Inova Fairfax Hospital

UNLABELLED: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a major cause of liver disease worldwide. We estimated the global prevalence, incidence, progression, and outcomes of NAFLD and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). PubMed/MEDLINE were searched from 1989 to 2015 for terms involving epidemiology and progression of NAFLD. Exclusions included selected groups (studies that exclusively enrolled morbidly obese or diabetics or pediatric) and no data on alcohol consumption or other liver diseases. Incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cirrhosis, overall mortality, and liver-related mortality were determined. NASH required histological diagnosis. All studies were reviewed by three independent investigators. Analysis was stratified by region, diagnostic technique, biopsy indication, and study population. We used random-effects models to provide point estimates (95% confidence interval [CI]) of prevalence, incidence, mortality and incidence rate ratios, and metaregression with subgroup analysis to account for heterogeneity. Of 729 studies, 86 were included with a sample size of 8,515,431 from 22 countries. Global prevalence of NAFLD is 25.24% (95% CI: 22.10-28.65) with highest prevalence in the Middle East and South America and lowest in Africa. Metabolic comorbidities associated with NAFLD included obesity (51.34%; 95% CI: 41.38-61.20), type 2 diabetes (22.51%; 95% CI: 17.92-27.89), hyperlipidemia (69.16%; 95% CI: 49.91-83.46%), hypertension (39.34%; 95% CI: 33.15-45.88), and metabolic syndrome (42.54%; 95% CI: 30.06-56.05). Fibrosis progression proportion, and mean annual rate of progression in NASH were 40.76% (95% CI: 34.69-47.13) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.06-0.12). HCC incidence among NAFLD patients was 0.44 per 1,000 person-years (range, 0.29-0.66). Liver-specific mortality and overall mortality among NAFLD and NASH were 0.77 per 1,000 (range, 0.33-1.77) and 11.77 per 1,000 person-years (range, 7.10-19.53) and 15.44 per 1,000 (range, 11.72-20.34) and 25.56 per 1,000 person-years (range, 6.29-103.80). Incidence risk ratios for liver-specific and overall mortality for NAFLD were 1.94 (range, 1.28-2.92) and 1.05 (range, 0.70-1.56). CONCLUSIONS: As the global epidemic of obesity fuels metabolic conditions, the clinical and economic burden of NAFLD will become enormous. (Hepatology 2016;64:73-84).

Long-read single-molecule sequencing has revolutionized de novo genome assembly and enabled the automated reconstruction of reference-quality genomes. However, given the relatively high error rates of such technologies, efficient and accurate assembly of large repeats and closely related haplotypes remains challenging. We address these issues with Canu, a successor of Celera Assembler that is specifically designed for noisy single-molecule sequences. Canu introduces support for nanopore sequencing, halves depth-of-coverage requirements, and improves assembly continuity while simultaneously reducing runtime by an order of magnitude on large genomes versus Celera Assembler 8.2. These advances result from new overlapping and assembly algorithms, including an adaptive overlapping strategy based on tf-idf weighted MinHash and a sparse assembly graph construction that avoids collapsing diverged repeats and haplotypes. We demonstrate that Canu can reliably assemble complete microbial genomes and near-complete eukaryotic chromosomes using either Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) or Oxford Nanopore technologies and achieves a contig NG50 of >21 Mbp on both human and Drosophila melanogaster PacBio data sets. For assembly structures that cannot be linearly represented, Canu provides graph-based assembly outputs in graphical fragment assembly (GFA) format for analysis or integration with complementary phasing and scaffolding techniques. The combination of such highly resolved assembly graphs with long-range scaffolding information promises the complete and automated assembly of complex genomes.

Potential conflict of interest: Dr. Chalasani consults for and received grants from Eli Lilly. He consults for NuSirt, AbbVie, Afimmune, Tobira, Madrigal, Shire, Cempra, Ardelyx, Axovant, and Amarin. He received grants from Intercept, Gilead, Galectin, and Cumberland. Dr. Younossi consults for Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Gilead, Intercept, Allergan, and GlaxoSmithKline. He advises for Vertex and Janssen. Dr. Brunt advises for Gilead. Dr. Charlton consults for and received grants from Gilead, Intercept, NGM Bio, Genfit, and Novartis. He received grants from Conatus. Dr. Cusi consults for and received grants from Novo Nordisk. He consults for Tobira. He received grants from Cirius, Novartis, Janssen, Zydus, Nordic, and Lilly. Dr. Rinella consults for Intercept, Gilead, Genfit, Novartis, NGM Bio, and Nusirt. She advises for Fibrogen, Immuron, Enanta, and AbbVie. Dr. Harrison consults for Madrigal, NGM Bio, Genfit, Echosens, Prometheus, Cirius, Perspectum, and HistoIndex. He advises for Garland, Intercept, Novartis, and Pfizer. He is on the speakers' bureau for AbbVie, Gilead, and Alexion. Dr. Sanyal consults for and received grants from Salix, Conatus, Galectin, Gilead, malinckrodt, Echosens‐Sandhill, Novartis, and Sequana. He consults for and is employed by Sanyal Bio. He consults for and owns stock in GenFit, Hemoshear, Durect, and Indalo. He consults for Immuron, Intercept, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingleheim, Nimbus, Nitto Denko, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Fractyl, Allergan, Chemomab, Affimmune, Teva, and Ardelyx. He received grants from Bristol‐Myers Squibb and Merck. He received royalties from UptoDate. He owns stock in Exhalenz, Arkana, and NewCo LLC. The funding for the development of this Practice Guidance was provided by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. This practice guidance was approved by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases on June 15, 2017. Preamble This guidance provides a data‐supported approach to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) care. A “Guidance” document is different from a “Guideline.” Guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts and rate the quality (level) of the evidence and the strength of each recommendation using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development, and Evaluation system. A guidance document is developed by a panel of experts in the topic, and guidance statements, not recommendations, are put forward to help clinicians understand and implement the most recent evidence. This Practice Guidance was commissioned by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and is an update to the Practice Guideline published in 2012 in conjunction with the American Gastroenterology Association and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).1 Sections where there have been no notable newer publications are not modified, so some paragraphs remain unchanged. This narrative review and guidance statements are based on the following: (1) a formal review and analysis of the recently published world literature on the topic (Medline search up to August 2016); (2) the American College of Physicians' Manual for Assessing Health Practices and Designing Practice Guidelines2; (3) guideline policies of the AASLD; and (4) the experience of the authors and independent reviewers with regard to NAFLD. This practice guidance is intended for use by physicians and other health professionals. As clinically appropriate, guidance statements should be tailored for individual patients. Specific guidance statements are evidence based whenever possible, and, when such evidence is not available or is inconsistent, guidance statements are made based on the consensus opinion of the authors.3 This is a practice guidance for clinicians rather than a review article, and interested readers can refer to several recent comprehensive reviews.4 Because this guidance document is lengthy, to make it easier for the reader, a list of all guidance statements and recommendations are provided in a tabular form there be (1) evidence of by or and (2) of of such use of a or the of is with such and can be nonalcoholic fatty liver or nonalcoholic is the of evidence of in the form of is the of and with with or this guidance document be to or or of fatty liver of of and the of in from fatty liver to to of evidence of in the form of of the or evidence of The of to and liver is of with and with or This can to liver and liver of with or evidence of or of with no with are with such and of and is a to in liver in with in is A of and and of in the is a of the of in the A have of from are a for of by was a of for of by was the of using and was to be a of for an of of developed by to an rate of The for in the of are A from using of an rate for of the of such this most the of A from an rate of A recent the of from to be the rate from the is to be to the there is a of publications the of in the are in a recent of the of The the of by is The of is from the and the rate is from As the for a liver liver is not in of the there is no of the or of there have been some to the of by The the of in the are in the The of liver for a is to be The of liver a for is from to the of in the and of in of are not in with of the of This and of been this provides a list of the and and and independent of are with and is the most and for NAFLD. the of from to and is with NAFLD. this the of with have is a of in with some have to of have is to the of and this and can in a the of in with or the of in with NAFLD. this and and are in with NAFLD. The of in with been to be a a the based on to and to The rate of was the rate for with the to and to was the rate in the with the was and The of to and the of and of liver disease to with Association of the of or of the (1) than in or than in (2) or (3) than in and than in (4) or or or and or been a for NAFLD. the of in is than in The of and on have the to have a of have a of the of and to be to be is most of the recent the for be by the to the the of the from to and of the have the of with is evidence with with some of are for such and have the following: with have to The most of in with is disease independent of other is the of in the it is the or of with is the of in with with have an a recent and and to be and and and The for and for to be and The most of with is to or are of is the of in the to the of with the the of the of been to a with are have a have and are to from liver than other of from a of from the not have other was with in the of This of in is to most with have is This of with have a of and with the with or in the of in of the for liver disease is of the recent in with a rate of the of in to with a rate of and in with to with a recent of with and a of an of rate not different from with This is with of with with or liver is the of and the of in the are with As of liver disease is the development of The rate was to be of with of the to to liver to and to it is the for in is the of with the and of the of evidence for or recent of of the of in with is A consensus for be in and in a liver to the on and a is of the of in published literature been Guidance or recent on in and on in is a for when with NAFLD. Evaluation of and for other than liver or A recent of with be for based on the the and and for this have not been Guidance with on have or to liver disease or have liver should be have and up with on or and have liver should be for or and for such or for in and can be there should be for with or not with have of the available evidence of and of there are in the and of NAFLD. A analysis using a for in with is not of with available liver can be in with not be to liver or are is experts recently have for for liver disease in with not Guidance for in or is not this of and with of to and of should be a of for and in with such or or can be to or for or of of a of with have a a of with and for and the of liver was and fatty liver was in of of with in the of and the of have been from no in a to in a of an of in using to and and not and, the of and was and Guidance of for is not Evaluation of the The of (1) there is by or (2) there is no (3) there are no for and (4) there are no of of are disease and a with it is to for liver and liver can in with not the of liver of this are and is a of not it can disease the are of was with in a of and are in a with should be in the with in with and the is Liver should be in the of and a to the or of and to in a with NAFLD. of and are in with and are to be an of no liver to a of from the in or in and not with disease or other are should be for the of or and Guidance a with it is to for and with and in the of or a liver should be of in with other of liver disease or to should a for liver of with should the of such or and Assessment of and in The of is is can to liver and liver Liver is the most approach for the of and in with it is is by and and and such and not the of liver in with NAFLD. there been in and for in with is the of this practice of the of and and the and of in with by or by is an for and is in The use of to is a for in an the of in with in is The of is a for the of in with is with of the of an of such and to the of liver with and such and are the for of have been for the of in with This is not available in a The for the of in to Liver and or and The is based on available and and is using the published a of of the an the of for with or A and to a and to the of is an based on and with are with are to have A recent and liver and (1) than other such and and (2) for in with The panel of of of and an of with and for or This panel been recently approved for use in is not available for use in the liver was recently approved by the and for use in and with liver recent the of in with using an on the of in with from the The liver for was with and The for was in of the the on the of using an with in with The rate for in this was The for for and was The recently experience with in with in the using a with an or rate for a liver was is for of in with the by than for or in or for and and have several with and in with for in is not Guidance with the of and can be to for a liver or are clinically for with of or or are clinically for in with NAFLD. to a Liver in Liver the for liver in with NAFLD. is for and some and it should be in the most from and Guidance Liver should be in with are of The of or or liver by or be for are for Liver should be in with in for and the of be a liver of The of are of with the of not by The for of liver in a with or the and on of the is the to from on of and The for have been by the by not with or and or not all for with of or in or and and of have no or of up to is or is and is with and is of in from in in be or in and and be in is readers refer to other recent publications for of of fatty liver disease in and are for of in from the and from the Liver of the and for The was developed a of in from a the the for for use in and from with the of and in with other of liver there is a for and for with based and to the of in and and The by a of was with in and when a a Guidance should a with and with and and A on or be Specific such be The or of should be a to and is of The of should of liver disease the such and with or have from a liver liver disease should be to with and Guidance liver disease should be to with and of and been to with NAFLD. The to is the to in the of a of with to of in was with have been by a recent with liver in this a was the the of the the in such was with in all of and it is to or in of the of to a in this with a the is with of liver and in The of the to to be than the of in are by a of and by or by in in and The in fatty been in to a for and, there was no in in in the with are recommendations to can be The of are in and this been with an of and the of on in are a recent an in with no in The and of than or by than have in independent of This is by a of of a a or for was with the in of development or in independent of the The of on are from a of of or was not with in or recommendations have in of the recommendations was to have a on and are for with to the of and on are on in a analysis of in a than on a review of and in liver liver with of the to of a recommendations to in a of to in and Guidance by or in conjunction with A of a by and is to the of of of to a is to the of the of in with or to other aspects of liver the of on liver in with several have an in and not liver published not liver in with and Guidance is not for in patients. are for the with on and on and The of to and in and have to in with an in not of or is no available in most and in the of of an in no was an review of all evidence by the an an of in with and or and and The with in to of and there was a in to a recent Cusi with or with a from and or for by an with The was a of in the different of with the and of and of no different was with and a of is of in with an with or for in with not to and the for the of with a in with to or for The was an in by with in and in the or and no in the This was in in the to in the and in the Because this of and a of was to be a there with this not the of a was in a of than and and there no in other is the most with from and from to in of to been a with or for up to and no and use of or of in with Guidance liver in with and with it be to patients. and should be with each and should not be to been an in the of in with and a recently published of with for was with of and of As was with Guidance is to to liver disease in with or is a of and disease in with is an and been a for is of for the different of and of the use of other or other and to most and not or of for it can be (1) the use of is with a in in with (2) in in in and and of in a of with and (3) not have an on the the form of was a of for The was in a of to to the of Liver in or in with of was in with than in with recent with in with are the of of with this been several with and A and other such not A analysis of with the of the by in in the in A and from to not a and a published in a of was and with a in the of of of and this be by or with Guidance a of liver in with and be for this and should be with each is not to in liver or all is in for is in all of most is to and to or disease in most and and from and the most of in there are no of in to be in the there are several and and with liver and with liver of and and in with and in and to there was a in the and of and and with or there was a in and and of or and with no in liver and a in was the to this of and there is no clinically in can be to the a on with with the of and of in to in of a of available in the of to or the of and by a by in the of The and of in with is not analysis from the and for with and to was in with and in with A recent review of in with A and is with with Guidance can be in with or is to an to The and of in with to are not with or be on a by an have and to and in with and liver in with have been with of a no in with fatty approved in the to have been to in and in a review of the published literature in evidence to the use of fatty in with to liver the of was by and recently to for fatty in with or than a other have been in and is the of this Guidance is not for the of or fatty should not be a of or be to in with NAFLD. in and is a for and should be by with and or than on or than in or than on or in several have a of than on the or by and of a recent analysis of from the of by are are no the of on disease or of or The of on the and have not been in with NAFLD. Guidance with should not of are to make recommendations with regard to of by with NAFLD. is a and of and for the and a and to and of is there are and of the and and of are not and with have a by and to a of with to be by and the of rather than by the of have evidence of the of with of in with or and A recent analysis of the The and Evaluation and in with to analysis of the The and a of in with in to it is to in with based on to use in with or and several have the of in with liver disease of in liver the of is not in with are not in liver from is in of for are and have with liver or not all and on when this was not a of in liver or liver Guidance with are for and of should be in all with NAFLD. with or are not for liver from can be to in with and be in with should be in with and are are in a a and a in a this was with and This was recently approved by the for with are to in a up to in a recently an for a this was with there was a in Guidance and available in with should not be to and and are and, in is on a to the most for in the with is with an of and to an analysis of the for a of and and with the of when for not to an of or The of on and in the of the of a in of or for not been for and been in a of with been in and and in for The of an to of all to the is is with been an independent of and Because of the of and with and a of is with some of and have all been to be in this As is with a of with is in with with to when is or is with an of disease and in the most for liver in the Because of the of with rate of or of with the is than of are from are for with and and are to other The of is an of and in evidence of is or by for is in of by the of the a rate is than for other than with for than and is in of by the A recent experience of to this from and recommendations for are to for other with and and a and are in the of is by and is in with a of are some to the of patients. and and Guidance with have of should be to clinically or the Guidance to Practice with should be for to the and practice with of should be for to the practice evidence not and for in with evidence not a liver in with or this be on a of Specific to and in be to or to with of in be most for or The of and in are the in with are and with of of in for the in based the of or the for and the and of the A of in and using a of to using the of liver to from The was when for and A recent the of to be in from and in based on This the of in to with with a of with with and with the of was to be with of to in with and or in with so use of the of liver a of with and from of of on the of was in of with liver other than in was the most and was in of the with NAFLD. with the a of and a of of been in of with The of and to was in to a with than to to an and NAFLD. A the of in for of of the and of The the on with received with of the liver developed the was to and the or in of and in not to be and with are on of to the of in is in of of or of by health than of with for with not be and for of by As in with of such and are for and of with of of for in health in for and there are no to with in this the of an for liver disease with and in with and with in the with other the to the of in of fatty or and in are in a of with and, on some liver is to and the of use or is in and for are the no panel of or can and in Guidance with fatty liver are or not should be for of such fatty and in to for of are in with in with or to should a liver to and Because of a of a formal recommendation be made with regard to for in with and A The to a liver in a to the of be the with and the the with an of than or of to of there is an in or of all with to a liver it be to are to have or to with for liver on in of and of have been to for The of the to of with based on of As in development of or to for or disease is of and are can be to in with a of and with is in in with an of of the or of with of a liver a with and the Guidance Liver in with should be in in the is or in there is of or A liver to a of should be on for of with can from in some in of and there is a in This is by or and in the of The and to be different in with Guidance liver should the in with to NAFLD. for are by a of and on to The is to a quality of and and liver and of should be made to from Because most have this is the in with in in and by in most with NAFLD. of the to this using and Because liver not the of the the of on liver not be with to or and not liver in in and the of with and in an or in to on of or the of to aspects of in is are to the of for should with a to quality of and of of American Association and in As in for or have in or liver on and A using in a the of or to in to with the of of was not different the there in and of with to this a no on liver or liver The from the of to this the in of or of was not the a in on to been some to fatty to in a of and to in for in in Guidance and liver in with and should be the of no to with and should not be to or The of a is not to some with of in is be to in and should be with each in

BACKGROUND: In two of three phase 3 trials, pirfenidone, an oral antifibrotic therapy, reduced disease progression, as measured by the decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) or vital capacity, in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; in the third trial, this end point was not achieved. We sought to confirm the beneficial effect of pirfenidone on disease progression in such patients. METHODS: In this phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 555 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis to receive either oral pirfenidone (2403 mg per day) or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary end point was the change in FVC or death at week 52. Secondary end points were the 6-minute walk distance, progression-free survival, dyspnea, and death from any cause or from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. RESULTS: In the pirfenidone group, as compared with the placebo group, there was a relative reduction of 47.9% in the proportion of patients who had an absolute decline of 10 percentage points or more in the percentage of the predicted FVC or who died; there was also a relative increase of 132.5% in the proportion of patients with no decline in FVC (P<0.001). Pirfenidone reduced the decline in the 6-minute walk distance (P=0.04) and improved progression-free survival (P<0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in dyspnea scores (P=0.16) or in rates of death from any cause (P=0.10) or from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (P=0.23). However, in a prespecified pooled analysis incorporating results from two previous phase 3 trials, the between-group difference favoring pirfenidone was significant for death from any cause (P=0.01) and from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (P=0.006). Gastrointestinal and skin-related adverse events were more common in the pirfenidone group than in the placebo group but rarely led to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Pirfenidone, as compared with placebo, reduced disease progression, as reflected by lung function, exercise tolerance, and progression-free survival, in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Treatment was associated with an acceptable side-effect profile and fewer deaths. (Funded by InterMune; ASCEND ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01366209.).

These recommendations are based on the following: (1) a formal review and analysis of the recently published world literature on the topic [Medline search up to June 2011]; (2) the American College of Physicians' Manual for Assessing Health Practices and Designing Practice Guidelines;1 (3) guideline policies of the three societies approving this document; and (4) the experience of the authors and independent reviewers with regards to NAFLD. Intended for use by physicians and allied health professionals, these recommendations suggest preferred approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic and preventive aspects of care. They are intended to be flexible and adjustable for individual patients. Specific recommendations are evidence-based wherever possible, and when such evidence is not available or inconsistent, recommendations are made based on the consensus opinion of the authors. To best characterize the evidence cited in support of the recommendations, the AASLD Practice Guidelines Committee has adopted the classification used by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) workgroup with minor modifications (Table 1).2 The strength of recommendations in the GRADE system is classified as strong (1) or weak (2). The quality of evidence supporting strong or weak recommendations is designated by one of three levels: high (A), moderate (B) or low-quality (C).2 This is a practice guideline for clinicians rather than a review article and interested readers can refer to several comprehensive reviews published recently.3-8 NAFLD, Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; NAFL,Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver; NASH, Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis; T2DM, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus; AST, Aspartate Aminotransferase; ALT, Alanine Aminotransferase; HOMA,Homeostatic Model Assessment; RCT; Randomized Controlled Trial; PIVENS: Pioglitazone versus Vitamin E versus Placebo for the Treatment of Non-diabetic patients with Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; TONIC; Treatment of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Children; NAS, NAFLD Activity Score; CK18; Cytokeratin 18 Fragments; ELF, Enhanced Liver Fibrosis Panel; TZD; Thiazolidinediones; UDCA: Ursodeoxycholic Acid; ANA; Anti Nuclear Antibody; ASMA: Anti Smooth Muscle Antibody; US; Ultrasound; CT: Computerized Tomography; MR; Magnetic Resonance. The definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) requires that (a) there is evidence of hepatic steatosis, either by imaging or by histology and (b) there are no causes for secondary hepatic fat accumulation such as significant alcohol consumption, use of steatogenic medication or hereditary disorders (Table 2). In the majority of patients, NAFLD is associated with metabolic risk factors such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia. NAFLD is histologically further categorized into nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) (Table 3). NAFL is defined as the presence of hepatic steatosis with no evidence of hepatocellular injury in the form of ballooning of the hepatocytes. NASH is defined as the presence of hepatic steatosis and inflammation with hepatocyte injury (ballooning) with or without fibrosis. The incidence of NAFLD has been investigated in a limited number of studies. Two Japanese studies9, 10 reported an incidence rate of 31 and 86 cases of suspected NAFLD per 1,000 person-years respectively, whereas another study from England showed a much lower incidence rate of 29 cases per 100,000 person-years.11 More studies are needed to better understand the incidence of NAFLD across different age, ethnic, and geographic groups. The reported prevalence of NAFLD varies widely depending on the population studied and the definition used. The prevalence of histologically-defined NAFLD was 20% and 51% in two different studies comprised of potential living liver donors.12, 13 The reported prevalence of NAFLD when defined by liver ultrasound ranged between 17% and 46% depending on the population studied.4 In a study consisting of nearly 400 middle aged individuals, the prevalence of NAFLD defined by ultrasonography was 46% and the prevalence of histologically confirmed NASH was 12.2%.14 In the Dallas Heart Study, when assessed by MR spectroscopy the prevalence of NAFLD in the general population was 31%.15 The prevalence of suspected NAFLD when estimated using aminotransferases alone without imaging or histology ranged between 7% and 11%, but aminotransferases can be normal in individuals with NAFLD.4 In summary, estimates of the worldwide prevalence of NAFLD ranges from 6.3% to 33% with a median of 20% in the general population, based on a variety of assessment methods.4 On the other hand, the estimated prevalence of NASH is lower, ranging from 3 to 5%.4 The prevalence of NASH cirrhosis in the general population is not known. Obesity is a common and well documented risk factor for NAFLD. Both excessive BMI and visceral obesity are recognized risk factors for NAFLD. In patients with severe obesity undergoing bariatric surgery, the prevalence of NAFLD can exceed 90% and up to 5% of patients may have unsuspected cirrhosis.4, 16-20 There is a very high prevalence of NAFLD in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).4 An ultrasonographic study of patients with T2DM showed a 69% prevalence of NAFLD.21 In another study, 127 of 204 diabetic patients displayed fatty infiltration on ultrasound, and 87% of the patients with fatty infiltration who consented to biopsy had histologic confirmation of NAFLD.22 High serum triglyceride levels and low serum HDL levels are very common in patients with NAFLD. The prevalence of NAFLD in individuals with dyslipidemia attending lipid clinics was estimated to be 50%.23 Age, gender and ethnicity are also associated with a differential prevalence for NAFLD.4 A number of studies have shown that the prevalence of NAFLD increases with age.24-28 The likelihood of disease progression to advanced fibrosis or mortality increases in older patients with NAFLD.29-31 Many recent studies have reported that male gender is a risk factor for fatty liver disease.4 For example, in a study of 26,527 subjects undergoing medical checkups, the prevalence of NAFLD was 31% in men and 16% in women.32 Compared to non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic individuals have significantly higher and non-Hispanic blacks have significantly lower prevalence of NAFLD.15, 33-35 The prevalence of NAFLD in American-Indian and Alaskan-Native populations appears lower, ranging from 0.6% to 2.2%, although the lack of histologic definition makes it likely that is an underestimate.36, 37 There are data to suggest that hypothyroidism, hypopituitarism, hypogonadism, sleep apnea, and polycystic ovary syndrome independent of obesity are important risk factors for the presence of NAFLD (Table 4).3 The evolution of hepatic histologic changes in patients with NAFL and NASH has been investigated by several studies, but these generally included smaller number of patients and had relatively modest duration of follow-up.4, 7 Nonetheless, it is generally agreed that patients with simple steatosis have very slow, if any, histological progression, while patients with NASH can exhibit histological progression to cirrhotic-stage disease.4, 7 The long term outcomes of patients with NAFLD and NASH have been reported in several studies.31, 38-45 Their detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this guideline, but their findings can be summarized as follows; (a) patients with NAFLD have increased overall mortality compared to matched control populations, (b) the most common cause of death in patients with NAFLD, NAFL and NASH is cardiovascular disease, and (c) patients with NASH (but not NAFL) have an increased liver-related mortality rate. Another piece of indirect evidence that supports the progressive nature of NASH is in the features of cryptogenic cirrhosis which is closely related to NAFLD.46, 47 Patients with cryptogenic cirrhosis have disproportionately high prevalence of metabolic risk factors (T2DM, obesity, metabolic syndrome) typical of patients with NAFLD, their liver biopsies frequently show one or more features of NASH, and studies have demonstrated the loss of histological features of NASH with the development of cirrhosis.4, 7, 46, 47 Patients with NAFLD are at increased risk for HCC, but this risk is likely limited to those with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis.48-53 Several studies investigated the natural history of NASH cirrhosis in comparison to patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis.54-57 One large prospective US-based study55 observed a lower rate of decompensation and mortality in patients with NASH cirrhosis as compared to patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis. However, a more recent international study56 of 247 NAFLD patients with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis followed over a mean duration of 85.6 ± 54.5 months showed an overall 10-year survival of 81.5% that was not different from matched patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis. Importantly, both studies have shown that patients with NASH cirrhosis are at significantly lower risk for HCC than patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis.55, 56 By definition, NAFLD indicates the lack of any evidence of ongoing or recent consumption of significant quantities of alcohol. However, the precise definition of significant alcohol consumption in patients with suspected NAFLD is uncertain. A recent consensus meeting58 concluded that, for NASH clinical trials candidate eligibility purposes, significant alcohol consumption be defined as >21 drinks per week in men and >14 drinks per week in women over a 2-year period prior to baseline liver histology. Furthermore, this group recommended that validated questionnaires should be used to quantify the amount of alcohol consumption in the context of clinical trials. The definition of significant alcohol consumption in the published NAFLD literature has been inconsistent and ranged from > 1 alcoholic drink (∼ 10 grams of alcohol per one drink unit) per day to > 40 grams per day, and published studies have not always used gender-specific definitions.59 If self-reported alcohol consumption details are not consistent with clinical suspicion when evaluating a patient with suspected NAFLD, confirmation with a family member or a close friend should be considered. Recommendation 1. Ongoing or recent alcohol consumption > 21 drinks on average per week in men and > 14 drinks on average per week in women is a reasonable definition for significant alcohol consumption when evaluating patients with suspected NAFLD in clinical practice. (Strength – 2, Quality - C) Some patients undergoing thoracic and abdominal imaging for reasons other than liver symptoms, signs or biochemistry may demonstrate unsuspected hepatic steatosis. While this phenomenon is not uncommon in clinical practice, studies have not systematically examined the characteristics or natural history of NAFLD in this patient population. Recommendations 2. When patients with unsuspected hepatic steatosis detected on imaging have symptoms or signs attributable to liver disease or have abnormal liver biochemistries, they should be evaluated as though they have suspected NAFLD and worked-up accordingly. (Strength – 1, Evidence -A) 3. In patients with unsuspected hepatic steatosis detected on imaging who lack any liver-related symptoms or signs and have normal liver biochemistries, it is reasonable to assess for metabolic risk factors (e.g., obesity, glucose intolerance, dyslipidemia) and alternate causes for hepatic steatosis such as significant alcohol consumption or medications. (Strength – 1, Evidence -A) 4. In patients with unsuspected hepatic steatosis detected on imaging who are asymptomatic and have normal liver biochemistries, a liver biopsy cannot be recommended. (Strength – 1, Evidence -B) It can be argued that there should be systematic screening for NAFLD, at least among higher-risk individuals attending diabetes and obesity clinics. However, at present there are significant gaps in our knowledge regarding the diagnosis, natural history, and treatment of NAFLD. As liver biochemistries can be within normal ranges in patients with NAFLD and NASH, they may not be sufficiently sensitive to serve as screening tests, whereas liver ultrasound is potentially more sensitive but it is expensive and cumbersome as a screening test. Recommendation 5. Screening for NAFLD in adults attending primary care clinics or high-risk groups attending diabetes or obesity clinics is not advised at this time due to uncertainties surrounding diagnostic tests and treatment options, along with lack of knowledge related to the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of screening. (Strength – 1, Evidence -B) Anecdotal experience and some published studies suggest familial clustering and heritability of NAFLD,60-63 but conclusive studies are lacking. In a retrospective cohort study, Willner et al. observed that 18% of patients with NASH have a similarly affected first degree relative.61 A small familial aggregation study observed that patients with NAFLD have a significantly higher number of first degree relatives with cirrhosis and a trend towards familial clustering of NAFLD or cryptogenic cirrhosis than matched healthy controls.62 In another familial aggregation study63 of overweight children with and without NAFLD, after adjusting for age, gender, race, and BMI, the heritability of MR-measured liver fat fraction was 0.386, and fatty liver was present in 18% of family members of children with NAFLD despite normal ALT and lack of obesity. Recommendation 6. Systematic screening of family members for NAFLD is currently not recommended. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) The diagnosis of NAFLD requires that (a) there is hepatic steatosis by imaging or histology, (b) there is no significant alcohol consumption, (c) there are no competing etiologies for hepatic steatosis, and (d) there are no co-existing causes for chronic liver disease. Common alternative causes of hepatic steatosis are significant alcohol consumption, hepatitis C, medications, parenteral nutrition, Wilson's disease, and severe malnutrition (Table 2). When evaluating a patient with newly suspected NAFLD, it is important to exclude co-existing etiologies for chronic liver disease including hemochromatosis, autoimmune liver disease, chronic viral hepatitis, and Wilson's disease.3 Mildly elevated serum ferritin is common in patients with NAFLD and it does not necessarily indicate increased iron stores.3, 64 Elevated serum ferritin and transferrin saturation in patients with suspected NAFLD should lead to testing for genetic hemochromatosis. Mutations in the HFE gene occur with variable frequency in patients with NAFLD and their clinical significance is unclear.64 One should consider a liver biopsy to assess hepatic iron concentration and to exclude significant hepatic injury and fibrosis in a patient with suspected NAFLD with elevated serum ferritin and a homozygote or compound heterozygote C282Y mutation in the HFE gene.65 Elevated serum autoantibodies are common in patients with NAFLD and are generally considered to be an epiphenomenon.3 In a recently published large study from the NASH Clinical Research Network, positive serum autoantibodies, defined as ANA > 1:160 or ASMA >1:40 were present in 21% of patients with well-phenotyped NAFLD and were not associated with more advanced histologic features.66 Recommendations 7. When evaluating a patient with suspected NAFLD, it is essential to exclude competing etiologies for steatosis and co-existing common chronic liver disease. (Strength – 1, Evidence - A) 8. Persistently high serum ferritin and increased iron saturation, especially in the context of homozygote or heterozygote C282Y HFE mutations may warrant a liver biopsy. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) 9. High serum titers of autoantibodies in association with other features suggestive of autoimmune liver disease (very high aminotransferases, high globulin) should prompt a more complete work-up for autoimmune liver disease. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) The natural history of NAFLD is fairly dichotomous – NAFL is generally benign whereas NASH can progress to cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer. Existing dogma posits that liver biopsy is the most reliable approach for identifying the presence of steatohepatitis and fibrosis in patients with NAFLD, but it is generally acknowledged that biopsy is limited by cost, sampling error, and procedure-related morbidity and mortality. Serum aminotransferase levels and imaging tests such as ultrasound, CT, and MR do not reliably assess steatohepatitis and fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Therefore, there has been significant interest in developing clinical prediction rules and non-invasive biomarkers for identifying steatohepatitis in patients with NAFLD,7 but their detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this practice guideline. The presence of metabolic syndrome is a strong predictor for the presence of steatohepatitis in patients with NAFLD3, 7, 67-69 and may be used to best identify patients with persistently abnormal liver biochemistries who would benefit diagnostically and prognostically from a liver biopsy. There has been intense interest in non-invasive methods to identify advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD7;these include the NAFLD Fibrosis Score70, Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) panel70 and transient elastography. The NAFLD Fibrosis Score is based on six readily available variables (age, BMI, hyperglycemia, platelet count, albumin, AST/ALT ratio) and it is calculated using the published formula (http://nafldscore.com). In a meta-analysis of 13 studies consisting of 3,064 patients,7 NAFLD Fibrosis Score has an AUROC of 0.85 for predicting advanced fibrosis (i.e., bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis) and a score < −1.455 had 90% sensitivity and 60% specificity to exclude advanced fibrosis whereas a score > 0.676 had 67% sensitivity and 97% specificity to identify the presence of advanced fibrosis. The ELF panel consists of plasma levels of three matrix turnover proteins (hyaluronic acid, TIMP-1, and PIIINP) had an AUROC of 0.90 with 80% sensitivity and 90% specificity for detecting advanced fibrosis.71 Circulating levels of cytokeratin-18 (CK18) fragments have been investigated extensively as novel biomarkers for the presence of steatohepatitis in patients with NAFLD.7, 72 Wieckowska et al., measured CK18 fragments in plasma that had been obtained from 44 consecutive patients with suspected NAFLD at the time of liver biopsy, and correlated the findings with hepatic immunohistochemistry data.70 Plasma CK18 fragments were markedly increased in patients with NASH compared with patients with simple steatosis or normal biopsies (median 765.7 U/L versus 202.4 U/L or 215.5 U/L, respectively; P < 0.001), and independently predicted NASH (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.18-3.22 for every 50 U/L increase). This observation was reproduced in several subsequent studies and a recent meta-analysis estimated that plasma CK18 levels have a sensitivity of 78%, specificity of 87%, and an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) for steatohepatitis in patients with NAFLD.7 Although these are very encouraging results, currently this assay is not commercially available. Furthermore, as each study utilized a study-specific cut-off value, there is not an established cut-off value for identifying steatohepatitis. Transient elastography, which measures liver stiffness non-invasively, has been successful in identifying advanced fibrosis in patients with hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Although a recent meta-analysis showed high sensitivity and specificity for identifying fibrosis in NAFLD,7 it has a high failure rate in individuals with a higher BMI. Furthermore, it is not commercially available in the United States. Other imaging tools such as MR elastography, although commercially available in the United States, is rarely used in clinical practice. A major limitation of these prediction models and biomarkers is that they have largely been investigated in cross-sectional studies and thus their utility in monitoring disease natural history, predicting outcomes or response to therapeutic intervention is unknown. Recommendations 10. As the metabolic syndrome predicts the presence of steatohepatitis in patients with NAFLD, presence can be used to patients for a liver biopsy. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) NAFLD Fibrosis Score is a for identifying NAFLD patients with higher likelihood of bridging fibrosis cirrhosis. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) Although CK18 is a for identifying it is to in clinical practice. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) Liver biopsy the for liver histology in patients with NAFLD. However, it is expensive and some morbidity and very mortality it should be in those who would benefit the most from diagnostic, therapeutic and Recommendations Liver biopsy should be considered in patients with NAFLD who are at increased risk to have steatohepatitis and advanced fibrosis. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) The presence of metabolic syndrome and the NAFLD Fibrosis Score may be used for identifying patients who are at risk for steatohepatitis and advanced fibrosis. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) Liver biopsy should be considered in patients with suspected NAFLD in competing etiologies for hepatic steatosis and co-existing chronic liver cannot be without a liver biopsy. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) The of patients with NAFLD consists of liver disease as well as the associated metabolic such as obesity, and As patients with NAFLD without steatohepatitis have from a liver at liver disease should be limited to those with Many studies indicate that may aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis when measured either by or MR imaging and In a meta-analysis of and clinical studies between most studies reported in aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis by ultrasound across a of of different and high low high fat However, these studies were as a of largely and using histology as the primary More recent studies also showed an in aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis on histology with in with was investigated in two trials. In the study by et ALT and steatosis by but on liver histology not be evaluated the majority of patients not a liver biopsy. However, in the study by et not or liver histology. The best evidence for loss as a to liver histology in NASH from a that 31 with NASH to changes and a week of moderate for versus The had loss in the alone and to an in steatosis, and but not fibrosis. Importantly, with 7% loss had significant in steatosis, and NAFLD Activity Score There was a in the study by et who > 5% steatosis, whereas individuals with loss had significant in steatosis, and A number of recent studies used MR spectroscopy to assess changes in hepatic fat in response to The from these studies using a variety of either by or in with different have reported a significant in liver fat by an average of from 20% to The degree of hepatic fat was to the of the intervention and generally a loss between to The of without on hepatic steatosis was investigated in studies using MR of a week of over a period of to In but one liver fat without a significant in Recommendations loss generally hepatic steatosis, either by alone or in with increased (Strength – 1, Evidence - A) of at least of appears to steatosis, but a loss to may be needed to (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) alone in adults with NAFLD may hepatic steatosis but to other aspects of liver histology unknown. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) Several studies investigated the of on aminotransferases and liver histology in patients with studies demonstrated a in and but no significant in liver An consisting of patients with NASH either 2 E or loss for more with than with E or However, there was a modest in hepatic steatosis and inflammation in the of patients undergoing liver biopsies with In a study in patients, NASH in of patients, although of the study was by a significant loss in the more than 10 et reported a lack of in a control of with a and intervention in both groups. Other studies also to show major benefit for on hepatic or liver A recent concluded that months of intervention not aminotransferases or liver histology, compared with intervention independently of or the presence of Recommendation has no significant on liver histology and is not recommended as a treatment for liver disease in adults with (Strength – 1, Evidence - A) Several studies investigated the of and on aminotransferases and liver histology in adults with In an in subjects with NASH, aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis, ballooning and inflammation but not fibrosis. in a subsequent et observed that aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis, but not or fibrosis and also showed et a of in patients with NASH who had glucose or Although there was a significant ± with it significantly aminotransferases, steatosis, and The with in compared to of patients and there was a trend towards in fibrosis among patients to et a of intervention with either or for months in a of patients with While steatosis not significantly compared to hepatocellular injury and fibrosis The study is a large that 247 patients with NASH to E or for The primary was an in 2 with at least 1 in hepatocellular ballooning and in either the inflammation or steatosis and no in the fibrosis It was in in the group compared to in the group and in the E group this study of two primary and E a of was considered to be significant a Therefore, although there were histological benefits associated with this study concluded that not the primary However, of NASH, a secondary was in significantly higher number of

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common cause of chronic liver disease, and its worldwide prevalence continues to increase with the growing obesity epidemic. This study assesses the epidemiology of NAFLD in adults based on clinical literature published over the past 30 years. AIM: To review epidemiology and natural history of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in adults based on clinical literature published over the past 30 years. METHODS: An in-depth search of PubMed (1980-2010) was based on five search terms: 'non-alcoholic fatty liver disease' OR 'non-alcoholic steatohepatitis' OR 'fatty liver' OR 'steatosis' AND 'incidence' [MeSH Terms] OR 'prevalence' [MeSH Terms] OR 'natural history'. Studies of paediatric cohorts were excluded. Articles were categorised by topic and summarised, noting generalisations concerning their content. RESULTS: Four study categories included NAFLD incidence, prevalence, risk factors and natural history. Studies related to NAFLD prevalence and incidence indicate that the diagnosis is heterogeneous and relies on a variety of assessment tools, including liver biopsy, radiological tests such as ultrasonography, and blood testing such as liver enzymes. The prevalence of NAFLD is highest in populations with pre-existing metabolic conditions such as obesity and type II diabetes. Many studies investigating the natural history of NAFLD verify the progression from NASH to advanced fibrosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is the most common cause of elevated liver enzymes. Within the NAFLD spectrum, only NASH progresses to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. With the growing epidemic of obesity, the prevalence and impact of NAFLD continues to increase, making NASH potentially the most common cause of advanced liver disease in coming decades.

PURPOSE: The number of cancer survivors worldwide is growing, with over 15.5 million cancer survivors in the United States alone-a figure expected to double in the coming decades. Cancer survivors face unique health challenges as a result of their cancer diagnosis and the impact of treatments on their physical and mental well-being. For example, cancer survivors often experience declines in physical functioning and quality of life while facing an increased risk of cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality compared with persons without cancer. The 2010 American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable was among the first reports to conclude that cancer survivors could safely engage in enough exercise training to improve physical fitness and restore physical functioning, enhance quality of life, and mitigate cancer-related fatigue. METHODS: A second Roundtable was convened in 2018 to advance exercise recommendations beyond public health guidelines and toward prescriptive programs specific to cancer type, treatments, and/or outcomes. RESULTS: Overall findings retained the conclusions that exercise training and testing were generally safe for cancer survivors and that every survivor should "avoid inactivity." Enough evidence was available to conclude that specific doses of aerobic, combined aerobic plus resistance training, and/or resistance training could improve common cancer-related health outcomes, including anxiety, depressive symptoms, fatigue, physical functioning, and health-related quality of life. Implications for other outcomes, such as peripheral neuropathy and cognitive functioning, remain uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed recommendations should serve as a guide for the fitness and health care professional working with cancer survivors. More research is needed to fill remaining gaps in knowledge to better serve cancer survivors, as well as fitness and health care professionals, to improve clinical practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: NAFLD is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality. We assessed the global and regional prevalence, incidence, and mortality of NAFLD using an in-depth meta-analytic approach. APPROACH AND RESULTS: PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for NAFLD population-based studies from 1990 to 2019 survey year (last published 2022) per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. Bias risk assessment was per Joanna Briggs Institute. Of 2585 studies reviewed, 92 studies (N=9,361,716) met eligibility criteria. Across the study period (1990-2019), meta-analytic pooling of NAFLD prevalence estimates and ultrasound-defined NAFLD yielded an overall global prevalence of 30.05% (95% CI: 27.88%-32.32%) and 30.69% (28.4-33.09), respectively. Global NAFLD prevalence increased by +50.4% from 25.26% (21.59-29.33) in 1990-2006 to 38.00% (33.71-42.49) in 2016-2019 ( p <0.001); ultrasound-defined NAFLD prevalence increased by +38.7% from 25.16% (19.46-31.87) in 1990-2006 to 34.59% (29.05-40.57) ( p =0.029). The highest NAFLD prevalence was in Latin America 44.37% (30.66%-59.00%), then Middle East and North Africa (MENA) (36.53%, 28.63%-45.22%), South Asia (33.83%, 22.91%-46.79%), South-East Asia (33.07%, 18.99%-51.03%), North America (31.20%, 25.86%-37.08%), East Asia (29.71%, 25.96%-33.76%), Asia Pacific 28.02% (24.69%-31.60%), Western Europe 25.10% (20.55%-30.28%). Among the NAFLD cohort diagnosed without a liver biopsy, pooled mortality rate per 1000 PY was 12.60 (6.68-23.67) for all-cause mortality; 4.20 (1.34-7.05) for cardiac-specific mortality; 2.83 (0.78-4.88) for extrahepatic cancer-specific mortality; and 0.92 (0.00-2.21) for liver-specific mortality. CONCLUSIONS: NAFLD global prevalence is 30% and increasing which requires urgent and comprehensive strategies to raise awareness and address all aspects of NAFLD on local, regional, and global levels.

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.

BACKGROUND: Peginterferon-ribavirin therapy is the current standard of care for chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV). The rate of sustained virologic response has been below 50% in cases of HCV genotype 1 infection. Boceprevir, a potent oral HCV-protease inhibitor, has been evaluated as an additional treatment in phase 1 and phase 2 studies. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind study in which previously untreated adults with HCV genotype 1 infection were randomly assigned to one of three groups. In all three groups, peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin were administered for 4 weeks (the lead-in period). Subsequently, group 1 (the control group) received placebo plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 44 weeks; group 2 received boceprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 24 weeks, and those with a detectable HCV RNA level between weeks 8 and 24 received placebo plus peginterferon-ribavirin for an additional 20 weeks; and group 3 received boceprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 44 weeks. Nonblack patients and black patients were enrolled and analyzed separately. RESULTS: A total of 938 nonblack and 159 black patients were treated. In the nonblack cohort, a sustained virologic response was achieved in 125 of the 311 patients (40%) in group 1, in 211 of the 316 patients (67%) in group 2 (P<0.001), and in 213 of the 311 patients (68%) in group 3 (P<0.001). In the black cohort, a sustained virologic response was achieved in 12 of the 52 patients (23%) in group 1, in 22 of the 52 patients (42%) in group 2 (P=0.04), and in 29 of the 55 patients (53%) in group 3 (P=0.004). In group 2, a total of 44% of patients received peginterferon-ribavirin for 28 weeks. Anemia led to dose reductions in 13% of controls and 21% of boceprevir recipients, with discontinuations in 1% and 2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of boceprevir to standard therapy with peginterferon-ribavirin, as compared with standard therapy alone, significantly increased the rates of sustained virologic response in previously untreated adults with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. The rates were similar with 24 weeks and 44 weeks of boceprevir. (Funded by Schering-Plough [now Merck]; SPRINT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00705432.).

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and resulting nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are highly prevalent in the United States, where they are a growing cause of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and increasingly an indicator for liver transplantation. A Markov model was used to forecast NAFLD disease progression. Incidence of NAFLD was based on historical and projected changes in adult prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Assumptions were derived from published literature where available and validated using national surveillance data for incidence of NAFLD-related HCC. Projected changes in NAFLD-related cirrhosis, advanced liver disease, and liver-related mortality were quantified through 2030. Prevalent NAFLD cases are forecasted to increase 21%, from 83.1 million (2015) to 100.9 million (2030), while prevalent NASH cases will increase 63% from 16.52 million to 27.00 million cases. Overall NAFLD prevalence among the adult population (aged ≥15 years) is projected at 33.5% in 2030, and the median age of the NAFLD population will increase from 50 to 55 years during 2015-2030. In 2015, approximately 20% of NAFLD cases were classified as NASH, increasing to 27% by 2030, a reflection of both disease progression and an aging population. Incidence of decompensated cirrhosis will increase 168% to 105,430 cases by 2030, while incidence of HCC will increase by 137% to 12,240 cases. Liver deaths will increase 178% to an estimated 78,300 deaths in 2030. During 2015-2030, there are projected to be nearly 800,000 excess liver deaths. CONCLUSION: With continued high rates of adult obesity and DM along with an aging population, NAFLD-related liver disease and mortality will increase in the United States. Strategies to slow the growth of NAFLD cases and therapeutic options are necessary to mitigate disease burden. (Hepatology 2018;67:123-133).

Liver fibrosis is the most important predictor of mortality in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Quantitative risk of mortality by fibrosis stage has not been systematically evaluated. We aimed to quantify the fibrosis stage-specific risk of all-cause and liver-related mortality in NAFLD. Through a systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified five adult NAFLD cohort studies reporting fibrosis stage-specific mortality (0-4). Using fibrosis stage 0 as a reference population, fibrosis stage-specific mortality rate ratios (MRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause and liver-related mortality were estimated. The study is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Included were 1,495 NAFLD patients with 17,452 patient years of follow-up. Compared to NAFLD patients with no fibrosis (stage 0), NAFLD patients with fibrosis were at an increased risk for all-cause mortality, and this risk increased with increases in the stage of fibrosis: stage 1, MRR = 1.58 (95% CI 1.19-2.11); stage 2, MRR = 2.52 (95% CI 1.85-3.42); stage 3, MRR = 3.48 (95% CI 2.51-4.83); and stage 4, MRR = 6.40 (95% CI 4.11-9.95). The results were more pronounced as the risk of liver-related mortality increased exponentially with each increase in the stage of fibrosis: stage 1, MRR = 1.41 (95% CI 0.17-11.95); stage 2, MRR = 9.57 (95% CI 1.67-54.93); stage 3, MRR = 16.69 (95% CI 2.92-95.36); and stage 4, MRR = 42.30 (95% CI 3.51-510.34). Limitations of the study include an inability to adjust for comorbid conditions or demographics known to impact fibrosis progression in NAFLD and the inclusion of patients with simple steatosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without fibrosis in the reference comparison group. CONCLUSION: The risk of liver-related mortality increases exponentially with increase in fibrosis stage; these data have important implications in assessing the utility of each stage and benefits of regression of fibrosis from one stage to another. (Hepatology 2017;65:1557-1565).

Over the past 2 decades, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has grown from a relatively unknown disease to the most common cause of chronic liver disease in the world. In fact, 25% of the world's population is currently thought to have NAFLD. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is the subtype of NAFLD that can progress to cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and death. NAFLD and NASH are not only found in adults-there is also a high prevalence of these diseases in children and adolescents. Because of the close association of NAFLD with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and obesity, the latest models predict that the prevalence of NAFLD and NASH will increase, causing a tremendous clinical and economic burden and poor patient-reported outcomes. Nonetheless, there is no accurate noninvasive method to detect NASH, and treatment of this disease is limited to lifestyle modifications. To examine the state of NAFLD among different regions and understand the global trajectory of this disease, an international group of experts came together during the 2017 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Global NAFLD Forum. We provide a summary of this forum and an assessment of the current state of NAFLD and NASH worldwide.

free survival.

BACKGROUND: In phase 2 trials, the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir was effective in previously untreated patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1, 2, or 3 infection. METHODS: We conducted two phase 3 studies in previously untreated patients with HCV infection. In a single-group, open-label study, we administered a 12-week regimen of sofosbuvir plus peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin in 327 patients with HCV genotype 1, 4, 5, or 6 (of whom 98% had genotype 1 or 4). In a noninferiority trial, 499 patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 infection were randomly assigned to receive sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks or peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for 24 weeks. In the two studies, the primary end point was a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS: In the single-group study, a sustained virologic response was reported in 90% of patients (95% confidence interval, 87 to 93). In the noninferiority trial, a sustained response was reported in 67% of patients in both the sofosbuvir-ribavirin group and the peginterferon-ribavirin group. Response rates in the sofosbuvir-ribavirin group were lower among patients with genotype 3 infection than among those with genotype 2 infection (56% vs. 97%). Adverse events (including fatigue, headache, nausea, and neutropenia) were less common with sofosbuvir than with peginterferon. CONCLUSIONS: In a single-group study of sofosbuvir combined with peginterferon-ribavirin, patients with predominantly genotype 1 or 4 HCV infection had a rate of sustained virologic response of 90% at 12 weeks. In a noninferiority trial, patients with genotype 2 or 3 infection who received either sofosbuvir or peginterferon with ribavirin had nearly identical rates of response (67%). Adverse events were less frequent with sofosbuvir than with peginterferon. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; FISSION and NEUTRINO ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01497366 and NCT01641640, respectively.).

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a progressive liver disease with no approved treatment. Resmetirom is an oral, liver-directed, thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist in development for the treatment of NASH with liver fibrosis. METHODS: We are conducting an ongoing phase 3 trial involving adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH and a fibrosis stage of F1B, F2, or F3 (stages range from F0 [no fibrosis] to F4 [cirrhosis]). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily resmetirom at a dose of 80 mg or 100 mg or placebo. The two primary end points at week 52 were NASH resolution (including a reduction in the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] activity score by ≥2 points; scores range from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more severe disease) with no worsening of fibrosis, and an improvement (reduction) in fibrosis by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score. RESULTS: Overall, 966 patients formed the primary analysis population (322 in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 323 in the 100-mg resmetirom group, and 321 in the placebo group). NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis was achieved in 25.9% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 29.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 9.7% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Fibrosis improvement by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score was achieved in 24.2% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 25.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 14.2% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). The change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from baseline to week 24 was -13.6% in the 80-mg resmetirom group and -16.3% in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 0.1% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Diarrhea and nausea were more frequent with resmetirom than with placebo. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across trial groups: 10.9% in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 12.7% in the 100-mg resmetirom group, and 11.5% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the 80-mg dose and the 100-mg dose of resmetirom were superior to placebo with respect to NASH resolution and improvement in liver fibrosis by at least one stage. (Funded by Madrigal Pharmaceuticals; MAESTRO-NASH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03900429.).

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 who do not have a sustained response to therapy with peginterferon-ribavirin, outcomes after retreatment are suboptimal. Boceprevir, a protease inhibitor that binds to the HCV nonstructural 3 (NS3) active site, has been suggested as an additional treatment. METHODS: To assess the effect of the combination of boceprevir and peginterferon-ribavirin for retreatment of patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection, we randomly assigned patients (in a 1:2:2 ratio) to one of three groups. In all three groups, peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin were administered for 4 weeks (the lead-in period). Subsequently, group 1 (control group) received placebo plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 44 weeks; group 2 received boceprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 32 weeks, and patients with a detectable HCV RNA level at week 8 received placebo plus peginterferon-ribavirin for an additional 12 weeks; and group 3 received boceprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 44 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 403 patients were treated. The rate of sustained virologic response was significantly higher in the two boceprevir groups (group 2, 59%; group 3, 66%) than in the control group (21%, P<0.001). Among patients with an undetectable HCV RNA level at week 8, the rate of sustained virologic response was 86% after 32 weeks of triple therapy and 88% after 44 weeks of triple therapy. Among the 102 patients with a decrease in the HCV RNA level of less than 1 log(10) IU per milliliter at treatment week 4, the rates of sustained virologic response were 0%, 33%, and 34% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Anemia was significantly more common in the boceprevir groups than in the control group, and erythropoietin was administered in 41 to 46% of boceprevir-treated patients and 21% of controls. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of boceprevir to peginterferon-ribavirin resulted in significantly higher rates of sustained virologic response in previously treated patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection, as compared with peginterferon-ribavirin alone. (Funded by Schering-Plough [now Merck]; HCV RESPOND-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00708500.).

BACKGROUND: Up to 60% of patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection do not have a sustained virologic response to therapy with peginterferon alfa plus ribavirin. METHODS: In this randomized, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the addition of telaprevir to peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection who had no response or a partial response to previous therapy or who had a relapse after an initial response. A total of 663 patients were assigned to one of three groups: the T12PR48 group, which received telaprevir for 12 weeks and peginterferon plus ribavirin for a total of 48 weeks; the lead-in T12PR48 group, which received 4 weeks of peginterferon plus ribavirin followed by 12 weeks of telaprevir and peginterferon plus ribavirin for a total of 48 weeks; and the control group (PR48), which received peginterferon plus ribavirin for 48 weeks. The primary end point was the rate of sustained virologic response, which was defined as undetectable HCV RNA 24 weeks after the last planned dose of a study drug. RESULTS: Rates of sustained virologic response were significantly higher in the two telaprevir groups than in the control group among patients who had a previous relapse (83% in the T12PR48 group, 88% in the lead-in T12PR48 group, and 24% in the PR48 group), a partial response (59%, 54%, and 15%, respectively), and no response (29%, 33%, and 5%, respectively) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Grade 3 adverse events (mainly anemia, neutropenia, and leukopenia) were more frequent in the telaprevir groups than in the control group (37% vs. 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Telaprevir combined with peginterferon plus ribavirin significantly improved rates of sustained virologic response in patients with previously treated HCV infection, regardless of whether there was a lead-in phase. (Funded by Tibotec and Vertex Pharmaceuticals; REALIZE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00703118.).

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a major cause of chronic liver disease. There is uncertainty around the economic burden of NAFLD. We constructed a steady-state prevalence model to quantify this burden in the United States and Europe. Five models were constructed to estimate the burden of NAFLD in the United States and four European countries. Models were built using a series of interlinked Markov chains, each representing age increments of the NAFLD and the general populations. Incidence and remission rates were calculated by calibrating against real-world prevalence rates. The data were validated using a computerized disease model called DisMod II. NAFLD patients transitioned between nine health states (nonalcoholic fatty liver, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis [NASH], NASH-fibrosis, NASH-compensated cirrhosis, NASH-decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, post-liver transplant, and death). Transition probabilities were sourced from the literature and calibrated against real-world data. Utilities were obtained from NAFLD patients using the Short Form-6D. Costs were sourced from the literature and local fee schedules. In the United States, over 64 million people are projected to have NAFLD, with annual direct medical costs of about $103 billion ($1,613 per patient). In the Europe-4 countries (Germany, France, Italy, and United Kingdom), there are ∼52 million people with NAFLD with an annual cost of about €35 billion (from €354 to €1,163 per patient). Costs are highest in patients aged 45-65. The burden is significantly higher when societal costs are included. CONCLUSION: The analysis quantifies the enormity of the clinical and economic burdens of NAFLD, which will likely increase as the incidence of NAFLD continues to rise. (Hepatology 2016;64:1577-1586).

BACKGROUND: Most recurrences in women with breast cancer receiving 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen occur after 5 years. The MA.17 trial, which was designed to determine whether extended adjuvant therapy with the aromatase inhibitor letrozole after tamoxifen reduces the risk of such late recurrences, was stopped early after an interim analysis showed that letrozole improved disease-free survival. This report presents updated findings from the trial. METHODS: Postmenopausal women completing 5 years of tamoxifen treatment were randomly assigned to a planned 5 years of letrozole (n = 2593) or placebo (n = 2594). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS); secondary endpoints included distant disease-free survival, overall survival, incidence of contralateral tumors, and toxic effects. Survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests. Planned subgroup analyses included those by axillary lymph node status. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 30 months (range = 1.5-61.4 months), women in the letrozole arm had statistically significantly better DFS and distant DFS than women in the placebo arm (DFS: hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence or contralateral breast cancer = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.45 to 0.76; P < .001; distant DFS: HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.43 to 0.84; P = .002). Overall survival was the same in both arms (HR for death from any cause = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.57 to 1.19; P = .3). However, among lymph node-positive patients, overall survival was statistically significantly improved with letrozole (HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.98; P = .04). The incidence of contralateral breast cancer was lower in women receiving letrozole, but the difference was not statistically significant. Women receiving letrozole experienced more hormonally related side effects than those receiving placebo, but the incidences of bone fractures and cardiovascular events were the same. CONCLUSION: Letrozole after tamoxifen is well-tolerated and improves both disease-free and distant disease-free survival but not overall survival, except in node-positive patients.