A multicomponent holistic care pathway for people who use drugs in Tayside, Scotland

Background: People Who Use Drugs (PWUD) are at high risk of non-fatal overdose and other drug-related harms. The United Kingdom drugs policy landscape makes it challenging to support those at risk. Tayside, in East Scotland, has a sizeable population at risk of drug-related harms. In 2021, the National Health Service implemented a care pathway for PWUD to provide multidimensional healthcare interventions. We aimed to quantify drug-related harms; assess wider health and well-being; and understand substance use trends and behaviours, among those engaged in the pathway.Methods: Existing community-embedded blood-borne virus pathways were adapted to provide multiple healthcare assessments over three visits. We undertook an observational cohort study to analyse uptake and outcomes for the initial cohort of PWUD engaged at appointment one.Results: From August 2021–September 2022, 150 PWUD engaged with the pathway. Median age was 39 (34–42) years, 108 (72%) were male, and 124 (83%) lived in deprived areas. Seventy (47%) had been disengaged from healthcare for over a year. Polysubstance use was reported by 124 (83%), 42 (28%) disclosed injecting daily, and 54 (36%) shared equipment. Fifty-four (36%) experienced recent non-fatal overdose, and there were six overdose fatalities (4.1 [1.5–9.0] per 100PY). The offer of take-home naloxone was accepted by 108 (72%). Fourteen (9%) were diagnosed with Hepatitis C and two (1%) with HIV. Renal, hepatological, and endocrine impairment were observed among 30 (20%), 23 (15%), and 11 (7%), people respectively. Ninety-six (65%) had high risk of clinical depression. Forty-eight (32%) declined Covid-19 vaccination.Conclusion: The pathway engaged PWUD with high exposure to recent non-fatal overdose and other drug-related harms, alongside co-morbid health issues. Our results suggest multi-dimensional health assessments coupled with harm reduction in community settings, with appropriate linkage to care, are warranted for PWUD. Service commissioners should seek to integrate these assessments where possible

A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature

Abstract: 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 favour 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 panellists 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 steato-hepatitis 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 (MASLD). 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 non-stigmatising, and can improve awareness and patient identification.(c) 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), and Fundacion Clinica Medica Sur, A.C. Published by Wolters Kluwer/Elsevier B.V/ Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature

Abstract: 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

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

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 favour 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 panellists 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 (MASLD). 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 non-stigmatising, and can improve awareness and patient identification

A multi-society Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature

Unlabelled: The principal limitations of the terms nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (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 favour of a change in nomenclature and/or definition. Methods: A modified Delphi process was led by three large pan-national liver associations. 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. Results: A total of 236 panellists from 56 countries participated in four online surveys and two hybrid meetings. Response rates across the 4 survey rounds were 87%, 83%, 83% and 78%, respectively. 74% of respondents felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change. The terms 'non-alcoholic' and 'fatty' were felt to be stigmatising by 61% and 66% of respondents, respectively. Steatotic liver disease (SLD) 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 (MASLD). There was consensus to change the definition to include the presence of at least one of five cardiometabolic risk factors. Those with no metabolic parameters and no known cause were deemed to have cryptogenic SLD. A new category, outside pure MASLD, termed MetALD was selected to describe those with MASLD who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140 to 350 g/week and 210 to 420 g/week for females and males respectively). Conclusions: The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported, non-stigmatising and can improve awareness and patient identification