Lazo, Mariana

Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities exist in the prevalence and natural history of chronic liver disease, access to care, and clinical outcomes. Solutions to improve health equity range widely, from digital health tools to policy changes. The current review outlines the disparities along the chronic liver disease health care continuum from screening and diagnosis to the management of cirrhosis and considerations of pre-liver and post-liver transplantation. Using a health equity research and implementation science framework, we offer pragmatic strategies to address barriers to implementing high-quality equitable care for patients with chronic liver disease.

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.

Background Accurate measurement of the cholesterol within lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]‐C) and its contribution to low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) has important implications for risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, as well as in familial hypercholesterolemia. A method for estimating Lp(a)‐C from particle number using fixed conversion factors has been proposed (Lp[a]‐C from particle number divided by 2.4 for Lp(a) mass, multiplied by 30% for Lp[a]‐C). The accuracy of this method, which theoretically can isolate “Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C,” has not been validated. Methods and Results In 177 875 patients from the VLDbL (Very Large Database of Lipids), we compared estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C with measured values and quantified absolute and percent error. We compared findings with an analogous data set from the Mayo Clinic Laboratory. Error in estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C increased with higher Lp(a)‐C values. Median error for estimated Lp(a)‐C <10 mg/dL was −1.9 mg/dL (interquartile range, −4.0 to 0.2); this error increased linearly, overestimating by +30.8 mg/dL (interquartile range, 26.1–36.5) for estimated Lp(a)‐C ≥50 mg/dL. This error relationship persisted after stratification by overall high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol subtypes. Similar findings were observed in the Mayo cohort. Absolute error for Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C was +2.4 (interquartile range, −0.6 to 5.3) for Lp(a)‐C<10 mg/dL and −31.8 (interquartile range, −37.8 to −26.5) mg/dL for Lp(a)‐C≥50 mg/dL. Conclusions Lp(a)‐C estimations using fixed conversion factors overestimated Lp(a)‐C and subsequently underestimated Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C, especially at clinically relevant Lp(a) values. Application of inaccurate Lp(a)‐C estimations to correct LDL‐C may lead to undertreatment of high‐risk patients.