Hagström, Hannes

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.

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 and Aims Electronic health record (EHR)‐based research allows the capture of large amounts of data, which is necessary in NAFLD, where the risk of clinical liver outcomes is generally low. The lack of consensus on which International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes should be used as exposures and outcomes limits comparability and generalizability of results across studies. We aimed to establish consensus among a panel of experts on ICD codes that could become the reference standard and provide guidance around common methodological issues. Approach and Results Researchers with an interest in EHR‐based NAFLD research were invited to collectively define which administrative codes are most appropriate for documenting exposures and outcomes. We used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on several commonly encountered methodological challenges in the field. After two rounds of revision, a high level of agreement (>67%) was reached on all items considered. Full consensus was achieved on a comprehensive list of administrative codes to be considered for inclusion and exclusion criteria in defining exposures and outcomes in EHR‐based NAFLD research. We also provide suggestions on how to approach commonly encountered methodological issues and identify areas for future research. Conclusions This expert panel consensus statement can help harmonize and improve generalizability of EHR‐based NAFLD research.

Liver fibrosis is the most important predictor of mortality in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Quantitative risk of mortality by fibrosis stage has not been systematically evaluated. We aimed to quantify the fibrosis stage–specific risk of all‐cause and liver‐related mortality in NAFLD. Through a systematic review and meta‐analysis, we identified five adult NAFLD cohort studies reporting fibrosis stage–specific mortality (0‐4). Using fibrosis stage 0 as a reference population, fibrosis stage–specific mortality rate ratios (MRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all‐cause and liver‐related mortality were estimated. The study is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement. Included were 1,495 NAFLD patients with 17,452 patient years of follow‐up. Compared to NAFLD patients with no fibrosis (stage 0), NAFLD patients with fibrosis were at an increased risk for all‐cause mortality, and this risk increased with increases in the stage of fibrosis: stage 1, MRR = 1.58 (95% CI 1.19‐2.11); stage 2, MRR = 2.52 (95% CI 1.85‐3.42); stage 3, MRR = 3.48 (95% CI 2.51‐4.83); and stage 4, MRR = 6.40 (95% CI 4.11‐9.95). The results were more pronounced as the risk of liver‐related mortality increased exponentially with each increase in the stage of fibrosis: stage 1, MRR = 1.41 (95% CI 0.17‐11.95); stage 2, MRR = 9.57 (95% CI 1.67‐54.93); stage 3, MRR = 16.69 (95% CI 2.92‐95.36); and stage 4, MRR = 42.30 (95% CI 3.51‐510.34). Limitations of the study include an inability to adjust for comorbid conditions or demographics known to impact fibrosis progression in NAFLD and the inclusion of patients with simple steatosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without fibrosis in the reference comparison group. Conclusion: The risk of liver‐related mortality increases exponentially with increase in fibrosis stage; these data have important implications in assessing the utility of each stage and benefits of regression of fibrosis from one stage to another. (H epatology 2017;65:1557‐1565).