Browsing by Author "Younossi, Zobair"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2023) Rinella, Mary E.; Lazarus, Jeffrey V.; Ratziu, Vlad; Francque, Sven M.; Sanyal, Arun J.; Kanwal, Fasiha; Romero, Diana; Abdelmalek, Manal F.; Anstee, Quentin M.; Arab, Juan Pablo; Arrese, Marco; Bataller, Ramon; Beuers, Ulrich; Boursier, Jerome; Bugianesi, Elisabetta; Byrne, Christopher D.; Castro Narro, Graciela E.; Chowdhury, Abhijit; Cortez-Pinto, Helena; Cryer, Donna R.; Cusi, Kenneth; El-Kassas, Mohamed; Klein, Samuel; Eskridge, Wayne; Fan, Jiangao; Gawrieh, Samer; Guy, Cynthia D.; Harrison, Stephen A.; Kim, Seung Up; Koot, Bart G.; Korenjak, Marko; Kowdley, Kris V.; Lacaille, Florence; Loomba, Rohit; Mitchell-Thain, Robert; Morgan, Timothy R.; Powell, Elisabeth E.; Roden, Michael; Romero-Gómez, Manuel; Silva, Marcelo; Singh, Shivaram Prasad; Sookoian, Silvia C.; Spearman, C. Wendy; Tiniakos, Dina; Valenti, Luca; Vos, Miriam B.; Wong, Vincent Wai-Sun; Xanthakos, Stavra; Yilmaz, Yusuf; Younossi, Zobair; Hobbs, Ansley; Villota-Rivas, Marcela; Newsome, Philip N.; NAFLD Nomenclature consensus group; Medicine, School of Medicine
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Diagnosis and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Practice Guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
    (Wiley, 2017) Chalasani, Naga; Younossi, Zobair; Lavine, Joel E.; Charlton, Michael; Cusi, Kenneth; Rinella, Mary; Harrison, Stephen A.; Brunt, Elizabeth M.; Sanyal, Arun J.; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine
    This guidance provides a data-supported approach to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of 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 (GRADE) 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.