A global research priority agenda to advance public health responses to fatty liver disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS: An estimated 38% of adults worldwide have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). From individual impacts to widespread public health and economic consequences, the implications of this disease are profound. This study aimed to develop an aligned, prioritised fatty liver disease research agenda for the global health community. METHODS: Nine co-chairs drafted initial research priorities, subsequently reviewed by 40 core authors and debated during a three-day in-person meeting. Following a Delphi methodology, over two rounds, a large panel (R1 n = 344, R2 n = 288) reviewed the priorities, via Qualtrics XM, indicating agreement using a four-point Likert-scale and providing written feedback. The core group revised the draft priorities between rounds. In R2, panellists also ranked the priorities within six domains: epidemiology, models of care, treatment and care, education and awareness, patient and community perspectives, and leadership and public health policy. RESULTS: The consensus-built fatty liver disease research agenda encompasses 28 priorities. The mean percentage of 'agree' responses increased from 78.3 in R1 to 81.1 in R2. Five priorities received unanimous combined agreement ('agree' + 'somewhat agree'); the remaining 23 priorities had >90% combined agreement. While all but one of the priorities exhibited at least a super-majority of agreement (>66.7% 'agree'), 13 priorities had 90% combined agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting this multidisciplinary consensus-built research priorities agenda can deliver a step-change in addressing fatty liver disease, mitigating against its individual and societal harms and proactively altering its natural history through prevention, identification, treatment, and care. This agenda should catalyse the global health community's efforts to advance and accelerate responses to this widespread and fast-growing public health threat. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: An estimated 38% of adults and 13% of children and adolescents worldwide have fatty liver disease, making it the most prevalent liver disease in history. Despite substantial scientific progress in the past three decades, the burden continues to grow, with an urgent need to advance understanding of how to prevent, manage, and treat the disease. Through a global consensus process, a multidisciplinary group agreed on 28 research priorities covering a broad range of themes, from disease burden, treatment, and health system responses to awareness and policy. The findings have relevance for clinical and non-clinical researchers as well as funders working on fatty liver disease and non-communicable diseases more broadly, setting out a prioritised, ranked research agenda for turning the tide on this fast-growing public health threat

A global action agenda for turning the tide on fatty 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 fatty liver disease prevalence and improve health outcomes. To implement this agenda, concerted efforts will be needed at the global, regional, and national levels

Effects of immunosuppressive drugs on COVID-19 severity in patients with autoimmune hepatitis

Background: We investigated associations between baseline use of immunosuppressive drugs and severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). Patients and methods: Data of AIH patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 were retrospectively collected from 15 countries. The outcomes of AIH patients who were on immunosuppression at the time of COVID-19 were compared to patients who were not on AIH medication. The clinical courses of COVID-19 were classified as (i)-no hospitalization, (ii)-hospitalization without oxygen supplementation, (iii)-hospitalization with oxygen supplementation by nasal cannula or mask, (iv)-intensive care unit (ICU) admission with non-invasive mechanical ventilation, (v)-ICU admission with invasive mechanical ventilation or (vi)-death and analysed using ordinal logistic regression. Results: We included 254 AIH patients (79.5%, female) with a median age of 50 (range, 17-85) years. At the onset of COVID-19, 234 patients (92.1%) were on treatment with glucocorticoids (n = 156), thiopurines (n = 151), mycophenolate mofetil (n = 22) or tacrolimus (n = 16), alone or in combinations. Overall, 94 (37%) patients were hospitalized and 18 (7.1%) patients died. Use of systemic glucocorticoids (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.73, 95% CI 1.12-25.89) and thiopurines (aOR 4.78, 95% CI 1.33-23.50) for AIH was associated with worse COVID-19 severity, after adjusting for age-sex, comorbidities and presence of cirrhosis. Baseline treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (aOR 3.56, 95% CI 0.76-20.56) and tacrolimus (aOR 4.09, 95% CI 0.69-27.00) were also associated with more severe COVID-19 courses in a smaller subset of treated patients. Conclusion: Baseline treatment with systemic glucocorticoids or thiopurines prior to the onset of COVID-19 was significantly associated with COVID-19 severity in patients with AIH.Fil: Efe, Cumali. Harran University Hospita; TurquíaFil: Lammert, Craig. University School of Medicine Indianapolis; Estados UnidosFil: Taşçılar, Koray. Universitat Erlangen-Nuremberg; AlemaniaFil: Dhanasekaran, Renumathy. University of Stanford; Estados UnidosFil: Ebik, Berat. Gazi Yasargil Education And Research Hospital; TurquíaFil: Higuera de la Tijera, Fatima. Hospital General de México; MéxicoFil: Calışkan, Ali R.. No especifíca;Fil: Peralta, Mirta. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Infecciosas "Dr. Francisco Javier Muñiz"; ArgentinaFil: Gerussi, Alessio. Università degli Studi di Milano; ItaliaFil: Massoumi, Hatef. No especifíca;Fil: Catana, Andreea M.. Harvard Medical School; Estados UnidosFil: Purnak, Tugrul. University of Texas; Estados UnidosFil: Rigamonti, Cristina. Università del Piemonte Orientale ; ItaliaFil: Aldana, Andres J. G.. Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogota; ColombiaFil: Khakoo, Nidah. Miami University; Estados UnidosFil: Nazal, Leyla. Clinica Las Condes; ChileFil: Frager, Shalom. Montefiore Medical Center; Estados UnidosFil: Demir, Nurhan. Haseki Training And Research Hospital; TurquíaFil: Irak, Kader. Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training And Research Hospital; TurquíaFil: Melekoğlu Ellik, Zeynep. Ankara University Medical Faculty; TurquíaFil: Kacmaz, Hüseyin. Adıyaman University; TurquíaFil: Balaban, Yasemin. Hacettepe University; TurquíaFil: Atay, Kadri. No especifíca;Fil: Eren, Fatih. No especifíca;Fil: Alvares da-Silva, Mario R.. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Cristoferi, Laura. Università degli Studi di Milano; ItaliaFil: Urzua, Álvaro. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Eşkazan, Tuğçe. Cerrahpaşa School of Medicine; TurquíaFil: Magro, Bianca. No especifíca;Fil: Snijders, Romee. No especifíca;Fil: Barutçu, Sezgin. No especifíca;Fil: Lytvyak, Ellina. University of Alberta; CanadáFil: Zazueta, Godolfino M.. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Demirezer Bolat, Aylin. Ankara City Hospital; TurquíaFil: Aydın, Mesut. Van Yuzuncu Yil University; TurquíaFil: Amorós Martín, Alexandra Noemí. No especifíca;Fil: De Martin, Eleonora. No especifíca;Fil: Ekin, Nazım. No especifíca;Fil: Yıldırım, Sümeyra. No especifíca;Fil: Yavuz, Ahmet. No especifíca;Fil: Bıyık, Murat. Necmettin Erbakan University; TurquíaFil: Narro, Graciela C.. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Bıyık, Murat. Uludag University; TurquíaFil: Kıyıcı, Murat. No especifíca;Fil: Kahramanoğlu Aksoy, Evrim. No especifíca;Fil: Vincent, Maria. No especifíca;Fil: Carr, Rotonya M.. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Günşar, Fulya. No especifíca;Fil: Reyes, Eira C.. Hepatology Unit. Hospital Militar Central de México; MéxicoFil: Harputluoğlu, Murat. Inönü University School of Medicine; TurquíaFil: Aloman, Costica. Rush University Medical Center; Estados UnidosFil: Gatselis, Nikolaos K.. University Hospital Of Larissa; GreciaFil: Üstündağ, Yücel. No especifíca;Fil: Brahm, Javier. Clinica Las Condes; ChileFil: Vargas, Nataly C. E.. Hospital Nacional Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo; PerúFil: Güzelbulut, Fatih. No especifíca;Fil: Garcia, Sandro R.. Hospital Iv Víctor Lazarte Echegaray; PerúFil: Aguirre, Jonathan. Hospital Angeles del Pedregal; MéxicoFil: Anders, Margarita. Hospital Alemán; ArgentinaFil: Ratusnu, Natalia. Hospital Regional de Ushuaia; ArgentinaFil: Hatemi, Ibrahim. No especifíca;Fil: Mendizabal, Manuel. Universidad Austral; ArgentinaFil: Floreani, Annarosa. Università di Padova; ItaliaFil: Fagiuoli, Stefano. No especifíca;Fil: Silva, Marcelo. Universidad Austral; ArgentinaFil: Idilman, Ramazan. No especifíca;Fil: Satapathy, Sanjaya K.. No especifíca;Fil: Silveira, Marina. University of Yale. School of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Drenth, Joost P. H.. No especifíca;Fil: Dalekos, George N.. No especifíca;Fil: N.Assis, David. University of Yale. School of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Björnsson, Einar. No especifíca;Fil: Boyer, James L.. University of Yale. School of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Yoshida, Eric M.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Invernizzi, Pietro. Università degli Studi di Milano; ItaliaFil: Levy, Cynthia. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Montano Loza, Aldo J.. University of Alberta; CanadáFil: Schiano, Thomas D.. No especifíca;Fil: Ridruejo, Ezequiel. Universidad Austral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET; ArgentinaFil: Wahlin, Staffan. No especifíca

Consenso Mexicano para el Tratamiento de la Hepatitis C

El objetivo del Consenso Mexicano para el Tratamiento de la Hepatitis C fue el de desarrollar un documento como guía en la práctica clínica con aplicabilidad en México. Se tomó en cuenta la opinión de expertos en el tema con especialidad en: gastroenterología, infectología y hepatología. Se realizó una revisión de la bibliografía en MEDLINE, EMBASE y CENTRAL mediante palabras claves referentes al tratamiento de la hepatitis C. Posteriormente se evaluó la calidad de la evidencia mediante el sistema GRADE y se redactaron enunciados, los cuales fueron sometidos a voto mediante un sistema modificado Delphi, y posteriormente se realizó revisión y corrección de los enunciados por un panel de 34 votantes. Finalmente se clasificó el nivel de acuerdo para cada oración. Esta guía busca dar recomendaciones con énfasis en los nuevos antivirales de acción directa y de esta manera facilitar su uso en la práctica clínica. Cada caso debe ser individualizado según sus comorbilidades y el manejo de estos pacientes siempre debe ser multidisciplinario. Abstract The aim of the Mexican Consensus on the Treatment of Hepatitis C was to develop clinical practice guidelines applicable to Mexico. The expert opinion of specialists in the following areas was taken into account: gastroenterology, infectious diseases, and hepatology. A search of the medical literature was carried out on the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through keywords related to hepatitis C treatment. The quality of evidence was subsequently evaluated using the GRADE system and the consensus statements were formulated. The statements were then voted upon, using the modified Delphi system, and reviewed and corrected by a panel of 34 voting participants. Finally, the level of agreement was classified for each statement. The present guidelines provide recommendations with an emphasis on the new direct-acting antivirals, to facilitate their use in clinical practice. Each case must be individualized according to the comorbidities involved and patient management must always be multidisciplinary

An update on the management of hepatitis C: guidelines for protease inhibitor-based triple therapy from the Latin American Association for the Study of the Liver

Hepatitis C is a common cause of end-stage liver disease, and the main indication for liver transplantation in Latin America. Treatment of hepatitis C infected patients improves important long-term outcomes as mortality. Sustained viral response is reached in near 50% of patients with the previous management based in pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Recently new drugs were available increasing sustained viral response significantly, changing the standard of care to triple therapy. This guidelines provides a framework for practitioner in Latin America, to the management of patients with hepatitis C chronic infection

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

Position statement on the use of albumin in liver cirrhosis

Cirrhosis is characterized by a prolonged asymptomatic period in which the inflammation persists, increasing as the disease progresses. Proinflammatory cytokines and pro-oxidant molecules are key in the development of organ dysfunction. Cirrhosis progression and worsening of portal hypertension bring about bacterial translocation and systemic dissemination via portal circulation of bacterial products, and molecular patterns associated with damage, which exacerbate the systemic Inflammation. Albumin is a molecule that undergoes structural and functional changes as liver damage progresses, affecting its antioxidant, immunomodulatory, oncotic, and endothelial stabilizing properties. Our knowledge of the properties of albumin reveals a molecule with multiple treatment options, capable of targeting several physiopathological aspects of cirrhosis. For the elaboration of the present manuscript on the uses of albumin in liver cirrhosis, several experts in the field of hepatology in Mexico were divided into 5 working groups to summarise and formulate, when appropriate, position statements: 1)pathophysiology of cirrhosis and properties of albumin; 2)proven uses of albumin [large-volume paracentesis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatorenal syndrome (HRS)]; 3)controversial/emerging uses of albumin (long-term use, acute decompensation, liver transplant, non-HRS kidney injury, muscle cramps, non-SBP infections, hyponatremia, encephalopathy); 4)use of albumin in acute-on-chronic liver failure, immunomodulation, and systemic Inflammation; 5)pharmacoeconomics

A global research priority agenda to advance public health responses to fatty liver disease

Background & aims: An estimated 38% of adults worldwide have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). From individual impacts to widespread public health and economic consequences, the implications of this disease are profound. This study aimed to develop an aligned, prioritised fatty liver disease research agenda for the global health community. Methods: Nine co-chairs drafted initial research priorities, subsequently reviewed by 40 core authors and debated during a three-day in-person meeting. Following a Delphi methodology, over two rounds, a large panel (R1 n = 344, R2 n = 288) reviewed the priorities, via Qualtrics XM, indicating agreement using a four-point Likert-scale and providing written feedback. The core group revised the draft priorities between rounds. In R2, panellists also ranked the priorities within six domains: epidemiology, models of care, treatment and care, education and awareness, patient and community perspectives, and leadership and public health policy. Results: The consensus-built fatty liver disease research agenda encompasses 28 priorities. The mean percentage of 'agree' responses increased from 78.3 in R1 to 81.1 in R2. Five priorities received unanimous combined agreement ('agree' + 'somewhat agree'); the remaining 23 priorities had >90% combined agreement. While all but one of the priorities exhibited at least a super-majority of agreement (>66.7% 'agree'), 13 priorities had 90% combined agreement. Conclusions: Adopting this multidisciplinary consensus-built research priorities agenda can deliver a step-change in addressing fatty liver disease, mitigating against its individual and societal harms and proactively altering its natural history through prevention, identification, treatment, and care. This agenda should catalyse the global health community's efforts to advance and accelerate responses to this widespread and fast-growing public health threat. Impact and implications: An estimated 38% of adults and 13% of children and adolescents worldwide have fatty liver disease, making it the most prevalent liver disease in history. Despite substantial scientific progress in the past three decades, the burden continues to grow, with an urgent need to advance understanding of how to prevent, manage, and treat the disease. Through a global consensus process, a multidisciplinary group agreed on 28 research priorities covering a broad range of themes, from disease burden, treatment, and health system responses to awareness and policy. The findings have relevance for clinical and non-clinical researchers as well as funders working on fatty liver disease and non-communicable diseases more broadly, setting out a prioritised, ranked research agenda for turning the tide on this fast-growing public health threat

A global research priority agenda to advance public health responses to fatty liver disease

International audienceBackground & aims: An estimated 38% of adults worldwide have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). From individual impacts to widespread public health and economic consequences, the implications of this disease are profound. This study aimed to develop an aligned, prioritised fatty liver disease research agenda for the global health community.Methods: Nine co-chairs drafted initial research priorities, subsequently reviewed by 40 core authors and debated during a three-day in-person meeting. Following a Delphi methodology, over two rounds, a large panel (R1 n = 344, R2 n = 288) reviewed the priorities, via Qualtrics XM, indicating agreement using a four-point Likert-scale and providing written feedback. The core group revised the draft priorities between rounds. In R2, panellists also ranked the priorities within six domains: epidemiology, models of care, treatment and care, education and awareness, patient and community perspectives, and leadership and public health policy.Results: The consensus-built fatty liver disease research agenda encompasses 28 priorities. The mean percentage of 'agree' responses increased from 78.3 in R1 to 81.1 in R2. Five priorities received unanimous combined agreement ('agree' + 'somewhat agree'); the remaining 23 priorities had >90% combined agreement. While all but one of the priorities exhibited at least a super-majority of agreement (>66.7% 'agree'), 13 priorities had 90% combined agreement.Conclusions: Adopting this multidisciplinary consensus-built research priorities agenda can deliver a step-change in addressing fatty liver disease, mitigating against its individual and societal harms and proactively altering its natural history through prevention, identification, treatment, and care. This agenda should catalyse the global health community's efforts to advance and accelerate responses to this widespread and fast-growing public health threat.Impact and implications: An estimated 38% of adults and 13% of children and adolescents worldwide have fatty liver disease, making it the most prevalent liver disease in history. Despite substantial scientific progress in the past three decades, the burden continues to grow, with an urgent need to advance understanding of how to prevent, manage, and treat the disease. Through a global consensus process, a multidisciplinary group agreed on 28 research priorities covering a broad range of themes, from disease burden, treatment, and health system responses to awareness and policy. The findings have relevance for clinical and non-clinical researchers as well as funders working on fatty liver disease and non-communicable diseases more broadly, setting out a prioritised, ranked research agenda for turning the tide on this fast-growing public health threat