Search

Background: The rate of hospital admissions for cirrhosis increased 1.3‐fold during 2008–2016 in Queensland. Alcohol misuse was a contributing factor for cirrhosis in 55% of admissions and 40% of patients had at least one comorbidity. Aims: To examine the temporal change in aetiology of liver disease and presence of comorbidity in patients admitted with cirrhosis. Methods: Population‐based retrospective cohort study of all people treated in hospital for cirrhosis (10 254 patients) in Queensland during 2008–2016. Data were sourced from Queensland Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection. Results: The commonest aetiology was alcohol (49.5%), followed by cryptogenic (unspecified cirrhosis; 28.5%), hepatitis C virus (19.3%), non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/non‐alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) (4.8%) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) (4.3%). The prevalence of alcohol‐related (P = 0.41) and hepatitis C virus (P = 0.08) remained stable between 2008–2010 and 2014–2016, that of NAFLD/NASH, cryptogenic and HBV‐cirrhosis increased by 67% (P < 0.00001), 27% (P < 0.00001) and 20% (P = 0.00019), respectively; 41.1% of patients had at least one comorbidity. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes nearly doubled (from 13.7% to 25.4%; P < 0.00001) between 2008–2010 and 2014–2016. Conclusions: Alcohol misuse was the most important aetiology. The importance of NAFLD/NASH, cryptogenic and HBV‐cirrhosis and the burden of comorbidity increased during 2008–2016. Ongoing alcohol misuse and the increasing prevalence of NAFLD/NASH, cryptogenic cirrhosis and comorbid type 2 diabetes among admissions for cirrhosis has implications for public health interventions to reduce the burden of unhealthy lifestyle and metabolic disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common type of chronic liver disease in Australia and its recent increase mirrors the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemics. Currently, many patients who present to primary care with abnormal liver function tests or steatosis on liver ultrasound are referred for assessment in secondary care. Due to the large number of patients with NAFLD, this results in long waits for clinical and fibrosis assessment, placing unnecessary burden on the public hospital system.Methods: We will conduct a 1:1 parallel randomised trial to compare two alternative models of care for NAFLD. Participants will be randomised to usual care or the LOCal Assessment and Triage Evaluation (LOCATE) model of care and followed for 1 year. We will recruit patients from the non-neighbouring Sunshine Coast and Metro South Hospital and Health Services (HHSs) in Queensland, Australia. Our primary outcome of interest is time to diagnosis of high-risk NAFLD, based on the number of participants in each arm of the study who receive a diagnosis of clinically significant fibrosis. Two hundred and 34 participants will give us a 95% power to detect a 50% reduction in the primary outcome of time to diagnosis of high-risk disease. We will also conduct an economic evaluation, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the new model of care. We will also evaluate the implementation of the new model of care.Discussion: It is anticipated that the results of this study will provide valuable new information regarding the management of NAFLD in the Australian setting. A relatively simple change to care could result in earlier identification of patients with significant liver disease and lower overall costs for the health system. Results will be directly disseminated to key staff for further distribution to consumers, policy- and decision-makers in the form of evidence briefs, plain language summaries and policy recommendations.Trial Registration: The trial was registered on 30 January, 2020 and can be found via ANZCTR - number ACTRN12620000158965. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common cause of incidental liver test abnormalities. General practitioners (GP) have a key role in identifying people with NAFLD at risk of significant liver disease. Recent specialist guidelines emphasise the use of fibrosis algorithms or serum biomarkers rather than routine liver tests, to assess advanced fibrosis. Aim: To evaluate primary care clinicians’ current approach to diagnosis, management and referral of NAFLD. Methods: A cross‐sectional survey of primary care clinicians was undertaken through a structured questionnaire about NAFLD. A convenience sample of general practice clinics and general practice conferences in Metropolitan Brisbane and regional south east Queensland was selected. Results: A total of 108 primary care clinicians completed the survey (participation rate 100%). Fifty‐one percent of respondents considered the prevalence of NAFLD in the general population to be ≤10%. Twenty‐four percent of respondents felt that liver enzymes were sufficiently sensitive to detect underlying NAFLD. Most respondents were unsure whether the Fibrosis 4 score (62.7% unsure) or Enhanced Liver Fibrosis score (63.7% unsure) could help to identify advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. Although 47% of respondents said they would refer a patient to a Gastroenterologist/Hepatologist if they suspect the patient has NAFLD, 44.1% do not make any referrals. Of concern, 70.6% of clinicians said they were unlikely to refer a patient to Hepatology unless liver function tests are abnormal. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that many primary care clinicians underestimate the prevalence of NAFLD and under‐recognise the clinical spectrum of NAFLD and how this is assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]