Citations

LINKED CONTENTThis article is linked to Idalsoaga et al papers. To view these articles, visithttps://doi.org/10.1111/apt.18193andhttps://doi.org/10.1111/apt.18220

Abstract Background Outcomes in alcohol‐associated liver disease (ALD) are influenced by several race and ethnic factors, yet its natural history across the continuum of patients in different stages of the disease is unknown. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of U.S. adults from 2011 to 2018, using three nationally representative databases to examine potential disparities in relevant outcomes among racial and ethnic groups. Our analysis included logistic and linear regressions, along with competing risk analysis. Results Black individuals had the highest daily alcohol consumption (12.6 g/day) while Hispanic participants had the largest prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (33.5%). In a multivariable‐adjusted model, Hispanic and Asian participants were independently associated with a higher ALD prevalence compared to Non‐Hispanic White interviewees (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.8 and OR: 1.5 95% CI:1.1–2.0, respectively), while Blacks participants had a lower ALD prevalence (OR: .7 95% CI: .6–.9), and a lower risk of mortality during hospitalization due to ALD (OR: .83 95% CI: .73–.94). Finally, a multivariate competing‐risk analysis showed that Hispanic ethnicity had a decreased probability of liver transplantation if waitlisted for ALD (SHR: .7, 95% CI: .6–.8) along with female Asian population (HR: .40, 95% CI: .26–.62). Conclusions After accounting for key social and biological health determinants, the Hispanic population showed an increased risk of ALD prevalence, even with lower alcohol consumption. Additionally, Hispanic and Asian female patients had reduced access to liver transplantation compared to other enlisted patients.

Summary Background Oesophageal disorders and chronic liver disease are common worldwide and significantly impact quality of life. The intricate link between these conditions, including how oesophageal disorders like GERD, Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal cancer affect and are affected by chronic liver disease, remains poorly understood. Aims To review the relationship between oesophageal disorders and chronic liver disease, evaluating epidemiology, pathophysiology and therapeutic factors. Methods We reviewed the literature on the relationship between oesophageal disorders and chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis, using the PubMed database Results Oesophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett's oesophagus, oesophageal cancer, oesophageal motor disorders and oesophageal candidiasis are prevalent among individuals with cirrhosis, exacerbating the burden of liver disease. These diseases have a multifaceted symptomatology and pathogenic basis, posing a significant challenge in cirrhotic patients that necessitates careful diagnosis and management. Additionally, therapies frequently used for these diseases, such as proton pump inhibitors, require careful consideration in cirrhotic patients due to potential adverse effects and altered pharmacokinetics. Managing oesophageal disorders in cirrhotic patients requires a cautious approach due to possible interactions with medications and the risk of adverse effects. Furthermore, symptoms associated with these conditions are often exacerbated by common interventions in patients with cirrhosis, such as band ligation for oesophageal varices. Conclusions Oesophageal disorders are common in cirrhosis and increase the disease burden. These conditions require careful management due to complex symptoms and treatment risks. Proton pump inhibitors and other therapies must be used cautiously, as cirrhosis interventions can worsen symptoms.

Background and Aims: Alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH) poses significant short-term mortality. Existing prognostic models lack precision for 90-day mortality. Utilizing artificial intelligence in a global cohort, we sought to derive and validate an enhanced prognostic model. Approach and Results: The Global AlcHep initiative, a retrospective study across 23 centers in 12 countries, enrolled patients with AH per National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism criteria. Centers were partitioned into derivation (11 centers, 860 patients) and validation cohorts (12 centers, 859 patients). Focusing on 30 and 90-day postadmission mortality, 3 artificial intelligence algorithms (Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Machines, and eXtreme Gradient Boosting) informed an ensemble model, subsequently refined through Bayesian updating, integrating the derivation cohort’s average 90-day mortality with each center’s approximate mortality rate to produce posttest probabilities. The ALCoholic Hepatitis Artificial INtelligence Ensemble score integrated age, gender, cirrhosis, and 9 laboratory values, with center-specific mortality rates. Mortality was 18.7% (30 d) and 27.9% (90 d) in the derivation cohort versus 21.7% and 32.5% in the validation cohort. Validation cohort 30 and 90-day AUCs were 0.811 (0.779–0.844) and 0.799 (0.769–0.830), significantly surpassing legacy models like Maddrey’s Discriminant Function, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease variations, age-serum bilirubin-international normalized ratio-serum Creatinine score, Glasgow, and modified Glasgow Scores (p < 0.001). ALCoholic Hepatitis Artificial INtelligence Ensemble score also showcased superior calibration against MELD and its variants. Steroid use improved 30-day survival for those with an ALCoholic Hepatitis Artificial INtelligence Ensemble score > 0.20 in both derivation and validation cohorts. Conclusions: Harnessing artificial intelligence within a global consortium, we pioneered a scoring system excelling over traditional models for 30 and 90-day AH mortality predictions. Beneficial for clinical trials, steroid therapy, and transplant indications, it’s accessible at: https://aihepatology.shinyapps.io/ALCHAIN/.

Excessive alcohol consumption represents an important burden for health systems worldwide and is a major cause of liver- and cancer-related deaths. Alcohol consumption is mostly assessed by self-report that often underestimates the amount of drinking. While alcohol use disorders identification test - version C is the most widely used test for alcohol use screening, in patients with liver disease the use of alcohol biomarker could help an objective assessment. The amount of alcohol that leads to significant liver disease depends on gender, genetic background, and coexistence of comorbidities (i.e., metabolic syndrome factors). All patients with alcohol-associated liver disease are recommended to follow complete abstinence and they should be treated within multidisciplinary teams. Abstinence slows down and even reverses the progression of liver fibrosis and can help recompensate patients with complicated cirrhosis. Whether there is a safe amount of alcohol in the general population is a matter of intense debate. Large epidemiological studies showed that the safe amount of alcohol to avoid overall health-related risks is lower than expected even in the general population. Even one drink per day can increase cancer-related death. In patients with any kind of chronic liver disease, especially in those with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, no alcohol intake is recommended. This review article discusses the current evidence supporting the deleterious effects of small-to-moderate amounts of alcohol in the general population and in patients with underlying 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.

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.

The term, gut–liver axis, is used to highlight the close anatomical and functional relationship between the intestine and the liver. It has been increasingly recognized that the gut–liver axis plays an essential role in the development and progression of liver disease. In particular, in non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease and alcohol‐related liver disease, the two most common causes of chronic liver disease, a dysbiotic gut microbiota can influence intestinal permeability, allowing some pathogens or bacteria‐derived factors from the gut reaching the liver through the enterohepatic circulation contributing to liver injury, steatohepatitis, and fibrosis progression. Pathways involved are multiple, including changes in bile acid metabolism, intestinal ethanol production, generation of short‐chain fatty acids, and other by‐products. Bile acids act through dedicated bile acid receptors, farnesoid X receptor and TGR5, in both the ileum and the liver, influencing lipid metabolism, inflammation, and fibrogenesis. Currently, both non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease and alcohol‐related liver disease lack effective therapies, and therapeutic targeting of gut microbiota and bile acids enterohepatic circulation holds promise. In this review, we summarize current knowledge about the role of gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease and alcohol‐related liver disease, as well as the relevance of microbiota or bile acid‐based approaches in the management of those liver diseases.