD. The standard 2-step pathway performed adequately in MetALD but missed a clinically meaningful proportion of advanced fibrosis in ALD.

Introduction: Although the role of cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRF) has been characterized in steatotic liver disease, their role in the severity of alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the impact of CMRF on mortality. Methods: Multinational prospective cohort study (2015–2024) including hospitalized patients with severe AH across 32 centers in 14 countries. Diagnosis of AH was made using the NIAAA criteria. Analyses included adjusted competing-risk models by age, sex, ethnicity, history of cirrhosis, CMRF, corticosteroid use, MELD, and ACLF grade, with liver transplantation as a competing risk. Results: 936 participants were included; mean age 48±11.2 years, and 88.9% were male. At least one CMRF was present in 46.6%; median body mass index (BMI) was 24.2 kg/m 2 [IQR: 22.8–28.2], prevalence of diabetes 17.6%, hypertension 16.5%, and dyslipidemia 5.8%. Median MELD was 24.4 [19.3–31.4], 86.7% had severe AH, and 180-day survival was 72.9%. Survival did not differ by CMRF status (log-rank p =0.453). In adjusted competing-risk models, higher age (sHR 1.02; 95%CI:1.01–1.04), greater alcohol intake (per g/day; sHR 1.001; 95%CI:1.000–1.002), MELD (sHR 1.04; 95%CI:1.01–1.06), and ACLF grade 2–3 (sHR 2.34 and 4.34) predicted mortality. However, no individual CMRF independently increased mortality. A prespecified non-linear BMI analysis showed modestly lower mortality between 25–40 kg/m², with a higher risk above 40 kg/m². Conclusion: Among patients with severe AH, metabolic dysfunction was not associated with increased mortality. Although a higher BMI was associated with slightly lower mortality in AH, this may reflect better nutritional status rather than a true protective effect.

INTRODUCTION: Nosocomial infections (NIs) in cirrhosis are associated with high mortality but could be preventable. Logistic regression (LR) models have failed to identify high-risk patients. We aimed to develop machine learning (ML) models to predict NI. METHODS: The CLEARED consortium consists of prospectively enrolled cirrhosis inpatients from >120 centers. Using day-of-admission clinical data, 3 ML approaches (random forest [RF], extreme gradient boosting, and neural networks [NNs]) were used to predict NI. Data were split 80:20 for training and testing stratified by the outcome. Models were compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: In total, 8,263 patients (55.90 ± 13.34 years; 64.1% men) from 127 centers in 37 countries were included. NI developed in 869 (10.5%), a median of 6 (4–11) days of postadmission. Major NIs were respiratory (29.6%) and urinary tract infection (15.7%), and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (13.5%). NIs occurred more frequently in patients from low/low-middle income countries and those with severe liver disease, alcohol etiology, and admission infections. NIs were associated with inpatient mortality (31.9% vs 8.1%, P < 0.001) and liver transplantation (4.8% vs 1.9%, P < 0.001). Although the RF model (AUC 0.69) showed good calibration (Brier score 0.09), outperforming extreme gradient boosting, neural network, and LR models (AUC 0.66 for all; LR comparison P = 0.043), no model achieved AUC ≥0.80 for clinical utility. At 10% predicted probability threshold, the RF model demonstrated only 75.4% sensitivity, 52.9% specificity, and 15.9% positive predictive value (PPV). DISCUSSION: NIs cannot be accurately predicted from day-of-admission data using ML models, even in a large, prospective, global cirrhosis cohort. Every hospitalized patient with cirrhosis should receive protocolized infection control measures.

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.