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., (© 2020 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Objective: The prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis is often underestimated in healthcare and administrative databases that define disease burden using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. This retrospective audit was conducted to explore the accuracy and limitations of the ICD, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) to detect NAFLD, metabolic risk factors (obesity and diabetes) and other aetiologies of chronic liver disease., Design/method: ICD-10-AM codes in 308 admitted patient encounters at two major Australian tertiary hospitals were compared with data abstracted from patients' electronic medical records. Accuracy of individual codes and grouped combinations was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ)., Results: The presence of an ICD-10-AM code accurately predicted the presence of NAFLD/NASH (PPV 91.2%) and obesity (PPV 91.6%) in most instances. However, codes underestimated the prevalence of NAFLD/NASH and obesity by 42.9% and 45.3%, respectively. Overall concordance between clinical documentation and 'grouped alcohol' codes (κ 0.75) and hepatitis C codes (κ 0.88) was high. Hepatitis B codes detected false-positive cases in patients with previous exposure (PPV 55.6%). Accuracy of codes to detect diabetes was excellent (sensitivity 95.8%; specificity 97.6%; PPV 94.9%; NPV 98.1%) with almost perfect concordance between codes and documentation in medical records (κ 0.93)., Conclusion: Recognition of the utility and limitations of ICD-10-AM codes to study the burden of NAFLD/NASH cirrhosis is imperative to inform public health strategies and appropriate investment of resources to manage this burgeoning chronic disease., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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.

Background: In Australia, the overall prevalence of liver disease is increasing. Maximising uptake of community screening programmes by understanding patient preferences is integral to developing consumer-centred care models for liver disease. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to elicit preferences for various healthcare services. Attribute development is a vital component of a well-designed DCE and should be described in sufficient detail for others to assess the validity of outcomes. Hence, this study aimed to create a list of potential attributes and levels which can be used in a DCE study to elicit preferences for chronic liver disease screening programmes. Methods: Key attributes were developed through a multi-stage, mixed methods design. Focus groups were held with consumers and health care providers on attributes of community screening programmes for liver disease. Stakeholders then prioritised attributes generated from the focus group in order of importance via an online prioritisation survey. The outcomes of the prioritisation exercise were then reviewed and refined by an expert panel to ensure clinically meaningful levels and relevance for a DCE survey. Results: Fifteen attributes were generated during the focus group sessions deemed necessary to design liver disease screening services. Outcomes of the prioritisation exercise and expert panel stages recognised five attributes, with three levels each, for inclusion in a DCE survey to elicit consumer preferences for community screening for liver disease. This study also highlights broader social issues such as the stigma around liver disease that require careful consideration by policy makers when designing or implementing a liver screening programme. Conclusions: The attributes and levels identified will inform future DCE surveys to understand consumer preferences for community screening programmes for liver disease. In addition, the outcomes will help inform the implementation of the LOCATE-NAFLD programme in real-world practice, and could be relevant for other liver and non-liver related chronic disease screening programmes. [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]