Back to Search Start Over

A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature

Authors :
Mary E. Rinella
Jeffrey V. Lazarus
Vlad Ratziu
Sven M. Francque
Arun J. Sanyal
Fasiha Kanwal
Diana Romero
Manal F. Abdelmalek
Quentin M. Anstee
Juan Pablo Arab
Marco Arrese
Ramon Bataller
Ulrich Beuers
Jerome Boursier
Elisabetta Bugianesi
Christopher D. Byrne
Graciela E. Castro Narro
Abhijit Chowdhury
Helena Cortez-Pinto
Donna R. Cryer
Kenneth Cusi
Mohamed El-Kassas
Samuel Klein
Wayne Eskridge
Jiangao Fan
Samer Gawrieh
Cynthia D. Guy
Stephen A. Harrison
Seung Up Kim
Bart G. Koot
Marko Korenjak
Kris V. Kowdley
Florence Lacaille
Rohit Loomba
Robert Mitchell-Thain
Timothy R. Morgan
Elisabeth E. Powell
Michael Roden
Manuel Romero-Gómez
Marcelo Silva
Shivaram Prasad Singh
Silvia C. Sookoian
C. Wendy Spearman
Dina Tiniakos
Luca Valenti
Miriam B. Vos
Vincent Wai-Sun Wong
Stavra Xanthakos
Yusuf Yilmaz
Zobair Younossi
Ansley Hobbs
Marcela Villota-Rivas
Philip N. Newsome
Source :
Annals of Hepatology, Vol 29, Iss 1, Pp 101133- (2024)
Publication Year :
2024
Publisher :
Elsevier, 2024.

Abstract

The principal limitations of the terms NAFLD and NASH are the reliance on exclusionary confounder terms and the use of potentially stigmatising language. This study set out to determine if content experts and patient advocates were in favor of a change in nomenclature and/or definition. A modified Delphi process was led by three large pan-national liver associations. The consensus was defined a priori as a supermajority (67%) vote. An independent committee of experts external to the nomenclature process made the final recommendation on the acronym and its diagnostic criteria. A total of 236 panelists from 56 countries participated in 4 online surveys and 2 hybrid meetings. Response rates across the 4 survey rounds were 87%, 83%, 83%, and 78%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change. The terms “nonalcoholic” and “fatty” were felt to be stigmatising by 61% and 66% of respondents, respectively. Steatotic liver disease was chosen as an overarching term to encompass the various aetiologies of steatosis. The term steatohepatitis was felt to be an important pathophysiological concept that should be retained. The name chosen to replace NAFLD was metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. There was consensus to change the definition to include the presence of at least 1 of 5 cardiometabolic risk factors. Those with no metabolic parameters and no known cause were deemed to have cryptogenic steatotic liver disease. A new category, outside pure metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, termed metabolic and alcohol related/associated liver disease (MetALD), was selected to describe those with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140–350 g/wk and 210–420 g/wk for females and males, respectively). The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported and nonstigmatising, and can improve awareness and patient identification.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
16652681
Volume :
29
Issue :
1
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
Annals of Hepatology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.f02c612b79da4aaa8837228f72393227
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aohep.2023.101133