Virginia Commonwealth University

Studies of the human microbiome have revealed that even healthy individuals differ remarkably in the microbes that occupy habitats such as the gut, skin and vagina. Much of this diversity remains unexplained, although diet, environment, host genetics and early microbial exposure have all been implicated. Accordingly, to characterize the ecology of human-associated microbial communities, the Human Microbiome Project has analysed the largest cohort and set of distinct, clinically relevant body habitats so far. We found the diversity and abundance of each habitat’s signature microbes to vary widely even among healthy subjects, with strong niche specialization both within and among individuals. The project encountered an estimated 81–99% of the genera, enzyme families and community configurations occupied by the healthy Western microbiome. Metagenomic carriage of metabolic pathways was stable among individuals despite variation in community structure, and ethnic/racial background proved to be one of the strongest associations of both pathways and microbes with clinical metadata. These results thus delineate the range of structural and functional configurations normal in the microbial communities of a healthy population, enabling future characterization of the epidemiology, ecology and translational applications of the human microbiome. The Human Microbiome Project Consortium reports the first results of their analysis of microbial communities from distinct, clinically relevant body habitats in a human cohort; the insights into the microbial communities of a healthy population lay foundations for future exploration of the epidemiology, ecology and translational applications of the human microbiome. The Human Microbiome Project (HMP), supported by the National Institutes of Health Common Fund, has the goal of characterizing the microbial communities that inhabit and interact with the human body in sickness and in health. In two Articles in this issue of Nature, the HMP Consortium presents the first population-scale details of the organismal and functional composition of the microbiota across five areas of the body. An associated News & Views discusses the initial results — which, along with those of a series of co-publications, already constitute the most extensive catalogue of organisms and genes related to the human microbiome yet published — and highlights some of the major questions that the project will tackle in the next few years.

The semiconductor ZnO has gained substantial interest in the research community in part because of its large exciton binding energy (60meV) which could lead to lasing action based on exciton recombination even above room temperature. Even though research focusing on ZnO goes back many decades, the renewed interest is fueled by availability of high-quality substrates and reports of p-type conduction and ferromagnetic behavior when doped with transitions metals, both of which remain controversial. It is this renewed interest in ZnO which forms the basis of this review. As mentioned already, ZnO is not new to the semiconductor field, with studies of its lattice parameter dating back to 1935 by Bunn [Proc. Phys. Soc. London 47, 836 (1935)], studies of its vibrational properties with Raman scattering in 1966 by Damen et al. [Phys. Rev. 142, 570 (1966)], detailed optical studies in 1954 by Mollwo [Z. Angew. Phys. 6, 257 (1954)], and its growth by chemical-vapor transport in 1970 by Galli and Coker [Appl. Phys. Lett. 16, 439 (1970)]. In terms of devices, Au Schottky barriers in 1965 by Mead [Phys. Lett. 18, 218 (1965)], demonstration of light-emitting diodes (1967) by Drapak [Semiconductors 2, 624 (1968)], in which Cu2O was used as the p-type material, metal-insulator-semiconductor structures (1974) by Minami et al. [Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 13, 1475 (1974)], ZnO∕ZnSe n-p junctions (1975) by Tsurkan et al. [Semiconductors 6, 1183 (1975)], and Al∕Au Ohmic contacts by Brillson [J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 15, 1378 (1978)] were attained. The main obstacle to the development of ZnO has been the lack of reproducible and low-resistivity p-type ZnO, as recently discussed by Look and Claflin [Phys. Status Solidi B 241, 624 (2004)]. While ZnO already has many industrial applications owing to its piezoelectric properties and band gap in the near ultraviolet, its applications to optoelectronic devices has not yet materialized due chiefly to the lack of p-type epitaxial layers. Very high quality what used to be called whiskers and platelets, the nomenclature for which gave way to nanostructures of late, have been prepared early on and used to deduce much of the principal properties of this material, particularly in terms of optical processes. The suggestion of attainment of p-type conductivity in the last few years has rekindled the long-time, albeit dormant, fervor of exploiting this material for optoelectronic applications. The attraction can simply be attributed to the large exciton binding energy of 60meV of ZnO potentially paving the way for efficient room-temperature exciton-based emitters, and sharp transitions facilitating very low threshold semiconductor lasers. The field is also fueled by theoretical predictions and perhaps experimental confirmation of ferromagnetism at room temperature for potential spintronics applications. This review gives an in-depth discussion of the mechanical, chemical, electrical, and optical properties of ZnO in addition to the technological issues such as growth, defects, p-type doping, band-gap engineering, devices, and nanostructures.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is characterized by hepatic steatosis in the absence of a history of significant alcohol use or other known liver disease. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is the progressive form of NAFLD. The Pathology Committee of the NASH Clinical Research Network designed and validated a histological feature scoring system that addresses the full spectrum of lesions of NAFLD and proposed a NAFLD activity score (NAS) for use in clinical trials. The scoring system comprised 14 histological features, 4 of which were evaluated semi-quantitatively: steatosis (0-3), lobular inflammation (0-2), hepatocellular ballooning (0-2), and fibrosis (0-4). Another nine features were recorded as present or absent. An anonymized study set of 50 cases (32 from adult hepatology services, 18 from pediatric hepatology services) was assembled, coded, and circulated. For the validation study, agreement on scoring and a diagnostic categorization ("NASH," "borderline," or "not NASH") were evaluated by using weighted kappa statistics. Inter-rater agreement on adult cases was: 0.84 for fibrosis, 0.79 for steatosis, 0.56 for injury, and 0.45 for lobular inflammation. Agreement on diagnostic category was 0.61. Using multiple logistic regression, five features were independently associated with the diagnosis of NASH in adult biopsies: steatosis (P = .009), hepatocellular ballooning (P = .0001), lobular inflammation (P = .0001), fibrosis (P = .0001), and the absence of lipogranulomas (P = .001). The proposed NAS is the unweighted sum of steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocellular ballooning scores. In conclusion, we present a strong scoring system and NAS for NAFLD and NASH with reasonable inter-rater reproducibility that should be useful for studies of both adults and children with any degree of NAFLD. NAS of > or =5 correlated with a diagnosis of NASH, and biopsies with scores of less than 3 were diagnosed as "not NASH."

BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 provides an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence for risk factor exposure and the attributable burden of disease. By providing national and subnational assessments spanning the past 25 years, this study can inform debates on the importance of addressing risks in context. METHODS: We used the comparative risk assessment framework developed for previous iterations of the Global Burden of Disease Study to estimate attributable deaths, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and trends in exposure by age group, sex, year, and geography for 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks from 1990 to 2015. This study included 388 risk-outcome pairs that met World Cancer Research Fund-defined criteria for convincing or probable evidence. We extracted relative risk and exposure estimates from randomised controlled trials, cohorts, pooled cohorts, household surveys, census data, satellite data, and other sources. We used statistical models to pool data, adjust for bias, and incorporate covariates. We developed a metric that allows comparisons of exposure across risk factors-the summary exposure value. Using the counterfactual scenario of theoretical minimum risk level, we estimated the portion of deaths and DALYs that could be attributed to a given risk. We decomposed trends in attributable burden into contributions from population growth, population age structure, risk exposure, and risk-deleted cause-specific DALY rates. We characterised risk exposure in relation to a Socio-demographic Index (SDI). FINDINGS: Between 1990 and 2015, global exposure to unsafe sanitation, household air pollution, childhood underweight, childhood stunting, and smoking each decreased by more than 25%. Global exposure for several occupational risks, high body-mass index (BMI), and drug use increased by more than 25% over the same period. All risks jointly evaluated in 2015 accounted for 57·8% (95% CI 56·6-58·8) of global deaths and 41·2% (39·8-42·8) of DALYs. In 2015, the ten largest contributors to global DALYs among Level 3 risks were high systolic blood pressure (211·8 million [192·7 million to 231·1 million] global DALYs), smoking (148·6 million [134·2 million to 163·1 million]), high fasting plasma glucose (143·1 million [125·1 million to 163·5 million]), high BMI (120·1 million [83·8 million to 158·4 million]), childhood undernutrition (113·3 million [103·9 million to 123·4 million]), ambient particulate matter (103·1 million [90·8 million to 115·1 million]), high total cholesterol (88·7 million [74·6 million to 105·7 million]), household air pollution (85·6 million [66·7 million to 106·1 million]), alcohol use (85·0 million [77·2 million to 93·0 million]), and diets high in sodium (83·0 million [49·3 million to 127·5 million]). From 1990 to 2015, attributable DALYs declined for micronutrient deficiencies, childhood undernutrition, unsafe sanitation and water, and household air pollution; reductions in risk-deleted DALY rates rather than reductions in exposure drove these declines. Rising exposure contributed to notable increases in attributable DALYs from high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, occupational carcinogens, and drug use. Environmental risks and childhood undernutrition declined steadily with SDI; low physical activity, high BMI, and high fasting plasma glucose increased with SDI. In 119 countries, metabolic risks, such as high BMI and fasting plasma glucose, contributed the most attributable DALYs in 2015. Regionally, smoking still ranked among the leading five risk factors for attributable DALYs in 109 countries; childhood underweight and unsafe sex remained primary drivers of early death and disability in much of sub-Saharan Africa. INTERPRETATION: Declines in some key environmental risks have contributed to declines in critical infectious diseases. Some risks appear to be invariant to SDI. Increasing risks, including high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, drug use, and some occupational exposures, contribute to rising burden from some conditions, but also provide opportunities for intervention. Some highly preventable risks, such as smoking, remain major causes of attributable DALYs, even as exposure is declining. Public policy makers need to pay attention to the risks that are increasingly major contributors to global burden. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

INTRODUCTION: The SCARE Guidelines were first published in 2016 and were last updated in 2018. They provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports and are used and endorsed by authors, journal editors and reviewers, in order to increase robustness and transparency in reporting surgical cases. They must be kept up to date in order to drive forwards reporting quality. As such, we have updated these guidelines via a DELPHI consensus exercise. METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Members were invited from the previous DELPHI group, as well as editorial board members and peer reviewers of the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group completed an online survey to indicate their agreement with proposed changes to the checklist items. RESULTS: A total of 54 surgical experts agreed to participate and 53 (98%) completed the survey. The responses and suggested modifications were incorporated into the new 2020 guideline. There was a high degree of agreement amongst the SCARE Group, with all modified SCARE items receiving over 70% scores 7-9. CONCLUSION: A DELPHI consensus exercise was completed and an updated and improved SCARE Checklist is now presented.

Liver biopsy remains the gold standard in the assessment of severity of liver disease. Noninvasive tests have gained popularity to predict histology in view of the associated risks of biopsy. However, many models include tests not readily available, and there are limited data from patients with HIV/hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection. We aimed to develop a model using routine tests to predict liver fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. A retrospective analysis of liver histology was performed in 832 patients. Liver fibrosis was assessed via Ishak score; patients were categorized as 0-1, 2-3, or 4-6 and were randomly assigned to training (n = 555) or validation (n = 277) sets. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that platelet count (PLT), age, AST, and INR were significantly associated with fibrosis. Additional analysis revealed PLT, age, AST, and ALT as an alternative model. Based on this, a simple index (FIB-4) was developed: age ([yr] x AST [U/L]) / ((PLT [10(9)/L]) x (ALT [U/L])(1/2)). The AUROC of the index was 0.765 for differentiation between Ishak stage 0-3 and 4-6. At a cutoff of <1.45 in the validation set, the negative predictive value to exclude advanced fibrosis (stage 4-6) was 90% with a sensitivity of 70%. A cutoff of >3.25 had a positive predictive value of 65% and a specificity of 97%. Using these cutoffs, 87% of the 198 patients with FIB-4 values outside 1.45-3.25 would be correctly classified, and liver biopsy could be avoided in 71% of the validation group. In conclusion, noninvasive tests can accurately predict hepatic fibrosis and may reduce the need for liver biopsy in the majority of HIV/HCV-coinfected patients.

Characterization of the molecular function of the human genome and its variation across individuals is essential for identifying the cellular mechanisms that underlie human genetic traits and diseases. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project aims to characterize variation in gene expression levels across individuals and diverse tissues of the human body, many of which are not easily accessible. Here we describe genetic effects on gene expression levels across 44 human tissues. We find that local genetic variation affects gene expression levels for the majority of genes, and we further identify inter-chromosomal genetic effects for 93 genes and 112 loci. On the basis of the identified genetic effects, we characterize patterns of tissue specificity, compare local and distal effects, and evaluate the functional properties of the genetic effects. We also demonstrate that multi-tissue, multi-individual data can be used to identify genes and pathways affected by human disease-associated variation, enabling a mechanistic interpretation of gene regulation and the genetic basis of disease.

BACKGROUND: Improved blood-glucose control decreases the progression of diabetic microvascular disease, but the effect on macrovascular complications is unknown. There is concern that sulphonylureas may increase cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and that high insulin concentrations may enhance atheroma formation. We compared the effects of intensive blood-glucose control with either sulphonylurea or insulin and conventional treatment on the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: 3867 newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes, median age 54 years (IQR 48-60 years), who after 3 months' diet treatment had a mean of two fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations of 6.1-15.0 mmol/L were randomly assigned intensive policy with a sulphonylurea (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or glipizide) or with insulin, or conventional policy with diet. The aim in the intensive group was FPG less than 6 mmol/L. In the conventional group, the aim was the best achievable FPG with diet alone; drugs were added only if there were hyperglycaemic symptoms or FPG greater than 15 mmol/L. Three aggregate endpoints were used to assess differences between conventional and intensive treatment: any diabetes-related endpoint (sudden death, death from hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, stroke, renal failure, amputation [of at least one digit], vitreous haemorrhage, retinopathy requiring photocoagulation, blindness in one eye, or cataract extraction); diabetes-related death (death from myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, renal disease, hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia, and sudden death); all-cause mortality. Single clinical endpoints and surrogate subclinical endpoints were also assessed. All analyses were by intention to treat and frequency of hypoglycaemia was also analysed by actual therapy. FINDINGS: Over 10 years, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 7.0% (6.2-8.2) in the intensive group compared with 7.9% (6.9-8.8) in the conventional group--an 11% reduction. There was no difference in HbA1c among agents in the intensive group. Compared with the conventional group, the risk in the intensive group was 12% lower (95% CI 1-21, p=0.029) for any diabetes-related endpoint; 10% lower (-11 to 27, p=0.34) for any diabetes-related death; and 6% lower (-10 to 20, p=0.44) for all-cause mortality. Most of the risk reduction in the any diabetes-related aggregate endpoint was due to a 25% risk reduction (7-40, p=0.0099) in microvascular endpoints, including the need for retinal photocoagulation. There was no difference for any of the three aggregate endpoints between the three intensive agents (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or insulin). Patients in the intensive group had more hypoglycaemic episodes than those in the conventional group on both types of analysis (both p<0.0001). The rates of major hypoglycaemic episodes per year were 0.7% with conventional treatment, 1.0% with chlorpropamide, 1.4% with glibenclamide, and 1.8% with insulin. Weight gain was significantly higher in the intensive group (mean 2.9 kg) than in the conventional group (p<0.001), and patients assigned insulin had a greater gain in weight (4.0 kg) than those assigned chlorpropamide (2.6 kg) or glibenclamide (1.7 kg). INTERPRETATION: Intensive blood-glucose control by either sulphonylureas or insulin substantially decreases the risk of microvascular complications, but not macrovascular disease, in patients with type 2 diabetes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

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

OBJECTIVE: To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002. METHODS: The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. CONCLUSION: These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Sedative medications are widely used in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Structured assessment of sedation and agitation is useful to titrate sedative medications and to evaluate agitated behavior, yet existing sedation scales have limitations. We measured inter-rater reliability and validity of a new 10-level (+4 "combative" to -5 "unarousable") scale, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), in two phases. In phase 1, we demonstrated excellent (r = 0.956, lower 90% confidence limit = 0.948; kappa = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.71, 0.75) inter-rater reliability among five investigators (two physicians, two nurses, and one pharmacist) in adult ICU patient encounters (n = 192). Robust inter-rater reliability (r = 0.922-0.983) (kappa = 0.64-0.82) was demonstrated for patients from medical, surgical, cardiac surgery, coronary, and neuroscience ICUs, patients with and without mechanical ventilation, and patients with and without sedative medications. In validity testing, RASS correlated highly (r = 0.93) with a visual analog scale anchored by "combative" and "unresponsive," including all patient subgroups (r = 0.84-0.98). In the second phase, after implementation of RASS in our medical ICU, inter-rater reliability between a nurse educator and 27 RASS-trained bedside nurses in 101 patient encounters was high (r = 0.964, lower 90% confidence limit = 0.950; kappa = 0.80, 95% confidence interval = 0.69, 0.90) and very good for all subgroups (r = 0.773-0.970, kappa = 0.66-0.89). Correlations between RASS and the Ramsay sedation scale (r = -0.78) and the Sedation Agitation Scale (r = 0.78) confirmed validity. Our nurses described RASS as logical, easy to administer, and readily recalled. RASS has high reliability and validity in medical and surgical, ventilated and nonventilated, and sedated and nonsedated adult ICU patients.

Interest in mindfulness and its enhancement has burgeoned in recent years. In this article, we discuss in detail the nature of mindfulness and its relation to other, established theories of attention and awareness in day-to-day life. We then examine theory and evidence for the role of mindfulness in curtailing negative functioning and enhancing positive outcomes in several important life domains, including mental health, physical health, behavioral regulation, and interpersonal relationships. The processes through which mindfulness is theorized to have its beneficial effects are then discussed, along with proposed directions for theoretical development and empirical research.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize mortality in persons diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension and to investigate factors associated with survival. DESIGN: Registry with prospective follow-up. SETTING: Thirty-two clinical centers in the United States participating in the Patient Registry for the Characterization of Primary Pulmonary Hypertension supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. PATIENTS: Patients (194) diagnosed at clinical centers between 1 July 1981 and 31 December 1985 and followed through 8 August 1988. MEASUREMENTS: At diagnosis, measurements of hemodynamic variables, pulmonary function, and gas exchange variables were taken in addition to information on demographic variables, medical history, and life-style. Patients were followed for survival at 6-month intervals. MAIN RESULTS: The estimated median survival of these patients was 2.8 years (95% Cl, 1.9 to 3.7 years). Estimated single-year survival rates were as follows: at 1 year, 68% (Cl, 61% to 75%); at 3 years, 48% (Cl, 41% to 55%); and at 5 years, 34% (Cl, 24% to 44%). Variables associated with poor survival included a New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class of III or IV, presence of Raynaud phenomenon, elevated mean right atrial pressure, elevated mean pulmonary artery pressure, decreased cardiac index, and decreased diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO). Drug therapy at entry or discharge was not associated with survival duration. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was most closely associated with right ventricular hemodynamic function and can be characterized by means of an equation using three variables: mean pulmonary artery pressure, mean right atrial pressure, and cardiac index. Such an equation, once validated prospectively, could be used as an adjunct in planning treatment strategies and allocating medical resources.

OBJECTIVE: To provide practical strategies for conducting and evaluating analyses of qualitative data applicable for health services researchers. DATA SOURCES AND DESIGN: We draw on extant qualitative methodological literature to describe practical approaches to qualitative data analysis. Approaches to data analysis vary by discipline and analytic tradition; however, we focus on qualitative data analysis that has as a goal the generation of taxonomy, themes, and theory germane to health services research. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We describe an approach to qualitative data analysis that applies the principles of inductive reasoning while also employing predetermined code types to guide data analysis and interpretation. These code types (conceptual, relationship, perspective, participant characteristics, and setting codes) define a structure that is appropriate for generation of taxonomy, themes, and theory. Conceptual codes and subcodes facilitate the development of taxonomies. Relationship and perspective codes facilitate the development of themes and theory. Intersectional analyses with data coded for participant characteristics and setting codes can facilitate comparative analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative inquiry can improve the description and explanation of complex, real-world phenomena pertinent to health services research. Greater understanding of the processes of qualitative data analysis can be helpful for health services researchers as they use these methods themselves or collaborate with qualitative researchers from a wide range of disciplines.

Determining sample size requirements for structural equation modeling (SEM) is a challenge often faced by investigators, peer reviewers, and grant writers. Recent years have seen a large increase in SEMs in the behavioral science literature, but consideration of sample size requirements for applied SEMs often relies on outdated rules-of-thumb. This study used Monte Carlo data simulation techniques to evaluate sample size requirements for common applied SEMs. Across a series of simulations, we systematically varied key model properties, including number of indicators and factors, magnitude of factor loadings and path coefficients, and amount of missing data. We investigated how changes in these parameters affected sample size requirements with respect to statistical power, bias in the parameter estimates, and overall solution propriety. Results revealed a range of sample size requirements (i.e., from 30 to 460 cases), meaningful patterns of association between parameters and sample size, and highlight the limitations of commonly cited rules-of-thumb. The broad "lessons learned" for determining SEM sample size requirements are discussed.

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a meta-analysis of relevant data from primary studies of the genetic epidemiology of major depression. METHOD: The authors searched MEDLINE and the reference lists of previous review articles to identify relevant primary studies. On the basis of a review of family, adoption, and twin studies that met specific inclusion criteria, the authors derived quantitative summary statistics. RESULTS: Five family studies met the inclusion criteria. The odds ratios for proband (subjects with major depression or comparison subjects) versus first-degree relative status (affected or unaffected with major depression) were homogeneous across the five studies (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio=2.84, 95% CI=2.31-3.49). No adoption study met the inclusion criteria, but the results of two of the three reports were consistent with genetic influences on liability to major depression. Five twin studies met the inclusion criteria, and their statistical summation suggested that familial aggregation was due to additive genetic effects (point estimate of heritability of liability=37%, 95% CI=31%-42%), with a minimal contribution of environmental effects common to siblings (point estimate=0%, 95% CI=0%-5%), and substantial individual-specific environmental effects/measurement error (point estimate=63%, 95% CI=58%-67%). The literature suggests that recurrence best predicts the familial aggregation of major depression. CONCLUSIONS: Major depression is a familial disorder, and its familiality mostly or entirely results from genetic influences. Environmental influences specific to an individual are also etiologically significant. Major depression is a complex disorder that does not result from either genetic or environmental influences alone but rather from both. These findings are notably consistent across samples and methods and are likely to be generally applicable.

Importance: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a paradigm shift in perioperative care, resulting in substantial improvements in clinical outcomes and cost savings. Observations: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery is a multimodal, multidisciplinary approach to the care of the surgical patient. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery process implementation involves a team consisting of surgeons, anesthetists, an ERAS coordinator (often a nurse or a physician assistant), and staff from units that care for the surgical patient. The care protocol is based on published evidence. The ERAS Society, an international nonprofit professional society that promotes, develops, and implements ERAS programs, publishes updated guidelines for many operations, such as evidence-based modern care changes from overnight fasting to carbohydrate drinks 2 hours before surgery, minimally invasive approaches instead of large incisions, management of fluids to seek balance rather than large volumes of intravenous fluids, avoidance of or early removal of drains and tubes, early mobilization, and serving of drinks and food the day of the operation. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols have resulted in shorter length of hospital stay by 30% to 50% and similar reductions in complications, while readmissions and costs are reduced. The elements of the protocol reduce the stress of the operation to retain anabolic homeostasis. The ERAS Society conducts structured implementation programs that are currently in use in more than 20 countries. Local ERAS teams from hospitals are trained to implement ERAS processes. Audit of process compliance and patient outcomes are important features. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery started mainly with colorectal surgery but has been shown to improve outcomes in almost all major surgical specialties. Conclusions and Relevance: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery is an evidence-based care improvement process for surgical patients. Implementation of ERAS programs results in major improvements in clinical outcomes and cost, making ERAS an important example of value-based care applied to surgery.

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is a common liver disease that can progress to cirrhosis. Currently, there is no established treatment for this disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 247 adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and without diabetes to receive pioglitazone at a dose of 30 mg daily (80 subjects), vitamin E at a dose of 800 IU daily (84 subjects), or placebo (83 subjects), for 96 weeks. The primary outcome was an improvement in histologic features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, as assessed with the use of a composite of standardized scores for steatosis, lobular inflammation, hepatocellular ballooning, and fibrosis. Given the two planned primary comparisons, P values of less than 0.025 were considered to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Vitamin E therapy, as compared with placebo, was associated with a significantly higher rate of improvement in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (43% vs. 19%, P=0.001), but the difference in the rate of improvement with pioglitazone as compared with placebo was not significant (34% and 19%, respectively; P=0.04). Serum alanine and aspartate aminotransferase levels were reduced with vitamin E and with pioglitazone, as compared with placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons), and both agents were associated with reductions in hepatic steatosis (P=0.005 for vitamin E and P<0.001 for pioglitazone) and lobular inflammation (P=0.02 for vitamin E and P=0.004 for pioglitazone) but not with improvement in fibrosis scores (P=0.24 for vitamin E and P=0.12 for pioglitazone). Subjects who received pioglitazone gained more weight than did those who received vitamin E or placebo; the rates of other side effects were similar among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin E was superior to placebo for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in adults without diabetes. There was no benefit of pioglitazone over placebo for the primary outcome; however, significant benefits of pioglitazone were observed for some of the secondary outcomes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00063622.)