Bannuru, Raveendhara R.

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), formerly referred to as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is a growing but often unrecognized medical problem for people with diabetes (particularly type 2 diabetes, especially when associated with obesity). Liver health has not been at the forefront of complications tracked for disease prevention, as traditionally done for diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, or neuropathy. However, liver steatosis affects approximately two out of three people with type 2 diabetes and places them at an increased risk for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and overall liver-related mortality. MASLD is also associated with extrahepatic cancers, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes and negatively impacts health-related quality of life. However, most individuals and their health care professionals remain unaware of the severe hepatic or extrahepatic health risks associated with MASLD and the need for early identification. In recognition of this knowledge gap and the rising prevalence of MASLD, this consensus report is a call to action to screen for liver fibrosis and risk stratify people with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, in particular if obesity is also present. This consensus report explains the rationale for the recent MASLD nomenclature change, how to best risk stratify, current treatment and long-term monitoring options, the value of an interprofessional approach to disease management, and the impact of alcohol intake on liver health. More awareness about the health risks associated with MASLD and broad adoption of screening for liver fibrosis as a new standard of care hold promise for a future without cirrhosis for people with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

ObjectiveTo develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsWe conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.ResultsThe guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.ConclusionThis RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Objective To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. Results The guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. Conclusion This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.