Citations

Background: Noninvasive tests are well validated in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, but evidence in metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-associated liver disease (MetALD) and alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is limited. We evaluated noninvasive test–based clinical care pathways for fibrosis risk stratification in MetALD and ALD. Methods: This is a multinational, multicenter, cross-sectional study across 35 centers in 16 countries (2013–2025), including adults with MetALD or ALD. Fibrosis was assessed by liver biopsy and/or vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE). In biopsy-proven participants, we analyzed the sequential pathway (Fibrosis-4 [FIB-4] first, followed by VCTE for indeterminate FIB-4) to identify advanced fibrosis (≥F3). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using the AUC. Results: Among 893 participants (41.3% MetALD and 58.7% ALD), the median age was 52 [43.0–61.0] years, and 79.4% were male. The estimated prevalence of advanced fibrosis was 45% (32.2% in MetALD and 54.0% in ALD). Participants with MetALD had a more dysmetabolic profile but lower fibrosis stages than ALD. Among biopsy-proven participants, FIB-4 AUC was 0.720, and VCTE AUC was 0.833. FIB-4 performed better in MetALD than ALD (AUC 0.773 vs. 0.540), while VCTE accuracy was similar across groups. In the sequential pathways, the false-negative rate for advanced fibrosis (misclassified as low risk) was 6.8% (4.9% MetALD and 11.3% ALD). Conclusions: In biopsy-proven patients, FIB-4 performance was acceptable in MetALD but substantially weaker in ALD. The standard 2-step pathway performed adequately in MetALD but missed a clinically meaningful proportion of advanced fibrosis in ALD.

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: Noninvasive tests (NITs) are used to risk-stratify metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. The aim was to survey global patterns of real-world use of NITs. Methods: A 38-item survey was designed by the Global NASH Council. Providers were asked about risks for advanced fibrosis, which NITs (cutoff values) they use to risk-stratify liver disease, monitor progression, and which professional guidelines they follow. Results: A total of 321 participants from 43 countries completed the survey (54% hepatologists, 28% gastroenterologists, and 18% other). Of the respondents, 85% would risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity (82%), or abnormal liver enzymes (73%). Among NITs to rule out significant or advanced fibrosis, transient elastography (TE) and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) were most used, followed by NAFLD Fibrosis Score, Enhanced Liver Fibrosis, and magnetic resonance elastography. The cutoffs for ruling out significant fibrosis varied considerably between practices and from guidelines, with only 50% using TE <8 kPa, 65% using FIB-4 <1.30 for age <65, and 41% using FIB-4 <2.00 for age ≥65. Similar variability was found for ruling in advanced fibrosis, where thresholds of FIB-4 ≥2.67 and TE ≥10 kPa were used by 20% and 17%, respectively. To establish advanced fibrosis, 48% would use 2 NITs while 23% would consider 1 NIT, and 17% would confirm with liver biopsy. TE was used by >75% to monitor, and 66% would monitor (intermediate or high risk) annually. Finally, 65% follow professional guideline recommendations regarding NITs. Conclusions: In clinical practice, there is variability in NIT use and their thresholds. Additionally, there is suboptimal adherence to professional societies’ guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of resmetirom for treating metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis in patients necessitates patient selection for significant fibrosis or higher (≥F2). No existing vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) algorithm targets ≥F2. METHODS: The mAchine Learning ADvanceD fibrosis and rIsk metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis Novel predictor (ALADDIN) study addressed this gap by introducing a machine-learning-based web calculator that estimates the likelihood of significant fibrosis using routine laboratory parameters with and without VCTE. Our study included a training set of 827 patients, a testing set of 504 patients with biopsy-confirmed metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease from 6 centers, and an external validation set of 1,299 patients from 9 centers. Five algorithms were compared using area under the curve (AUC) in the test set: ElasticNet, random forest, gradient boosting machines, XGBoost, and neural networks. The top 3 (random forest, gradient boosting machines, and XGBoost) formed an ensemble model. RESULTS: In the external validation set, the ALADDIN-F2-VCTE model, using routine laboratory parameters with VCTE (AUC 0.791, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.764–0.819), outperformed VCTE alone (0.745, 95% CI 0.717–0.772, P < 0.0001), FibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase (0.710, 0.679–0.748, P < 0.0001), and Agile-3 model (0.740, 0.710–0.770, P < 0.0001) regarding the AUC, decision curve analysis, and calibration. The ALADDIN-F2-Lab model, using routine laboratory parameters without VCTE, achieved an AUC of 0.706 (95% CI: 0.668–0.749) and outperformed Fibrosis-4, steatosis-associated fibrosis estimator, and LiverRisk scores. DISCUSSION: Along with the steatosis-associated fibrosis estimator model developed to target significant fibrosis or higher, ALADDIN-F2-VCTE (https://aihepatology.shinyapps.io/ALADDIN1) uniquely supports a refined noninvasive approach to patient selection for resmetirom without the need for liver biopsy. In addition, ALADDIN-F2-Lab (https://aihepatology.shinyapps.io/ALADDIN2) offers an effective alternative when VCTE is unavailable.

Background: Cenicriviroc (CVC) is a novel, orally administered antagonist of chemokine receptor types 2/5 that has demonstrated antifibrotic activity in a phase 2b study of patients with NASH. This phase 2, open-label, rollover study investigated the long-term safety and tolerability of CVC in patients with NASH and stage 0–4 liver fibrosis. Methods: Eligible patients who completed the phase 2 CENTAUR study or reached a predefined endpoint in the phase 3 AURORA study were rolled over and received open-label CVC 150 mg once daily. Safety assessments were conducted at the start of the study, and patients were seen in the clinic every 3 months until the study sponsor terminated CVC development. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), treatment-related TEAEs, adverse event severity, and clinical laboratory assessments. Results: A total of 167 patients were enrolled, with a median treatment duration of 33.6 months. Before study termination, 36 patients (21.6%) prematurely discontinued the study. Treatment-related TEAEs were reported in 28 patients (16.8%). The most common treatment-related TEAEs were 4 cases of diarrhea (2.4%) and 2 cases each (1.2%) of abdominal pain, nausea, alanine aminotransferase increased, aspartate aminotransferase increased, hypertriglyceridemia, myalgia, pruritus, and rash. The majority of these treatment-related events were mild in intensity, and none were life-threatening. There were no clinically meaningful changes in hepatic function, chemistry, or liver parameters from baseline to the end of the study. Conclusions: In this rollover study, CVC 150 mg once daily was well tolerated in patients with NASH and stage 0–4 liver fibrosis. No new safety signals were reported, and these data further support the safety and tolerability of CVC.

Background and Aims: Aldafermin, an engineered analog of the human hormone FGF19, improves liver histology in patients with noncirrhotic NASH; however, its efficacy and safety in compensated cirrhosis is unknown. No drug has yet to demonstrate benefit in the compensated NASH population. Approach and Results: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial, 160 patients with compensated NASH cirrhosis were randomized to aldafermin 0.3 mg (n = 7), 1 mg (n = 42), 3 mg (n = 55), or placebo (n = 56) for 48 weeks. The 0.3 mg group was discontinued to limit exposure to suboptimal doses. The primary end point was a change in Enhanced Liver Fibrosis from baseline to week 48. The analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population. At week 48, the least-squares mean difference in the change in Enhanced Liver Fibrosis was −0.5 (95% CI, −0.7 to −0.2; p = 0.0003) between the 3 mg group and the placebo group. 15%, 21%, and 23% of patients in the placebo, 1 mg, and 3 mg group, respectively, achieved fibrosis improvement ≥ 1 stage; and 13%, 16%, and 20% achieved fibrosis improvement ≥ 1 stage without NASH worsening. Improvement in alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, neoepitope-specific N-terminal pro-peptide of type III collagen, and liver stiffness favored aldefermin groups over placebo. Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse event, occurring at 26% and 40% in the 1 mg and 3 mg groups, respectively, compared to 18% in the placebo group. Overall, 0%, 2%, and 9% of patients in the placebo, 1 mg, and 3 mg group, respectively, discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events. Conclusions: Aldafermin 3 mg resulted in a significant reduction in Enhanced Liver Fibrosis in patients with compensated NASH cirrhosis.

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.