Non‐alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is the most common cause of liver disease in Western populations, and its prevalence is increasing rapidly. It is part of a multisystem disease affecting other ...organs such as the kidneys, heart and blood vessels, and is closely associated with the components of the metabolic syndrome. Physicians managing patients with NASH should not only focus on the management of NASH, but also on associated comorbidities in individual patients. The approaches to treatment of NASH include either limiting energy surplus alone, or in combination with targeting of downstream pathways of inflammation and fibrosis. In this mini‐review, we discuss the currently available treatment options for NASH, as well as those in late‐stage clinical trials. We discuss the challenges of managing these patients with a limited number of approved therapies, as well as managing advanced‐stage patients with NASH and cirrhosis. We also discuss the specific management of comorbidities in NASH patients, in particular diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidaemia and cardiovascular diseases. Finally, we present the screening protocols for both hepatocellular carcinoma and extrahepatic malignancies in these patients.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The clinical presentation and outcomes of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)-related hepatocellular carcinoma are unclear when compared with hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes. We ...aimed to establish the prevalence, clinical features, surveillance rates, treatment allocation, and outcomes of NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception until Jan 17, 2022, for articles in English that compared clinical features, and outcomes of NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma versus hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes. We included cross-sectional and longitudinal observational studies and excluded paediatric studies. Study-level data were extracted from the published reports. The primary outcomes were (1) the proportion of hepatocellular carcinoma secondary to NAFLD, (2) comparison of patient and tumour characteristics of NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma versus other causes, and (3) comparison of surveillance, treatment allocation, and overall and disease-free survival outcomes of NAFLD-related versus non-NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma. We analysed proportional data using a generalised linear mixed model. Pairwise meta-analysis was done to obtain odds ratio (OR) or mean difference, comparing NAFLD-related with non-NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma. We evaluated survival outcomes using pooled analysis of hazard ratios.
Of 3631 records identified, 61 studies (done between January, 1980, and May, 2021; 94 636 patients) met inclusion criteria. Overall, the proportion of hepatocellular carcinoma cases secondary to NAFLD was 15·1% (95% CI 11·9–18·9). Patients with NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma were older (p<0·0001), had higher BMI (p<0·0001), and were more likely to present with metabolic comorbidities (diabetes p<0·0001, hypertension p<0·0001, and hyperlipidaemia p<0·0001) or cardiovascular disease at presentation (p=0·0055) than patients with hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes. They were also more likely to be non-cirrhotic (38·5%, 27·9–50·2 vs 14·6%, 8·7–23·4 for hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes; p<0·0001). Patients with NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma had larger tumour diameters (p=0·0087), were more likely to have uninodular lesions (p=0·0003), and had similar odds of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stages, TNM stages, alpha fetoprotein concentration, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status to patients with non-NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma. A lower proportion of patients with NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma underwent surveillance (32·8%, 12·0–63·7) than did patients with hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes (55·7%, 24·0–83·3; p<0·0001). There were no significant differences in treatment allocation (curative therapy, palliative therapy, and best supportive care) between patients with NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma and those with hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes. Overall survival did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio 1·05, 95% CI 0·92–1·20, p=0·43), but disease-free survival was longer for patients with NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma (0·79, 0·63–0·99; p=0·044). There was substantial heterogeneity in most analyses (I2>75%), and all articles had low-to-moderate risk of bias.
NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with a higher proportion of patients without cirrhosis and lower surveillance rates than hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes. Surveillance strategies should be developed for patients with NAFLD without cirrhosis who are at high risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma.
None.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a leading cause of liver disease worldwide. The estimated global incidence of NAFLD is 47 cases per 1,000 population and is higher among males than ...females. The estimated global prevalence of NAFLD among adults is 32% and is higher among males (40%) compared to females (26%). The global prevalence of NAFLD has increased over time, from 26% in studies from 2005 or earlier to 38% in studies from 2016 or beyond. The prevalence of NAFLD varies substantially by world region, contributed by differing rates of obesity, and genetic and socioeconomic factors. The prevalence of NAFLD exceeds 40% in the Americas and South-East Asia. The prevalence of NAFLD is projected to increase significantly in multiple world regions by 2030 if current trends are left unchecked. In this review, we discuss trends in the global incidence and prevalence of NAFLD and discuss future projections.
The shift to redefine nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) as metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) can profoundly affect patient care, health care professionals, and progress within ...the field. To date, there remains no consensus on the characterization of NAFLD vs MAFLD. Thus, this study sought to compare the differences between the natural history of NAFLD and MAFLD.
Medline and Embase databases were searched to include articles on prevalence, risk factors, or outcomes of patients with MAFLD or NAFLD. Meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using the generalized linear mix model. Risk factors and outcomes were evaluated in conventional pairwise meta-analysis.
Twenty-two articles involving 379,801 patients were included. Pooled prevalence of MAFLD was 39.22% (95% confidence interval CI, 30.96%-48.15%) with the highest prevalence in Europe and Asia, followed by North America. The current MAFLD Definition only accounted for 81.59% (95% CI, 66.51%-90.82%) of NAFLD diagnoses. Patients had increased odds of being diagnosed with MAFLD compared with NAFLD (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.16-1.63; P < .001). Imaging modality resulted in a significantly higher odds of being diagnosed with MAFLD compared with NAFLD, but not biopsy. MAFLD was significantly associated with males, higher body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, lipids, transaminitis, and greater fibrosis scores compared with NAFLD.
There were stark differences in the prevalence and risk factors between MAFLD and NAFLD. However, in the use of the MAFLD Definition, a greater emphasis on the management of concomitant metabolic diseases and a collaborative effort is required to explore the complex pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying the disease.
Non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has a rapidly rising prevalence worldwide and is the most common cause of liver disease in developed countries. In this article, we discuss the spectrum of ...disease of NAFLD with a focus on the earlier spectrum of the disease that is commonly encountered by non‐specialists, as well as the hepatic and extra‐hepatic associations of the disease. We discuss in detail the two common presentations of NAFLD, incidentally detected hepatic steatosis and asymptomatic raised liver enzymes, and provide an algorithm for management and continued to follow up for these patients. Considerations for the management of cardiovascular comorbidities in these patients are also discussed. Finally, we cover the topic of screening for NAFLD in high‐risk populations.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Fibrosis is a key determinant of clinical outcomes in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), but time-dependent risk of mortality has not been reported in previous meta-analyses. We performed an ...updated time-to-event meta-analysis to provide robust estimates for all-cause and liver-related mortality in biopsy-confirmed NAFLD with comparisons between fibrosis stages.
Medline and Embase databases were searched to include cohort studies reporting survival outcomes by fibrosis stage in biopsy-proven NAFLD. Survival estimates were pooled using reconstructed individual participant data. Conventional meta-analysis was conducted to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) using DerSimonian and Laird random effects model.
A total of 14 articles involving 17,301 patients with NAFLD were included. All-cause mortality at 1, 5, and 10 years for stage 0 to 2 fibrosis was 0.1%, 3.3%, and 7.7% vs 0.3%, 20.6%, and 41.5% for stage 4 fibrosis. Compared with stage 0 fibrosis, all-cause mortality increased with fibrosis stage: stage 2; HR, 1.46 (95% confidence interval CI, 1.08-1.98), stage 3; HR, 1.96 (95% CI, 1.41-2.72), and stage 4; HR, 3.66 (95% CI, 2.65-5.05). Risk for liver-related mortality increased exponentially as fibrosis stage increased: stage 2; HR, 4.07 (95% CI, 1.44-11.5), stage 3; HR, 7.59 (95% CI, 2.80-20.5), and stage 4; HR, 15.1 (95% CI, 5.27-43.4). Stage 3 to 4 fibrosis had a higher all-cause (HR, 3.32) and liver-related mortality (HR, 10.40) compared with stage 0 to 2 fibrosis, whereas stage 4 fibrosis had higher all-cause (HR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.47-4.83) and liver-related mortality (HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.22-5.42) vs stage 3 fibrosis.
Risk of all-cause and liver-related mortality increases substantially with fibrosis stage. These data have important implications for prognostication and trial design.
The etiology of liver diseases has changed in recent years, but its impact on the comparative burden of liver cancer between males and females is unclear. We estimated sex differences in the burden ...of liver cancer across 204 countries and territories from 2010 to 2019.
We analyzed temporal trends in the burden of liver cancer using the methodology framework of the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study. We estimated annual frequencies and age-standardized rates (ASRs) of liver cancer incidence, death, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) by sex, country, region, and etiology of liver disease. Globally in 2019, the frequency of incident cases, deaths, and DALYs due to liver cancer were 376,483, 333,672, and 9,048,723 in males, versus 157,881, 150,904, and 3,479,699 in females. From 2010 to 2019, the incidence ASRs in males increased while death and DALY ASRs remained stable; incidence, death, and DALY ASRs in females decreased. Death ASRs for both sexes increased only in the Americas and remained stable or declined in remaining regions. In 2019, hepatitis B was the leading cause of liver cancer death in males, and hepatitis C in females. From 2010 to 2019, NASH had the fastest growing death ASRs in males and females. The ratio of female-to-male death ASRs in 2019 was lowest in hepatitis B (0.2) and highest in NASH (0.9).
The overall burden of liver cancer is higher in males, although incidence and death ASRs from NASH-associated liver cancer in females approach that of males.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UPUK
Background and Aims
The role of the intestinal microbiome in alcoholic hepatitis is not established. The aims of this study were to (1) characterize the fecal microbial ecology associated with ...alcoholic hepatitis, (2) relate microbiome changes to disease severity, and (3) infer the functional relevance of shifts in microbial ecology.
Approach and Results
The fecal microbiome in patients with moderate alcoholic hepatitis (MAH) or severe alcoholic hepatitis (SAH) was compared with healthy controls (HCs) and heavy drinking controls (HDCs). Microbial taxa were identified by 16S pyrosequencing. Functional metagenomics was performed using PICRUSt. Fecal short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) were measured using a liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry platform. A total of 78 participants (HC, n = 24; HDC, n = 20; MAH, n = 10; SAH, n = 24) were studied. HDC had a distinct signature compared with HC with depletion of Bacteroidetes (46% vs. 26%; P = 0.01). Alcoholic hepatitis was associated with a distinct microbiome signature compared with HDC (area under the curve = 0.826); differential abundance of Ruminococcaceae, Veillonellaceae, Lachnospiraceae, Porphyromonadaceae, and Rikenellaceae families were the key contributors to these differences. The beta diversity was significantly different among the groups (permutational multivariate analysis of variance PERMANOVA P < 0.001). SAH was associated with increased Proteobacteria (SAH 14% vs. HDC 7% and SAH vs. HC 2%, P = 0.20 and 0.01, respectively). Firmicutes abundance declined from HDC to MAH to SAH (63% vs. 53% vs. 48%, respectively; P = 0.09, HDC vs. SAH). Microbial taxa did not distinguish between MAH and SAH (PERMANOVA P = 0.785). SCFAs producing bacteria (Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae) were decreased in alcoholic hepatitis, and a similar decrease was observed in fecal SCFAs among alcoholic hepatitis patients.
Conclusions
There are distinct changes in fecal microbiome associated with the development, but not severity, of alcoholic hepatitis.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Editorial: MAFLD and outcome prediction Muthiah, Mark D.; Lim, Seng Gee
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics,
March 2022, 2022-03-00, 20220301, Volume:
55, Issue:
6
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
LINKED CONTENT
This article is linked to Decraecker et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16760 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16793
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
LINKED CONTENT
This article is linked to Safadi et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16664 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16762
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
