Recent advances in NAFLD: current areas of contention.

Faculty reviews Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.12703/r/12-10
Erica Jennison, Christopher D Byrne
{"title":"Recent advances in NAFLD: current areas of contention.","authors":"Erica Jennison,&nbsp;Christopher D Byrne","doi":"10.12703/r/12-10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This brief review focuses on two contentious issues within the field of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); the first is the recent effort to redefine NAFLD as metabolic (dysfunction)-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD). The modification of \"NAFLD\" to \"MAFLD\" is expected to highlight the role of metabolic factors in the disease aetiology, which is hoped to improve patient understanding of the disease, facilitate patient-physician communication and highlight the importance of public health interventions in prevention and management. The diagnostic criteria for MAFLD allow it to coexist with other forms of liver disease, which recognises that metabolic dysfunction contributes towards disease progression in other liver pathologies, such as alcoholic liver disease. However, there remain concerns that renaming NAFLD may be premature without fully considering the broader implications, from diagnostic criteria to trial endpoints; therefore, the new definition has not yet been accepted by major societies. Another contentious issue within the field is the gap in our understanding of how patients undergoing therapeutic interventions should be monitored to assess amelioration/attenuation or the worsening of their liver disease. Biomarker scoring systems (such as the ELF test and FIB-4 test) and imaging techniques (such as transient elastography [TE] and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] techniques) are proven to be reasonably accurate, and comparable with histology, in the diagnosis of NAFLD and evaluation of disease severity; however, their use in monitoring the response of disease to therapeutic interventions is not well established. Whilst biomarker scoring systems and TE are limited by poor diagnostic accuracy in detecting moderate fibrosis (e.g. F2 liver fibrosis defined by histology), more accurate MRI techniques are not practical for routine patient follow-up due to their expense and limited availability. More work is required to determine the most appropriate method by which therapeutic interventions for NAFLD should be monitored in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":73016,"journal":{"name":"Faculty reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10155199/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Faculty reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12703/r/12-10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This brief review focuses on two contentious issues within the field of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); the first is the recent effort to redefine NAFLD as metabolic (dysfunction)-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD). The modification of "NAFLD" to "MAFLD" is expected to highlight the role of metabolic factors in the disease aetiology, which is hoped to improve patient understanding of the disease, facilitate patient-physician communication and highlight the importance of public health interventions in prevention and management. The diagnostic criteria for MAFLD allow it to coexist with other forms of liver disease, which recognises that metabolic dysfunction contributes towards disease progression in other liver pathologies, such as alcoholic liver disease. However, there remain concerns that renaming NAFLD may be premature without fully considering the broader implications, from diagnostic criteria to trial endpoints; therefore, the new definition has not yet been accepted by major societies. Another contentious issue within the field is the gap in our understanding of how patients undergoing therapeutic interventions should be monitored to assess amelioration/attenuation or the worsening of their liver disease. Biomarker scoring systems (such as the ELF test and FIB-4 test) and imaging techniques (such as transient elastography [TE] and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] techniques) are proven to be reasonably accurate, and comparable with histology, in the diagnosis of NAFLD and evaluation of disease severity; however, their use in monitoring the response of disease to therapeutic interventions is not well established. Whilst biomarker scoring systems and TE are limited by poor diagnostic accuracy in detecting moderate fibrosis (e.g. F2 liver fibrosis defined by histology), more accurate MRI techniques are not practical for routine patient follow-up due to their expense and limited availability. More work is required to determine the most appropriate method by which therapeutic interventions for NAFLD should be monitored in clinical practice.

Abstract Image

NAFLD的最新进展:当前争论的领域。
本文简要回顾了非酒精性脂肪性肝病(NAFLD)领域的两个有争议的问题;首先是最近将NAFLD重新定义为代谢(功能障碍)相关脂肪性肝病(MAFLD)。将“NAFLD”修改为“MAFLD”有望突出代谢因素在疾病病因学中的作用,从而希望提高患者对疾病的了解,促进医患沟通,并突出公共卫生干预在预防和管理中的重要性。MAFLD的诊断标准允许其与其他形式的肝脏疾病共存,这承认代谢功能障碍有助于其他肝脏病理(如酒精性肝病)的疾病进展。然而,人们仍然担心,在没有充分考虑从诊断标准到试验终点的更广泛影响的情况下,重命名NAFLD可能为时过早;因此,新的定义尚未被主要社会所接受。该领域另一个有争议的问题是,我们对如何监测接受治疗干预的患者以评估其肝病的改善/衰减或恶化的理解存在差距。生物标志物评分系统(如ELF测试和FIB-4测试)和成像技术(如瞬态弹性成像[TE]和磁共振成像[MRI]技术)被证明在NAFLD的诊断和疾病严重程度评估方面相当准确,并且与组织学相当;然而,它们在监测疾病对治疗干预的反应方面的用途尚未得到很好的确定。虽然生物标志物评分系统和TE在检测中度纤维化(例如由组织学定义的F2肝纤维化)方面的诊断准确性较差,但由于费用和可用性有限,更准确的MRI技术对于常规患者随访并不实用。需要做更多的工作来确定在临床实践中监测NAFLD治疗干预措施的最合适方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信