Characterization of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic penaeid and rock shrimp fisheries based on observer data

In July 2007, a mandatory Federal observer program was implemented to characterize the U.S. Gulf of Mexico penaeid shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus, F. duorarum, and Litopenaeus setiferus) fishery. In June 2008, the program expanded to include the South Atlantic penaeid and rock shrimp, Sicyonia spp., fisheries. Data collected from 10,206 tows during 5,197 sea days of observations were analyzed by geographical area and target species. The majority of tows (~70%) sampled were off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. Based on total hours towed, the highest concentrated effort occurred off South Texas and southwestern Florida. Gear information, such as net characteristics, bycatch reduction devices, and turtle excluder devices were fairly consistent among areas and target species. By species categories, finfish comprised the majority (≥57%) of the catch composition in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic penaeid shrimp fisheries, while in the South Atlantic rock shrimp fishery the largest component (41%) was rock shrimp. Bycatch to shrimp ratios were lower than reported in previous studies for the Gulf of Mexico penaeid shrimp fishery. These decreased ratios may be attributed to several factors, notably decreased shrimp effort and higher shrimp catch per unit of effort (CPUE) in recent years. CPUE density surface plots for several species of interest illustrated spatial differences in distribution. Hot Spot Analyses for shrimp (penaeid and rock) and bycatch species identified areas with significant clustering of high or low CPUE values. Spatial and temporal distribution of protected species interactions were documented

Islet transplantation from a nationally funded UK centre reaches socially deprived groups and improves metabolic outcomes

Acknowledgements We thank the transplant nurses involved with the Scottish Islet Transplant Programme (T. McGilvray, J. Davidson, M. Phillips and C. Jansen) for help with participant assessment. We thank the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Services including the Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics Team for HLA typing and antibody screening, and the Tissue and Cells Team (A. Timpson, L. Fraser, L. Irvine and P. Henry) for islet isolation and product release testing. We acknowledge the Departments of Transplantation, Diabetes and Interventional Radiology at NHS Lothian for all aspects of patient care and the organ procurement programme. We thank J. Shaw and A. Brooks from the Department of Regenerative Medicine for Diabetes at the University of Newcastle for advice regarding CGMS. C-peptide assays were performed by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Core Biochemical Assay Laboratory. Funding: The Scottish Islet Transplant Programme is funded by the National Services Division. This research was funded by Diabetes UK (Biomedical and Psychosocial Outcomes of Islet Transplantation; Grant no. BDA 06/0003362), Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation, Diabetes Foundation, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Royal Infirmary Diabetes Treatment Trust Fund. Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis diagnosis and treatment from the perspective of patients and primary care physicians: a cross-sectional survey

AbstractBackground The global prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is rising. Despite this, NASH is underdiagnosed and does not yet have approved pharmacological treatments. We sought to understand the path to diagnosis, patient interactions with healthcare professionals, treatment regimens, and disease management for patients with NASH.Methods Cross-sectional online surveys of patients with a self-reported diagnosis of NASH and healthcare professionals treating patients with NASH were conducted from 10th November 2020, to 1st January 2021. This manuscript focuses on responses from 152 patients with NASH and 101 primary care physicians (PCPs).Results Patients (n = 152, mean age = 40, SD = 11) and healthcare professionals (n = 226) were located throughout the US. In the most common patient journey, 72% of patients had initial discussions about symptoms with a PCP but only 30% report receiving their NASH diagnosis from a PCP. Almost half of PCPs (47%) were not aware of any clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and management of NASH. For ongoing management of NASH, PCPs most frequently prescribed lifestyle changes such as exercise (89%), lifestyle changes focused on diet (79%), and/or metformin (57%). Other healthcare professionals rarely referred patients to PCPs for treatment, but when they did, the primary reasons were patients struggling with lifestyle modifications (58%), needing to lose weight (46%), and needing treatment of comorbidities (42%).Conclusions PCPs may benefit from greater awareness of NASH and guidelines for its diagnosis and treatment. Given the absence of pharmacological treatments approved for NASH, PCPs can offer support in obesity management, comorbidity management, and risk stratification for liver disease progression

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis medical patient journey from the perspective of hepatologists, gastroenterologists and patients: a cross-sectional survey

Abstract Background Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), the inflammatory subtype of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, is underdiagnosed and expected to become the leading indication for liver transplant in the United States. We aimed to understand the medical journey of patients with NASH and role of hepatologists/gastroenterologists in diagnosing and treating patients with NASH. Methods A United States population-based cross-sectional online survey was completed by 226 healthcare professionals (HCPs) who treat patients with NASH and 152 patients with NASH; this study focuses on the patient and 75 hepatologist/gastroenterologist HCP respondents. Tests of differences (chi square, t-tests) between respondent types were performed using SPSS. Results Most patients reported receiving their diagnosis of NASH from a hepatologist (37%) or gastroenterologist (26%). Hepatologists/gastroenterologists were more likely than other HCPs to use FibroScan (transient elastography) to diagnose NASH and were more likely to distinguish between NASH with or without fibrosis. Hepatologists/gastroenterologists (68%) and patients (52%) agree that hepatologists/gastroenterologists are the primary coordinators of NASH care. The majority of hepatologists/gastroenterologists (85%) are aware of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) clinical practice guidance, and 86% of those aware consider them when diagnosing patients with NASH. Hepatologists/gastroenterologists most frequently recommended exercise (86%), diet (70%), and supplements (58%) for ongoing management of NASH. Pharmaceutical medications for comorbidities were prescribed by a minority of hepatologists/gastroenterologists for their patients with NASH. Hepatologists/gastroenterologists cite difficulty (67%) or unwillingness (64%) to adhere to lifestyle changes as primary reasons patients with NASH discontinue NASH treatment. Conclusions Hepatologists/gastroenterologists are considered the coordinators of NASH care. While recognizing that patient adherence to lifestyle changes is the basis for successful treatment, important barriers limit successful implementation

A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature.

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