Gerber, Lynn H

Background and Aims: Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease management guidelines have been published worldwide; we aimed to summarize, categorize, and compare their lifestyle intervention recommendations. Approach and Results: We searched metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease/NAFLD management guidelines published between January 1, 2013, and June 31, 2024, through databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, and CINAHL. In total, 35 qualifying guidelines were included in the final analysis. Guideline recommendations were categorized into 5 domains (ie, weight reduction goals, physical activity, nutrition, alcohol, and tobacco smoking) and were ranked based on how frequently they appeared. A recommendation was defined as widely adopted if recommended in ≥24 (≥66.6%) of the guidelines. These included increasing physical activity; reducing body weight by 7%–10% to improve steatohepatitis and/or fibrosis; restricting caloric intake; undertaking 150–300 or 75–150 minutes/week of moderate or vigorous-intensity physical activity, respectively; and decreasing consumption of commercially produced fructose. The least mentioned topics, in ≤9 of the guidelines, evaluated environmental determinants of health, mental health, referring patients for psychological or cognitive behavioral therapy, using digital health interventions, and assessing patients’ social determinants of health. Conclusions: Most guidelines recommend weight reduction through physical activity and improving nutrition, as these have proven positive effects on health outcomes when sustained. However, gaps regarding mental health and the social and environmental determinants of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease were found. To optimize behavioral modifications and treatment, we recommend carrying out studies that will provide further evidence on social support, environmental factors, and mental health, as well as further exploring digital health interventions.

AbstractIn 2018, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) reconvened an international, multi‐disciplinary group of professionals to review pertinent published literature on exercise for people with cancer. The 2018 roundtable resulted in the publication of three articles in 2019. The three articles serve as an important update to the original ACSM Roundtable on Cancer, which convened in 2010. Although the focus of the three 2019 articles is on exercise, which is only one part of comprehensive cancer rehabilitation, the evidence presented in the 2019 ACSM articles has direct implications for physiatrists and other rehabilitation professionals who care for people with cancer. As such, the narrative review presented here has two primary objectives. First, we summarize the evidence within the three ACSM articles and interpret it within a familiar rehabilitation framework, namely the Dietz model of Cancer Rehabilitation, in order to facilitate implementation broadly within rehabilitation practice. Second, via expert consensus, we have tabulated relevant exercise recommendations for specific cancer populations at different points in the cancer care continuum and translated them into text, tables, and figures for ease of reference. Notably, the authors of this article are members of the Cancer Rehabilitation Physician Consortium (CRPC), a group of physicians who subspecialize in cancer rehabilitation medicine (CRM).

Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence‐based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health‐related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home‐based or community‐based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.