Citations

AbstractThis joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0–29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

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.