Spearman, C Wendy

Importance Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) represents a high, underprioritized burden among noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Objective To identify cost-effective management approaches to prevent, detect, and treat MASH and liver fibrosis in people living with T2D. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation consisted of a generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) that was conducted for 12 countries (Brazil, Chile, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, and the United States), across all 6 World Health Organization (WHO) regions. A cohort state-transition model simulated liver disease development and its impact on a synthetic cohort, aged 19 years and older and living with T2D, over their lifespan across 10 liver health states. Exposures Using an 80% coverage level, 14 management approaches were compared, including screening via the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) test and Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test or vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) as well as treatment with pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were the average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were used to construct care expansion paths by ranking the management approaches in order of cost-effectiveness. The main measures were the total incremental costs and the total incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of each intervention. Results In this GCEA, the outcomes were evaluated with respect to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. The standard of care had the lowest ACERs in 8 countries (not in Chile, Germany, Saudi Arabia, or the United States). Treatment with intensive lifestyle interventions (ILIs), after screening via ELF or VCTE, was cost-effective in all countries. ILIs and treatment with semaglutide was cost-effective in 11 countries (not in Tanzania); ILIs and treatment with resmetirom was cost-effective in 8 countries (not in Brazil, South Africa, Tanzania, or Thailand). Conclusion and Relevance In this economic evaluation, screening followed by ILIs was found to be a cost-effective management approach for MASH and liver fibrosis among people living with T2D in all countries. Screening followed by pharmacological treatment was cost-effective in most countries. These results can inform health policy decision-making and further the development of WHO recommended interventions to address NCDs.

Background: Following the adoption of new nomenclature for steatotic liver disease, we aimed to build consensus on the use of International Classification of Diseases codes and recommendations for future research and advocacy. Methods: Through a two-stage Delphi process, a core group (n = 20) reviewed draft statements and recommendations (n = 6), indicating levels of agreement. Following revisions, this process was repeated with a large expert panel (n = 243) from 73 countries. Results: Consensus ranged from 88.8% to 96.9% (mean = 92.3%). Conclusions: This global consensus statement provides guidance on harmonizing the International Classification of Diseases coding for steatotic liver disease and future directions to advance the field.

PURPOSE Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the fourth most common cancer in Africa, has a dismal overall survival of only 3 months like in sub-Saharan Africa. This is affected by the low gross domestic product and human development index, absence of coherent guidelines, and other factors. METHODS An open forum for HCC-experienced health care workers from Africa and the rest of the world was held in October 2021. Participants completed a survey to help assess the real-life access to screening, diagnoses, and treatment in the North and Southern Africa (NS), East and West Africa (EW), Central Africa (C), and the rest of the world. RESULTS Of 461 participants from all relevant subspecialties, 372 were from Africa. Most African participants provided hepatitis B vaccination and treatment for hepatitis B and C. More than half of the participants use serum alpha-fetoprotein and ultrasound for surveillance. Only 20% reported using image-guided diagnostic liver biopsy. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer is the most used staging system (52%). Liver transplant is available for only 28% of NS and 3% EW. C reported a significantly lower availability of resection. Availability of local therapy ranged from 94% in NS to 62% in C. Sorafenib is the most commonly used systemic therapy (66%). Only 12.9% reported access to other medications including immune checkpoint inhibitors. Besides 42% access to regorafenib in NS, second-line treatments were not provided. CONCLUSION Similarities and differences in the care for patients with HCC in Africa are reported. This reconfirms the major gaps in access and availability especially in C and marginally less so in EW. This is a call for concerted multidisciplinary efforts to achieve and sustain a reduction in incidence and mortality from HCC in Africa.

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.