Morgan, Timothy R.

This practice recommendation serves as an update to the 2023 AASLD Practice Guidance on the clinical assessment and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), now known as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and provides implementable guidance on patient selection for treatment, consideration of comorbidities, and monitoring of treatment safety and efficacy of semaglutide. FDA-indication and Practice Recommendation: The Wegovy formulation, whose main ingredient is semaglutide, received accelerated FDA approval in August 2025 for treating MASH with moderate-to-advanced fibrosis (consistent with stages F2–F3 fibrosis), based on interim results of the phase 3 ESSENCE trial where 72 weeks of 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous injection resulted in achievement of both primary histologic endpoints: (1) resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis (62.9% vs. 34.3% placebo, p <0.001) and (2) ≥1 stage reduction in liver fibrosis without worsening of MASH (36.8% vs. 22.4% placebo, p <0.001); final approval awaits long-term outcomes. Patient Selection: Candidates should have MASH with stage 2–3 fibrosis, identified using non-invasive tests (NITs) such as VCTE (8–15 kPa), MRE (3.1–4.4 kPa), or ELF (9.2–10.5), rather than liver biopsy, which is impractical and unnecessary for most patients. In those with VCTE (15–20 kPa), MRE (4.4–5 kPa), or ELF (10.5–11.3), an individualized decision to treat should be based on exclusion of cirrhosis with another confirmatory NIT, or cross-sectional imaging excluding nodular-appearing liver contour and signs of portal hypertension, or a platelet count of <150,000/mm 3 . While semaglutide is not approved to treat patients with MASH cirrhosis (VCTE >20 kPa, MRE>5.0 kPa, ELF>11.3, and/or evidence of portal hypertension), those with compensated cirrhosis who are receiving semaglutide for another FDA-approved indication should be monitored carefully. Monitoring and Safety: Semaglutide showed a favorable hepatic safety profile in the ESSENCE trial, with no discontinuations due to liver enzyme elevations. Routine hepatic panels are recommended only as clinically indicated. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting), generally mild and transient; patient education and dose titration help improve tolerance. Clinicians should monitor for rare but serious risks, including acute kidney injury (from dehydration), symptomatic gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, thyroid C-cell tumors, retinopathy progression, and lean mass loss. Treatment Response and Concomitant Therapy: Lifestyle modification remains the cornerstone of MASLD/MASH management alongside semaglutide. Combination use of resmetirom with semaglutide 2.4mg/week has not been studied. While no NITs reliably predict histologic response at the individual patient level, reductions from baseline to 72 weeks of treatment suggest significant improvement in MASH resolution (ALT ≥17 U/L or ≥20%) and fibrosis improvement (VCTE LSM ≥30%; MRE LSM ≥20%; ELF ≥0.5). Non-response may be suspected if ALT or NITs worsen. The benefit is uncertain if a suboptimal response occurs, and may require an individualized approach and further follow-up.

Patients with cirrhosis have abnormal coagulation indices such as a high international normalized ratio and low platelet count, but these do not correlate well with periprocedural bleeding risk. We sought to develop a consensus among the multiple stakeholders in cirrhosis care to inform process measures that can help improve the quality of the periprocedural management of coagulopathy in cirrhosis. We identified candidate process measures for periprocedural coagulopathy management in multiple contexts relating to the performance of paracentesis and upper endoscopy. An 11-member panel with content expertise was convened. It included nominees from professional societies for interventional radiology, transfusion medicine, and anesthesia as well as representatives from hematology, emergency medicine, transplant surgery, and community practice. Each measure was evaluated for agreement using a modified Delphi approach (3 rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Out of 286 possible measures, 33 measures made the final set. International normalized ratio testing was not required for diagnostic or therapeutic paracentesis as well as diagnostic endoscopy. Plasma transfusion should be avoided for all paracenteses and diagnostic endoscopy. No consensus was achieved for these items in therapeutic intent or emergent endoscopy. The risks of prophylactic platelet transfusions exceed their benefits for outpatient diagnostic paracentesis and diagnostic endosopies. For the other procedures examined, the risks outweigh benefits when platelet count is >20,000/mm 3 . It is uncertain whether risks outweigh benefits below 20,000/mm 3 in other contexts. No consensus was achieved on whether it was permissible to continue or stop systemic anticoagulation. Continuous aspirin was permissible for each procedure. Clopidogrel was permissible for diagnostic and therapeutic paracentesis and diagnostic endoscopy. We found many areas of consensus that may serve as a foundation for a common set of practice metrics for the periprocedural management of coagulopathy in cirrhosis.

The liver transplantation (LT) evaluation and waitlisting process is subject to variations in care that can impede quality. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) developed quality measures and patient-reported experience measures along the continuum of pre-LT care to reduce care variation and guide patient-centered care. Following a systematic literature review, candidate pre-LT measures were grouped into 4 phases of care: referral, evaluation and waitlisting, waitlist management, and organ acceptance. A modified Delphi panel with content expertise in hepatology, transplant surgery, psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, palliative care, and social work selected the final set. Candidate patient-reported experience measures spanned domains of cognitive health, emotional health, social well-being, and understanding the LT process. Of the 71 candidate measures, 41 were selected: 9 for referral; 20 for evaluation and waitlisting; 7 for waitlist management; and 5 for organ acceptance. A total of 14 were related to structure, 17 were process measures, and 10 were outcome measures that focused on elements not typically measured in routine care. Among the patient-reported experience measures, candidates of LT rated items from understanding the LT process domain as the most important. The proposed pre-LT measures provide a framework for quality improvement and care standardization among candidates of LT. Select measures apply to various stakeholders such as referring practitioners in the community and LT centers. Clinically meaningful measures that are distinct from those used for regulatory transplant reporting may facilitate local quality improvement initiatives to improve access and quality of care.

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 The burden of HCC is substantial. To address gaps in HCC care, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) aimed to develop a standard set of process‐based measures and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) along the HCC care continuum. We identified candidate process and outcomes measures for HCC care based on structured literature review. A 13‐member panel with content expertise across the HCC care continuum evaluated candidate measures on importance and performance gap using a modified Delphi approach (two rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Candidate PROs based on a structured scoping review were ranked by 74 patients with HCC across 7 diverse institutions. Out of 135 measures, 29 measures made the final set. These covered surveillance (6 measures), diagnosis (6 measures), staging (2 measures), treatment (10 measures), and outcomes (5 measures). Examples included the use of ultrasound (± alpha‐fetoprotein [AFP]) every 6 months, need for surveillance in high‐risk populations, diagnostic testing for patients with a new AFP elevation, multidisciplinary liver tumor board (MLTB) review of Liver Imaging‐Reporting and Data System 4 lesions, standard evaluation at diagnosis, treatment recommendations based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, MLTB discussion of treatment options, appropriate referral for evaluation of liver transplantation candidacy, and role of palliative therapy. PROs include those related to pain, anxiety, fear of treatment, and uncertainty about the best individual treatment and the future. The AASLD PMC has developed a set of explicit quality measures in HCC care to help bridge the gap between guideline recommendations and measurable processes and outcomes. Measurement and subsequent implementation of these metrics could be a central step in the improvement of patient care and outcomes in this high‐risk population.

Background: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an important cause of cardiovascular mortality; however, its genetic determinants remain incompletely defined. In total, 10 previously identified risk loci explain a small fraction of AAA heritability. Methods: We performed a genome-wide association study in the Million Veteran Program testing ≈18 million DNA sequence variants with AAA (7642 cases and 172 172 controls) in veterans of European ancestry with independent replication in up to 4972 cases and 99 858 controls. We then used mendelian randomization to examine the causal effects of blood pressure on AAA. We examined the association of AAA risk variants with aneurysms in the lower extremity, cerebral, and iliac arterial beds, and derived a genome-wide polygenic risk score (PRS) to identify a subset of the population at greater risk for disease. Results: Through a genome-wide association study, we identified 14 novel loci, bringing the total number of known significant AAA loci to 24. In our mendelian randomization analysis, we demonstrate that a genetic increase of 10 mm Hg in diastolic blood pressure (odds ratio, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.24–1.66]; P =1.6×10 −6 ), as opposed to systolic blood pressure (odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.97–1.15]; P =0.2), likely has a causal relationship with AAA development. We observed that 19 of 24 AAA risk variants associate with aneurysms in at least 1 other vascular territory. A 29-variant PRS was strongly associated with AAA (odds ratio PRS , 1.26 [95% CI, 1.18–1.36]; P PRS =2.7×10 −11 per SD increase in PRS), independent of family history and smoking risk factors (odds ratio PRS+family history+smoking , 1.24 [95% CI, 1.14–1.35]; P PRS =1.27×10 −6 ). Using this PRS, we identified a subset of the population with AAA prevalence greater than that observed in screening trials informing current guidelines. Conclusions: We identify novel AAA genetic associations with therapeutic implications and identify a subset of the population at significantly increased genetic risk of AAA independent of family history. Our data suggest that extending current screening guidelines to include testing to identify those with high polygenic AAA risk, once the cost of genotyping becomes comparable with that of screening ultrasound, would significantly increase the yield of current screening at reasonable cost.

SummaryBackgroundThe extent to which potentially curative therapies are used in patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) and their related outcomes are unknown in the US.AimTo determine the rate and outcomes of potentially curative treatment in patients with HCC.MethodsEleven US centers followed patients with HCC between 2001 and 2007. We determined rates of liver transplantation, surgical resection, or tumour ablation during follow‐up, examined differences in adjusted survival of patients receiving these treatments, and determined the factors associated with receipt of potentially curative treatment.ResultsOf the 267 patients, 76 (28%) patients had early HCC, defined as Child A or B cirrhosis, with a solitary HCC or ≤3 nodules, each ≤3 cm. Of these, 53 (69.7%) received curative treatment. Thirty six percent of patients with non‐early HCC received curative treatment. Compared to patients with non‐early HCC who did not receive curative treatment, patients with early HCC and curative treatment had the best survival [hazard ratio, HR = 0.19 (95% CI, 0.08–0.42)] followed by patients with advanced HCC who received curative treatment [HR = 0.37 (95% CI, 0.22–0.64)]. Baseline performance status was significantly associated with receipt of curative treatment as well as survival after adjusting for demographics, clinical characteristics, and HCC stage.ConclusionsIn this multicenter database, most of the patients with early HCC received potentially curative treatment. However, only 28% of patients had early HCC. One‐third of patients with non‐early HCC also underwent curative therapy. Potentially curative treatment improved survival and this effect was seen in patients with early as well as non‐early HCC.