Comorbidities and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: The Chicken, the Egg, or Both?

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/14/2019 - 10:43
Improvement in NAFLD may lead to improvement of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and malignancy and vice versa.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NALFD) is now the most common chronic liver disease in the developed world and affects about 25% to 30% of adults in the US and 30% of veterans who receive care in the VHA system (Figure 1). 

Comprised of a spectrum of disease severity, NAFLD ranges from simple steatosis to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ([NASH] steatosis with hepatocyte inflammation, necrosis, and fibrosis). Patients with NALFD have significantly increased mortality because of both hepatic (such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) and extrahepatic complications (such as metabolic syndrome [MetS], cardiovascular disease [CVD], and malignancy). In this article, we will focus on the extrahepatic manifestations of NAFLD and its impact on diagnosis and management.

Related: 

NAFLD is significantly associated with the presence of MetS, so much so that it has been considered the hepatic manifestation of MetS. NAFLD also is strongly associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), CVD, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) (Figure 2). 

Although these associations may result from shared risk factors, strong evidence suggests that for some of the factors at least, there is bidirectional influence on the natural history of the other comorbid conditions (Table). 
This means that the management of NAFLD can help improve the management of comorbidities and vice versa. This is important, as the primary cause of mortality in patients with NAFLD, particularly in those without advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis, is related to CVD and extrahepatic malignancy and not from liver disease.

Obesity/Visceral Adiposity

Obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 30) prevalence in the US has almost doubled over the past 30 years and continues to climb.1 Obesity affects 41% of veterans in the Veterans Health Administration and is the most common risk factor for NAFLD.2 NAFLD is 4 times more prevalent in obese patients, thus, it is not surprising that 80% to 90% of patients evaluated in bariatric centers have NAFLD, reported in 2 large series.3,4 Increased BMI and waist circumference predict the presence of NASH and advanced fibrosis.5

While obesity is a hallmark for NAFLD, particularly in the US, it is important to note that up to 20% of Americans with normal BMI have NAFLD, based on findings of steatosis on ultrasound.6 These patients with lean NAFLD are often underdiagnosed. In addition to the patient’s BMI, it is important to recognize that in NAFLD, the distribution and type of fat deposition is more important than just BMI. Visceral fat refers to fat accumulation within the abdominal cavity and is key to the pathogenesis of NAFLD. Visceral fat, compared with subcutaneous fat, is metabolically active and can deliver an overabundance of free fatty acids to the liver as well as secrete proinflammatory mediators in the setting of insulin resistance. Visceral fat stores can predict increased hepatic fat content, inflammation, and fibrosis.5 Thus, it is important to recognize that those patients with relatively more visceral fat are more prone to NAFLD. The best clinical indicator of visceral adiposity is abdominal obesity, indicated by waist circumference > 40 inches in men and > 35 inches in women.

 

 

Metabolic Syndrome

Hepatic fat deposition can be associated with or precede MetS. MetS is defined as having at least 3 of the following characteristics: abdominal obesity, elevated triglycerides (TGs) (≥ 150 mg/dL), reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (< 40 mg/dL in men or < 50 mg/dL in women), elevated blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 85 mm Hg), or elevated fasting glucose (≥ 110 mg/dL). Population studies have found that 50% of patients with MetS have NAFLD, and liver fat content is strongly correlated with the number of MetS features present in an individual.5,7 In addition to this association, NAFLD also promotes the development of MetS. Increased energy intake relative to energy expenditure will facilitate ectopic fat accumulation in the liver, which then increases hepatic gluconeogenesis and drives the pathogenesis of insulin resistance.8 Therefore, the presence of NAFLD is both a marker and a promotor of insulin resistance and its complications.

Related: 

 

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

At 70% to 75%, the prevalence of NAFLD in patients with T2DM is more than twice as high as that in the general US adult population. Conversely, about 23% of patients with NAFLD also have T2DM.9

Influence of NAFLD on T2DM

Patients with ultrasound-based evidence of NAFLD are 2 to 5 times more likely to develop T2DM after adjusting for lifestyle and metabolic risk factors in multiple epidemiologic studies.10,11 The severity of hepaticfat content measured by ultrasound also is associated with an increasing risk of T2DM incidence over the next 5 years (normal,7%; mild, 9.8%; moderate-severe, 17.8%; P < .001).12 In another study, 58% of patientswith biopsy-proven NAFLD developed T2DM after a mean follow-up of 13.7 years.13 Those who were found to have NASH had a 3-fold higher risk of developing T2DM than did those with simple steatosis. This finding was confirmed in another study where T2DM incidence was 2 times higher in patients predicted to have advanced fibrosis compared with those who did not.14

Because liver steatosis interferes with insulin-induced glycogen production and suppression of gluconeogenesis, hepatic fat content predicts the insulin dose required for adequate glucose control in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and NAFLD.15 Higher levels of insulin are required in patients with DM and NAFLD compared with those without NAFLD.5 

Furthermore, patients with DM and NAFLD have increased complications, including both retinopathy and CKD.5 It is thus not surprising that a population-based study of more than 330 patients with T2DM found that the presence of NAFLD was associated with a 2-fold increase in all-cause mortality over a mean follow-up period of 11 years.16

Additionally, a 10-year cohort study found that resolution of ultrasound-based NAFLD in patients without baseline T2DM, was associated with a reduced T2DM incidence (multivariate odds ratio [OR] 0.27, 95% CI, 0.12-0.61) after controlling for factors such as age, BMI, and impaired fasting glucose.11,17

Given this close relationship between T2DM and NAFLD, both the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and European Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (EASL) guidelines recommend that patients found to have NAFLD should be screened for the presence of impaired fasting glucose/T2DM by testing hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels.18,19 Recognizing the role that NAFLD can play in patients with DM also is important, as improving hepatic steatosis may also improve DM.

 

 

Influence of DM on NAFLD

Patients with T2DM and NAFLD are at increased risk of progressive liver disease and have increased rates of NASH, cirrhosis, and HCC. In a paired-biopsy study, the development of T2DM was the strongest predictor of progression of NASH and hepatic fibrosis.20 This fibrosis progression can easily go undetected, as NASH can be present even with normal aminotransferases. This increased risk of fibrosis progression in the setting of comorbid T2DM is clinically important, as it is the severity of fibrosis that predicts all-cause and liver-related mortality in patients with NAFLD/NASH.21,22 In fact, the prevalence of biopsy-proven NASH in overweight/obese patients with DM with normal liver aminotransferases (defined as aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase < 40 U/L) was found to be 58%.23 Because chronic liver disease, including NAFLD, is underrecognized in the “healthy population” used to establish normal aminotransferase levels, more recent AASLD and ACG guidelines now define normal aminotransferase levels as < 35 U/L for males and < 25 U/L for females.24 These stricter cutoffs are based on populations with normal BMI and negative testing for chronic liver diseases.24 The lower cutoffs may improve recognition of progressive liver disease in NAFLD and NASH patients.

Medications used in the treatment of T2DM, such as metformin, pioglitazone, and liraglutide, have been studied in patients with biopsy-proven NASH. The initial data showing histologic improvement in NAFLD patients taking metformin was more likely related to the associated weight loss in the treatment group. In a study by Loomba and colleagues the improvement in the NAFLD activity score was only seen in patients who lost ≥ 5% of their total body weight.25 Pioglitazone is a PPAR-γ agonist that helps regulate glucose and lipid metabolism as well as inflammation. Pioglitazone helps adipose tissue, hepatocytes, and muscle cells restore insulin sensitivity. A recent trial in 100 patients with prediabetes or T2DM as well as NASH showed that 36 weeks of pioglitazone treatment was associated with significant improvements in steatosis, inflammation, and most important, in stage of fibrosis compared with that of placebo.26

Related: 

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as liraglutide, have effects on lipid and glucose metabolism as well. They can lower glucose levels by increasing insulin secretion, reducing glucagon concentration, suppressing appetite (resulting in weight loss), and increasing sensitivity to insulin in hepatocytes and adipocytes. Liraglutide has been studied in patients with NASH both with and without DM, and results of the largest study to date show that it is associated with significant improvement in hepatic inflammation compared with that of placebo.27 Additional phase 3 clinical trials are currently underway.

Current AASLD guidelines do not recommend routine screening for NAFLD, even among high-risk patients, such as patients with DM.18 This is due to the widespread prevalence of NAFLD, the unclear utility of diagnostic tests, and limited efficacy of available treatment. Lifestyle modification to achieve weight loss remains the backbone of management, and rates of successful adherence are low.28 Contrary to this, EASL guidelines state that NAFLD screening with ultrasound even in patients with normal liver enzymes should be performed in high-risk patients with T2DM.19

Once detected, T2DM should be diligently treated in patients with NAFLD, and pioglitazone may be considered in patients with biopsy-proven NASH per AASLD guidelines.18 Pioglitazone has been studied in patients with biopsy-proven NASH both with and without DM and has been associated with significant resolution of NASH, as well as improvement in histologic changes of NASH and improvement in fibrosis.29,30 Because of potential medication AEs, including a mean weight gain of 2.5 kg to 4.7 kg in trials of 12- to 36-months’ duration, as well as potential bone loss in women, discussions about the risks and benefits of treatment should occur prior to treatment initiation.18 Additionally, pioglitazone is not safe in the setting of left ventricular heart failure. Future studies may point to the utility of other DM medications, such as GLP-receptor agonists.

 

 

Cardiovascular Disease

Given the association between features of MetS and NAFLD, it is not surprising that the primary cause of death in patients with NAFLD is related to CVD.21,22,31 However, it is increasingly recognized that NAFLD predicts CVD independently of the traditional risk factors associated with MetS. The increase in cardiovascular risk in the setting of NAFLD can be partly explained by the increased hepatic de novo lipogenesis that is associated with increased production of highly atherogenic small dense low-density lipoproteins (sd-LDL) independent of BMI and presence of insulin resistance.32 Additionally, increased intracellular free fatty acids can activate proinflammatory cytokine production by hepatocytes in addition to the increase in systemic inflammatory mediators and oxidative stress associated with NASH.

A recent meta-analysis of 27 studies confirmed the association between NAFLD and many subclinical features of CVD, including increases in coronary-artery calcium score, carotid artery intimal media thickness, and arterial wall stiffness, as well as impaired flow-mediated vasodilation after controlling for classic CVD risk factors.33 The risk of subclinical carotid and coronary atherosclerosis progression was higher in NAFLD patients with evidence of advanced fibrosis using noninvasive measures. Additionally, NAFLD was associated with increased severity of coronary artery disease in > 600 patients undergoing cardiac angiograms.34 Conversely, the regression of NAFLD on ultrasound was associated with a decreased risk of carotid atherosclerosis progression.35

Multiple epidemiologic studies have found an increased incidence of clinically overt CVD in patients with NAFLD after controlling for confounders. The largest updated meta-analysis, which included more than 34,000 patients with 2,600 CVD outcomes over a median of 6.9 years found that the presence of NAFLD (based on imaging or biopsy) was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.64 (95% CI, 1.26-2.13) for fatal and nonfatal incident CVD.36 In the same meta-analysis, patients with NASH, with or without fibrosis, were at an even higher risk, with an OR of 2.58 (95% CI, 1.78-3.75).

Initial studies of statin medications for the treatment of NASH using surrogate endpoints like improvement in aminotransferases or imaging, suggested a potential liver-related benefit. However, there was no histologic improvement in the single study comparing 12 months of simvastatin therapy with placebo in patients with NASH.37 Although it is unclear whether statin use will directly improve NAFLD, there is no evidence to suggest that statin use should be avoided in patients with elevated CVD risk.38 Treatment with atorvastatin has been shown to be associated with a greater reduction in cardiovascular events in patients with NAFLD compared with that of patients without NAFLD.39

The strong association between CVD and NAFLD has important clinical implications that may influence the decision to initiate treatment for primary prevention, including lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, or antiplatelet therapies. The clinical algorithms currently used to help risk stratify patients and determine appropriate preventative strategies, the Framingham risk equation or the systemic coronary risk evaluation, do not incorporate NAFLD as a potential risk factor for CVD. Additional studies are needed to determine whether adding NAFLD to the assessment will improve the predictive accuracy of future CVD events. Nevertheless, European clinical guidelines recommend performing a CVD risk assessment for patients with NAFLD.19

 

 

Chronic Kidney Disease

The prevalence of CKD, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 60 mL/min/1.72 m2, abnormal albuminuria, or proteinuria, is significantly increased in patients with NAFLD. Several epidemiologic studies have shown the prevalence of CKD in NAFLD patients ranges from 20% to 55% compared with 5% to 30% among patients without NAFLD.40 Overall, patients with NAFLD have a 2-fold increased risk of prevalent (OR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.69-2.66) or incident (hazard ratio 1.79; 95% CI, 1.65-1.95) CKD, even after adjusting for T2DM, visceral fat, and insulin resistance.40 There is an additional 2-fold increase in CKD risk in patients with NASH and advanced fibrosis compared with those with NASH and mild/no fibrosis. Additionally, advancing NASH fibrosis stage is independently associated with worsening stage of CKD.41

Data regarding the exact mechanism of kidney pathology in the setting of NAFLD is lacking. The accelerated atherogenesis in NAFLD likely contributes to renal damage. Another potential mechanism to explain the association between NASH and CKD involves the increased activation of the angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) seen in NASH, which leads to increased hepatic fibrogenesis as well as kidney damage.42

Similar to the previously listed comorbidities, there is evidence that improvement in NAFLD can lead to improvements in renal disease. A prospective study of NASH patients undergoing 52 weeks of lifestyle modification found that the patients who had improvements in histologic NASH endpoints also had improvement in renal function.43

There are currently no specific recommendations on screening for CKD in professionalguidelines, but many experts propose monitoring for CKD yearly with serum creatinine and urinalysis and referring to nephrology if needed. Given the association between NASH and activation of the RAAS pathway that is associated with worsening hepatic fibrosis, RAAS-inhibitors should be a first-line agent in the treatment of hypertension in patients with NAFLD.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea

OSA is characterized by repeated pharyngeal collapse during sleep, which leads to chronic intermittent hypoxia and is associated with increased metabolic and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The cycle of intermittent hypoxia and reoxygenation in OSA results in inflammation and oxidative stress. Multiple studies have supported a link between NAFLD and OSA.

Hepatic fat content on ultrasound was increased in patients with OSA independent of BMI. There also has been evidence of a positive association between the severity of chronic intermittent hypoxia and increased hepatic fibrosis based on liver elastography.44 A meta-analysis using histologic NAFLD diagnosis showed that the presence of OSA was associated with a higher risk of fibrosis compared with that of patients with NAFLD without OSA (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.2).45

Based on animal models, hypoxia can drive fat accumulation and inflammation in the liver via multiple different pathways. Hypoxia can increase fasting glucose and systemic TG levels and induce hepatic lipogenesis by altering gene expression.45 Hypoxia also can increase oxidative stress and reduce β-oxidation, which leads to the production of lipotoxic lipids. These hypoxia-induced changes are typically more pronounced in subjects with obesity compared with that in subjects without obesity. Despite multiple adverse metabolic effects of OSA-induced hypoxia in the setting of NAFLD, preliminary, short-term studies have failed to find an association with OSA treatment with continuous positive airway pressure and improvement in NAFLD.45 Perhaps larger, long-term prospective trials will clarify this question.

 

 

Malignancy

Extrahepatic malignancy (colon, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, kidney, and breast) is the second most common cause of death in patients with NAFLD.21,22 The primary association between NAFLD and malignancy is found in the colon. Most large population-based studies have been performed in East Asia and have found that NAFLD is associated with a 1.5 to 1.7-fold increased risk for colonic adenomas and a 1.9 to 3.1-fold increased risk of colorectal cancer.46-49 Using magnetic resonance spectroscopy and liver biopsy to diagnose NAFLD and NASH, respectively, Wong and colleagues found that NASH, but not simple steatosis, is associated with a higher risk of advanced colorectalneoplasia (OR 5.34; 95% CI, 1.9-14.8), after adjusting for age, gender, BMI, family history, smoking, and T2DM.50

Data showing a definitive causative role of NAFLD in the development of colorectal cancer are lacking, but the presence of increased insulin levels has many potential effects on carcinogenesis in general, including stimulation of cell proliferation and apoptosis. Currently, there are no recommended changes to the standard colorectal cancer screening recommendations specifically for patients with NAFLD.

Conclusion

NAFLD is a multisystem disease that is associated with increased liver-related and all-cause mortality. Data on the close association between NAFLD and several extrahepatic complications, including MetS, T2DM, CVD, CKD, and malignancy are well established. There also is growing evidence of a bidirectional relationship between some of these diagnoses, whereas NAFLD is not only a consequence, but also a cause of MetS, T2DM, and CKD independent of other typical risk factors.

Given the multiple comorbidities associated with NAFLD and its potential to influence the severity of these diagnoses, management of these complex patients requires diligence and a multidisciplinary approach. In order to engage in early recognition and intervention to prevent potential morbidity and mortality, regular screening and surveillance for the development of NAFLD in patients with metabolic risk factors can be considered, and careful screening for metabolic complications in patients with established NAFLD is important.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014.

2. Breland JY, Phibbs CS, Hoggatt KJ, et al. The obesity epidemic in the Veterans Health Administration: prevalence among key populations of women and men veterans. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(suppl 1):11-17.

3. Machado M, Marques-Vidal P, Cortez-Pinto H. Hepatic histology in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. J Hepatol. 2006;45(4):600-606.

4. Subichin M, Clanton J, Makuszewski M, Bohon A, Zografakis JG, Dan A. Liver disease in the morbidly obese: a review of 1000 consecutive patients undergoing weight loss surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(1):137-141.

5. Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Study Group, Lonardo A, Bellentani S, et al. Epidemiological modifiers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: focus on high-risk groups. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47(12):997-1006.

6. Kim D, Kim WR. Nonobese fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15(4):474-485.

7. Kotronen A, Westerbacka J, Bergholm R, Pietiläinen KH, Yki-Järvinen H. Liver fat in the metabolic syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92(9):3490-3497.

8. Shulman GI. Ectopic fat in insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and cardiometabolic disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(12):1131-1141.

9. Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, Fazel Y, Henry L, Wymer M. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology. 2016;64(1):73-84.

10. Armstrong MJ, Adams LA, Canbay A, et al. Extrahepatic complications of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2014;59(3):1174-1197.

11. Kashanian S, Fuchs M. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with diabetes mellitus: a clinician’s perspective. Int J Dig Dis. 2015;1:1.

12. Park SK, Seo MH, Shin HC, Ryoo JH. Clinical availability of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease as an early predictor of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Korean men: 5-year prospective cohort study. Hepatology. 2013;57(4):1378-1383.

13. Ekstedt M, Franzen LE, Mathiesen UL, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with NAFLD and elevated liver enzymes. Hepatology. 2006;44(4):865-873.

14. Chang Y, Jung HS, Yun KE, Cho J, Cho YK, Ryu S. Cohort study of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, NAFLD fibrosis score, and the risk of incident diabetes in a Korean population. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(12):1861-1868.

15. Ryysy L, Hakkinen AM, Goto T, et al. Hepatic fat content and insulin action on free fatty acids and glucose metabolism rather than insulin absorption are associated with insulin requirements during insulin therapy in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes. 2000;49(5):749-758.

16. Adams LA, Harmsen S, St Sauver JL, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increases risk of death among patients with diabetes: a community-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(7):1567-1573.

17. Yamazaki H, Tsuboya T, Tsuji K, Dohke M, Maguchi H. Independent association between improvement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and reduced risk of incidence of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(9):1673-1679.

18. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):328-357.

19. European Association for the Study of the Liver; European Association for the Study of Diabetes; European Association for the Study of Obesity. EASL-EASD-EASO clinical practice guidelines for the management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016;64(6):1388-1402.

20. McPherson S, Hardy T, Henderson E, Burt AD, Day CP, Anstee QM. Evidence of NAFLD progression from steatosis to fibrosing steatohepatitis using paired biopsies: implications for prognosis and clinical management. J Hepatol. 2015;62(5):1148-1155.

21. Ekstedt M, Hagstrom H, Nasr P, et al. Fibrosis stage is the strongest predictor for disease-specific mortality in NAFLD after up to 33 years of follow-up. Hepatology. 2015;61(5):1547-1554.

22. Angulo P, Kleiner DE, Dam-Larsen S, et al. Liver fibrosis, but no other histologic feature, is associated with long-term outcomes in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):389-397.

23. Portillo-Sanchez P, Bril F, Maximos M, et al. High prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and normal aminotransferases. J Clin Endocrinol. Metab. 2015;100(6):2231-2238.

24. Kwo PY, Cohen SM, and Lim JK. ACG clinical guideline: evaluation of abnormal liver chemistries. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(1):18-35.

25. Loomba R, Lutchman G, Kleiner DE, et al. Clinical trial: pilot study of metformin for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29(2):172-182.

26. Cusi K, Orsak B, Lomonaco R, et al. Extended treatment with pioglitazone improves liver histology in patients with pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes mellitus and NASH. Hepatology. 2013;58(supp 1):248a.

27. Armstrong MJ, Gaunt P, Aithal GP, et al. Liraglutide safety and efficacy in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (LEAN): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Lancet. 2016;387(10019):679-690.

28. Patel YA, Gifford EJ, Glass LM, et al. Risk factors for biopsy-proven advanced non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in the Veterans Health Administration. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47(2):268-278.

29. Cusi K, Orsak B, Bril F, et al. Long-term pioglitazone treatment for patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and prediabetes or type diabetes mellitus: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(5):305-315.

30. Sanyal AJ, Chalasani N, Kowdley KV, et al; NASH CRN. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(18):1675-1685.

31. Ekstedt M, Frazen LE, Mathiesen UL, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with NAFLD and elevated liver enzymes. Hepatology. 2006;44(4):865-873.

32. Vanni E, Marengo A, Mezzabotta L, Bugianesi E. Systemic complications of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: when the liver is not an innocent bystander. Semin Liver Dis. 2015;35(3): 236-249.

33. Oni ET, Agatston AS, Blaha MJ, et al. A systematic review: burden and severity of subclinical cardiovascular disease among those with nonalcoholic fatty liver: should we care? Atherosclerosis. 2013;230(2):358-367.

34. Wong VW, Wong GL, Yip GW, et al. Coronary artery disease and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Gut. 2011;60(12):1721-1727.

35. Sinn DH, Cho SJ, Gu S. Persistent nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increased risk for carotid atherosclerosis. Gastroenterology. 2016;151(3):481-488.

36. Targher G, Byrne CD, Lonardo A, Zoppini G, Barbui C. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and risk of incident cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. J Hepatol. 2016;65(3):589-600.

37. Nelson A, Torres DM, Morgan AE, Fincke C, Harrison SA. A pilot study using simvastatin in the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;43(10):900-904.

38. Lewis JH, Mortensen ME, Zweig S, Fusco MJ, Medoff JR, Belder R; Pravastatin in Chronic Liver Disease Study Investigators. Efficacy and safety of high-dose pravastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients with well-compensated chronic liver disease: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Hepatology. 2007;46(5):1453-1463.

39. Athyros VG, Tziomalos K, Gossios TD, et al; GREACE Study Collaborative Group. Safety and efficacy of long-term statin treatment for cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease and abnormal liver tests in the Greek Atorvastatin and Coronary Heart Disease Evaluation (GREACE) study: a post-hoc analysis. Lancet. 2010;376(9756):1916-1922.

40. Musso G, Gambino R, Tabibian JH, et al. Association with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11(7):e1001680.

41. Targher G, Bertolini L, Rodella S, Lippi G, Zoppini G, Chonchol M. Relationship between kidney function and liver histology in subjects with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(12):2166-2171.

42. Vilar-Gomez E, Galzadilla-Bertot L, Friedman SL, et al. Improvement in liver histology due to lifestyle modification is independently associated with improved kidney function in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;45(2):332-344

43. Agrawal S, Duseja A, Aggarwal A, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea is an important predictor of hepatic fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a tertiary care center. Hepatol Int. 2015;9(2):283-291.

44. Sookoian S, Pirola CJ. Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with fatty liver and abnormal liver enzymes: a meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2013;23(11):1815-1825.

45. Aron-Wisnewsky J, Clement K, Pépin JL. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and obstructive sleep apnea. Metabolism. 2016;65(8):1124-1135.

46. Ding W, Fan J, Qin J. Association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and colorectal adenoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(1):322-333.

47. Shen H, Lipka S, Kumar A, Mustacchia P. Association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and colorectal adenoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014:5(6):440-446.

48. Lee YI, Lim YS, Park HS. Colorectal neoplasms in relation to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in Korean women: a retrospective cohort study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27(1):91-95.

49. Lin XF, Shi KQ, You J, et al. Increased risk of colorectal malignant neoplasm in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a large study. Mol Biol Rep. 2014;41(5):2989-2997.

50. Wong VW, Wong GL, Tsang SW, et al. High prevalence of colorectal neoplasm in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Gut. 2011;60(6):829-836.

51. Estes C, Razavi H, Loomba R, Younossi Z, Sanyal AJ. Modeling the epidemic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease demonstrates an exponential increase in burden of disease. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):123-133.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Lisa Glass is a Staff Physician, and Grace Su is Chief of Gastroenterology and Associate Chief of Medicine, both at VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System. Christine Hunt is a Physician Affiliate and Director of the Cooperative Studies Program Epidemiology Centers at Durham VAMC in North Carolina. Michael Fuchs is Chief of Hepatology and Liver Transplantation at Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC. Christine Hunt is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at Duke University Medical Center in Durham. Lisa Glass is an Assistant Professor and Grace Su is a Professor of Medicine, both at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor. Michael Fuchs is Professor of Medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. Correspondence: Lisa Glass (lisaglas@med.umich.edu)

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(2)a
Publications
Topics
Page Number
64-71
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Lisa Glass is a Staff Physician, and Grace Su is Chief of Gastroenterology and Associate Chief of Medicine, both at VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System. Christine Hunt is a Physician Affiliate and Director of the Cooperative Studies Program Epidemiology Centers at Durham VAMC in North Carolina. Michael Fuchs is Chief of Hepatology and Liver Transplantation at Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC. Christine Hunt is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at Duke University Medical Center in Durham. Lisa Glass is an Assistant Professor and Grace Su is a Professor of Medicine, both at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor. Michael Fuchs is Professor of Medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. Correspondence: Lisa Glass (lisaglas@med.umich.edu)

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Author and Disclosure Information

Lisa Glass is a Staff Physician, and Grace Su is Chief of Gastroenterology and Associate Chief of Medicine, both at VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System. Christine Hunt is a Physician Affiliate and Director of the Cooperative Studies Program Epidemiology Centers at Durham VAMC in North Carolina. Michael Fuchs is Chief of Hepatology and Liver Transplantation at Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC. Christine Hunt is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at Duke University Medical Center in Durham. Lisa Glass is an Assistant Professor and Grace Su is a Professor of Medicine, both at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor. Michael Fuchs is Professor of Medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. Correspondence: Lisa Glass (lisaglas@med.umich.edu)

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Improvement in NAFLD may lead to improvement of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and malignancy and vice versa.
Improvement in NAFLD may lead to improvement of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and malignancy and vice versa.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NALFD) is now the most common chronic liver disease in the developed world and affects about 25% to 30% of adults in the US and 30% of veterans who receive care in the VHA system (Figure 1). 

Comprised of a spectrum of disease severity, NAFLD ranges from simple steatosis to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ([NASH] steatosis with hepatocyte inflammation, necrosis, and fibrosis). Patients with NALFD have significantly increased mortality because of both hepatic (such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) and extrahepatic complications (such as metabolic syndrome [MetS], cardiovascular disease [CVD], and malignancy). In this article, we will focus on the extrahepatic manifestations of NAFLD and its impact on diagnosis and management.

Related: 

NAFLD is significantly associated with the presence of MetS, so much so that it has been considered the hepatic manifestation of MetS. NAFLD also is strongly associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), CVD, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) (Figure 2). 

Although these associations may result from shared risk factors, strong evidence suggests that for some of the factors at least, there is bidirectional influence on the natural history of the other comorbid conditions (Table). 
This means that the management of NAFLD can help improve the management of comorbidities and vice versa. This is important, as the primary cause of mortality in patients with NAFLD, particularly in those without advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis, is related to CVD and extrahepatic malignancy and not from liver disease.

Obesity/Visceral Adiposity

Obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 30) prevalence in the US has almost doubled over the past 30 years and continues to climb.1 Obesity affects 41% of veterans in the Veterans Health Administration and is the most common risk factor for NAFLD.2 NAFLD is 4 times more prevalent in obese patients, thus, it is not surprising that 80% to 90% of patients evaluated in bariatric centers have NAFLD, reported in 2 large series.3,4 Increased BMI and waist circumference predict the presence of NASH and advanced fibrosis.5

While obesity is a hallmark for NAFLD, particularly in the US, it is important to note that up to 20% of Americans with normal BMI have NAFLD, based on findings of steatosis on ultrasound.6 These patients with lean NAFLD are often underdiagnosed. In addition to the patient’s BMI, it is important to recognize that in NAFLD, the distribution and type of fat deposition is more important than just BMI. Visceral fat refers to fat accumulation within the abdominal cavity and is key to the pathogenesis of NAFLD. Visceral fat, compared with subcutaneous fat, is metabolically active and can deliver an overabundance of free fatty acids to the liver as well as secrete proinflammatory mediators in the setting of insulin resistance. Visceral fat stores can predict increased hepatic fat content, inflammation, and fibrosis.5 Thus, it is important to recognize that those patients with relatively more visceral fat are more prone to NAFLD. The best clinical indicator of visceral adiposity is abdominal obesity, indicated by waist circumference > 40 inches in men and > 35 inches in women.

 

 

Metabolic Syndrome

Hepatic fat deposition can be associated with or precede MetS. MetS is defined as having at least 3 of the following characteristics: abdominal obesity, elevated triglycerides (TGs) (≥ 150 mg/dL), reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (< 40 mg/dL in men or < 50 mg/dL in women), elevated blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 85 mm Hg), or elevated fasting glucose (≥ 110 mg/dL). Population studies have found that 50% of patients with MetS have NAFLD, and liver fat content is strongly correlated with the number of MetS features present in an individual.5,7 In addition to this association, NAFLD also promotes the development of MetS. Increased energy intake relative to energy expenditure will facilitate ectopic fat accumulation in the liver, which then increases hepatic gluconeogenesis and drives the pathogenesis of insulin resistance.8 Therefore, the presence of NAFLD is both a marker and a promotor of insulin resistance and its complications.

Related: 

 

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

At 70% to 75%, the prevalence of NAFLD in patients with T2DM is more than twice as high as that in the general US adult population. Conversely, about 23% of patients with NAFLD also have T2DM.9

Influence of NAFLD on T2DM

Patients with ultrasound-based evidence of NAFLD are 2 to 5 times more likely to develop T2DM after adjusting for lifestyle and metabolic risk factors in multiple epidemiologic studies.10,11 The severity of hepaticfat content measured by ultrasound also is associated with an increasing risk of T2DM incidence over the next 5 years (normal,7%; mild, 9.8%; moderate-severe, 17.8%; P < .001).12 In another study, 58% of patientswith biopsy-proven NAFLD developed T2DM after a mean follow-up of 13.7 years.13 Those who were found to have NASH had a 3-fold higher risk of developing T2DM than did those with simple steatosis. This finding was confirmed in another study where T2DM incidence was 2 times higher in patients predicted to have advanced fibrosis compared with those who did not.14

Because liver steatosis interferes with insulin-induced glycogen production and suppression of gluconeogenesis, hepatic fat content predicts the insulin dose required for adequate glucose control in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and NAFLD.15 Higher levels of insulin are required in patients with DM and NAFLD compared with those without NAFLD.5 

Furthermore, patients with DM and NAFLD have increased complications, including both retinopathy and CKD.5 It is thus not surprising that a population-based study of more than 330 patients with T2DM found that the presence of NAFLD was associated with a 2-fold increase in all-cause mortality over a mean follow-up period of 11 years.16

Additionally, a 10-year cohort study found that resolution of ultrasound-based NAFLD in patients without baseline T2DM, was associated with a reduced T2DM incidence (multivariate odds ratio [OR] 0.27, 95% CI, 0.12-0.61) after controlling for factors such as age, BMI, and impaired fasting glucose.11,17

Given this close relationship between T2DM and NAFLD, both the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and European Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (EASL) guidelines recommend that patients found to have NAFLD should be screened for the presence of impaired fasting glucose/T2DM by testing hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels.18,19 Recognizing the role that NAFLD can play in patients with DM also is important, as improving hepatic steatosis may also improve DM.

 

 

Influence of DM on NAFLD

Patients with T2DM and NAFLD are at increased risk of progressive liver disease and have increased rates of NASH, cirrhosis, and HCC. In a paired-biopsy study, the development of T2DM was the strongest predictor of progression of NASH and hepatic fibrosis.20 This fibrosis progression can easily go undetected, as NASH can be present even with normal aminotransferases. This increased risk of fibrosis progression in the setting of comorbid T2DM is clinically important, as it is the severity of fibrosis that predicts all-cause and liver-related mortality in patients with NAFLD/NASH.21,22 In fact, the prevalence of biopsy-proven NASH in overweight/obese patients with DM with normal liver aminotransferases (defined as aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase < 40 U/L) was found to be 58%.23 Because chronic liver disease, including NAFLD, is underrecognized in the “healthy population” used to establish normal aminotransferase levels, more recent AASLD and ACG guidelines now define normal aminotransferase levels as < 35 U/L for males and < 25 U/L for females.24 These stricter cutoffs are based on populations with normal BMI and negative testing for chronic liver diseases.24 The lower cutoffs may improve recognition of progressive liver disease in NAFLD and NASH patients.

Medications used in the treatment of T2DM, such as metformin, pioglitazone, and liraglutide, have been studied in patients with biopsy-proven NASH. The initial data showing histologic improvement in NAFLD patients taking metformin was more likely related to the associated weight loss in the treatment group. In a study by Loomba and colleagues the improvement in the NAFLD activity score was only seen in patients who lost ≥ 5% of their total body weight.25 Pioglitazone is a PPAR-γ agonist that helps regulate glucose and lipid metabolism as well as inflammation. Pioglitazone helps adipose tissue, hepatocytes, and muscle cells restore insulin sensitivity. A recent trial in 100 patients with prediabetes or T2DM as well as NASH showed that 36 weeks of pioglitazone treatment was associated with significant improvements in steatosis, inflammation, and most important, in stage of fibrosis compared with that of placebo.26

Related: 

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as liraglutide, have effects on lipid and glucose metabolism as well. They can lower glucose levels by increasing insulin secretion, reducing glucagon concentration, suppressing appetite (resulting in weight loss), and increasing sensitivity to insulin in hepatocytes and adipocytes. Liraglutide has been studied in patients with NASH both with and without DM, and results of the largest study to date show that it is associated with significant improvement in hepatic inflammation compared with that of placebo.27 Additional phase 3 clinical trials are currently underway.

Current AASLD guidelines do not recommend routine screening for NAFLD, even among high-risk patients, such as patients with DM.18 This is due to the widespread prevalence of NAFLD, the unclear utility of diagnostic tests, and limited efficacy of available treatment. Lifestyle modification to achieve weight loss remains the backbone of management, and rates of successful adherence are low.28 Contrary to this, EASL guidelines state that NAFLD screening with ultrasound even in patients with normal liver enzymes should be performed in high-risk patients with T2DM.19

Once detected, T2DM should be diligently treated in patients with NAFLD, and pioglitazone may be considered in patients with biopsy-proven NASH per AASLD guidelines.18 Pioglitazone has been studied in patients with biopsy-proven NASH both with and without DM and has been associated with significant resolution of NASH, as well as improvement in histologic changes of NASH and improvement in fibrosis.29,30 Because of potential medication AEs, including a mean weight gain of 2.5 kg to 4.7 kg in trials of 12- to 36-months’ duration, as well as potential bone loss in women, discussions about the risks and benefits of treatment should occur prior to treatment initiation.18 Additionally, pioglitazone is not safe in the setting of left ventricular heart failure. Future studies may point to the utility of other DM medications, such as GLP-receptor agonists.

 

 

Cardiovascular Disease

Given the association between features of MetS and NAFLD, it is not surprising that the primary cause of death in patients with NAFLD is related to CVD.21,22,31 However, it is increasingly recognized that NAFLD predicts CVD independently of the traditional risk factors associated with MetS. The increase in cardiovascular risk in the setting of NAFLD can be partly explained by the increased hepatic de novo lipogenesis that is associated with increased production of highly atherogenic small dense low-density lipoproteins (sd-LDL) independent of BMI and presence of insulin resistance.32 Additionally, increased intracellular free fatty acids can activate proinflammatory cytokine production by hepatocytes in addition to the increase in systemic inflammatory mediators and oxidative stress associated with NASH.

A recent meta-analysis of 27 studies confirmed the association between NAFLD and many subclinical features of CVD, including increases in coronary-artery calcium score, carotid artery intimal media thickness, and arterial wall stiffness, as well as impaired flow-mediated vasodilation after controlling for classic CVD risk factors.33 The risk of subclinical carotid and coronary atherosclerosis progression was higher in NAFLD patients with evidence of advanced fibrosis using noninvasive measures. Additionally, NAFLD was associated with increased severity of coronary artery disease in > 600 patients undergoing cardiac angiograms.34 Conversely, the regression of NAFLD on ultrasound was associated with a decreased risk of carotid atherosclerosis progression.35

Multiple epidemiologic studies have found an increased incidence of clinically overt CVD in patients with NAFLD after controlling for confounders. The largest updated meta-analysis, which included more than 34,000 patients with 2,600 CVD outcomes over a median of 6.9 years found that the presence of NAFLD (based on imaging or biopsy) was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.64 (95% CI, 1.26-2.13) for fatal and nonfatal incident CVD.36 In the same meta-analysis, patients with NASH, with or without fibrosis, were at an even higher risk, with an OR of 2.58 (95% CI, 1.78-3.75).

Initial studies of statin medications for the treatment of NASH using surrogate endpoints like improvement in aminotransferases or imaging, suggested a potential liver-related benefit. However, there was no histologic improvement in the single study comparing 12 months of simvastatin therapy with placebo in patients with NASH.37 Although it is unclear whether statin use will directly improve NAFLD, there is no evidence to suggest that statin use should be avoided in patients with elevated CVD risk.38 Treatment with atorvastatin has been shown to be associated with a greater reduction in cardiovascular events in patients with NAFLD compared with that of patients without NAFLD.39

The strong association between CVD and NAFLD has important clinical implications that may influence the decision to initiate treatment for primary prevention, including lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, or antiplatelet therapies. The clinical algorithms currently used to help risk stratify patients and determine appropriate preventative strategies, the Framingham risk equation or the systemic coronary risk evaluation, do not incorporate NAFLD as a potential risk factor for CVD. Additional studies are needed to determine whether adding NAFLD to the assessment will improve the predictive accuracy of future CVD events. Nevertheless, European clinical guidelines recommend performing a CVD risk assessment for patients with NAFLD.19

 

 

Chronic Kidney Disease

The prevalence of CKD, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 60 mL/min/1.72 m2, abnormal albuminuria, or proteinuria, is significantly increased in patients with NAFLD. Several epidemiologic studies have shown the prevalence of CKD in NAFLD patients ranges from 20% to 55% compared with 5% to 30% among patients without NAFLD.40 Overall, patients with NAFLD have a 2-fold increased risk of prevalent (OR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.69-2.66) or incident (hazard ratio 1.79; 95% CI, 1.65-1.95) CKD, even after adjusting for T2DM, visceral fat, and insulin resistance.40 There is an additional 2-fold increase in CKD risk in patients with NASH and advanced fibrosis compared with those with NASH and mild/no fibrosis. Additionally, advancing NASH fibrosis stage is independently associated with worsening stage of CKD.41

Data regarding the exact mechanism of kidney pathology in the setting of NAFLD is lacking. The accelerated atherogenesis in NAFLD likely contributes to renal damage. Another potential mechanism to explain the association between NASH and CKD involves the increased activation of the angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) seen in NASH, which leads to increased hepatic fibrogenesis as well as kidney damage.42

Similar to the previously listed comorbidities, there is evidence that improvement in NAFLD can lead to improvements in renal disease. A prospective study of NASH patients undergoing 52 weeks of lifestyle modification found that the patients who had improvements in histologic NASH endpoints also had improvement in renal function.43

There are currently no specific recommendations on screening for CKD in professionalguidelines, but many experts propose monitoring for CKD yearly with serum creatinine and urinalysis and referring to nephrology if needed. Given the association between NASH and activation of the RAAS pathway that is associated with worsening hepatic fibrosis, RAAS-inhibitors should be a first-line agent in the treatment of hypertension in patients with NAFLD.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea

OSA is characterized by repeated pharyngeal collapse during sleep, which leads to chronic intermittent hypoxia and is associated with increased metabolic and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The cycle of intermittent hypoxia and reoxygenation in OSA results in inflammation and oxidative stress. Multiple studies have supported a link between NAFLD and OSA.

Hepatic fat content on ultrasound was increased in patients with OSA independent of BMI. There also has been evidence of a positive association between the severity of chronic intermittent hypoxia and increased hepatic fibrosis based on liver elastography.44 A meta-analysis using histologic NAFLD diagnosis showed that the presence of OSA was associated with a higher risk of fibrosis compared with that of patients with NAFLD without OSA (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.2).45

Based on animal models, hypoxia can drive fat accumulation and inflammation in the liver via multiple different pathways. Hypoxia can increase fasting glucose and systemic TG levels and induce hepatic lipogenesis by altering gene expression.45 Hypoxia also can increase oxidative stress and reduce β-oxidation, which leads to the production of lipotoxic lipids. These hypoxia-induced changes are typically more pronounced in subjects with obesity compared with that in subjects without obesity. Despite multiple adverse metabolic effects of OSA-induced hypoxia in the setting of NAFLD, preliminary, short-term studies have failed to find an association with OSA treatment with continuous positive airway pressure and improvement in NAFLD.45 Perhaps larger, long-term prospective trials will clarify this question.

 

 

Malignancy

Extrahepatic malignancy (colon, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, kidney, and breast) is the second most common cause of death in patients with NAFLD.21,22 The primary association between NAFLD and malignancy is found in the colon. Most large population-based studies have been performed in East Asia and have found that NAFLD is associated with a 1.5 to 1.7-fold increased risk for colonic adenomas and a 1.9 to 3.1-fold increased risk of colorectal cancer.46-49 Using magnetic resonance spectroscopy and liver biopsy to diagnose NAFLD and NASH, respectively, Wong and colleagues found that NASH, but not simple steatosis, is associated with a higher risk of advanced colorectalneoplasia (OR 5.34; 95% CI, 1.9-14.8), after adjusting for age, gender, BMI, family history, smoking, and T2DM.50

Data showing a definitive causative role of NAFLD in the development of colorectal cancer are lacking, but the presence of increased insulin levels has many potential effects on carcinogenesis in general, including stimulation of cell proliferation and apoptosis. Currently, there are no recommended changes to the standard colorectal cancer screening recommendations specifically for patients with NAFLD.

Conclusion

NAFLD is a multisystem disease that is associated with increased liver-related and all-cause mortality. Data on the close association between NAFLD and several extrahepatic complications, including MetS, T2DM, CVD, CKD, and malignancy are well established. There also is growing evidence of a bidirectional relationship between some of these diagnoses, whereas NAFLD is not only a consequence, but also a cause of MetS, T2DM, and CKD independent of other typical risk factors.

Given the multiple comorbidities associated with NAFLD and its potential to influence the severity of these diagnoses, management of these complex patients requires diligence and a multidisciplinary approach. In order to engage in early recognition and intervention to prevent potential morbidity and mortality, regular screening and surveillance for the development of NAFLD in patients with metabolic risk factors can be considered, and careful screening for metabolic complications in patients with established NAFLD is important.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NALFD) is now the most common chronic liver disease in the developed world and affects about 25% to 30% of adults in the US and 30% of veterans who receive care in the VHA system (Figure 1). 

Comprised of a spectrum of disease severity, NAFLD ranges from simple steatosis to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ([NASH] steatosis with hepatocyte inflammation, necrosis, and fibrosis). Patients with NALFD have significantly increased mortality because of both hepatic (such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) and extrahepatic complications (such as metabolic syndrome [MetS], cardiovascular disease [CVD], and malignancy). In this article, we will focus on the extrahepatic manifestations of NAFLD and its impact on diagnosis and management.

Related: 

NAFLD is significantly associated with the presence of MetS, so much so that it has been considered the hepatic manifestation of MetS. NAFLD also is strongly associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), CVD, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) (Figure 2). 

Although these associations may result from shared risk factors, strong evidence suggests that for some of the factors at least, there is bidirectional influence on the natural history of the other comorbid conditions (Table). 
This means that the management of NAFLD can help improve the management of comorbidities and vice versa. This is important, as the primary cause of mortality in patients with NAFLD, particularly in those without advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis, is related to CVD and extrahepatic malignancy and not from liver disease.

Obesity/Visceral Adiposity

Obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 30) prevalence in the US has almost doubled over the past 30 years and continues to climb.1 Obesity affects 41% of veterans in the Veterans Health Administration and is the most common risk factor for NAFLD.2 NAFLD is 4 times more prevalent in obese patients, thus, it is not surprising that 80% to 90% of patients evaluated in bariatric centers have NAFLD, reported in 2 large series.3,4 Increased BMI and waist circumference predict the presence of NASH and advanced fibrosis.5

While obesity is a hallmark for NAFLD, particularly in the US, it is important to note that up to 20% of Americans with normal BMI have NAFLD, based on findings of steatosis on ultrasound.6 These patients with lean NAFLD are often underdiagnosed. In addition to the patient’s BMI, it is important to recognize that in NAFLD, the distribution and type of fat deposition is more important than just BMI. Visceral fat refers to fat accumulation within the abdominal cavity and is key to the pathogenesis of NAFLD. Visceral fat, compared with subcutaneous fat, is metabolically active and can deliver an overabundance of free fatty acids to the liver as well as secrete proinflammatory mediators in the setting of insulin resistance. Visceral fat stores can predict increased hepatic fat content, inflammation, and fibrosis.5 Thus, it is important to recognize that those patients with relatively more visceral fat are more prone to NAFLD. The best clinical indicator of visceral adiposity is abdominal obesity, indicated by waist circumference > 40 inches in men and > 35 inches in women.

 

 

Metabolic Syndrome

Hepatic fat deposition can be associated with or precede MetS. MetS is defined as having at least 3 of the following characteristics: abdominal obesity, elevated triglycerides (TGs) (≥ 150 mg/dL), reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (< 40 mg/dL in men or < 50 mg/dL in women), elevated blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 85 mm Hg), or elevated fasting glucose (≥ 110 mg/dL). Population studies have found that 50% of patients with MetS have NAFLD, and liver fat content is strongly correlated with the number of MetS features present in an individual.5,7 In addition to this association, NAFLD also promotes the development of MetS. Increased energy intake relative to energy expenditure will facilitate ectopic fat accumulation in the liver, which then increases hepatic gluconeogenesis and drives the pathogenesis of insulin resistance.8 Therefore, the presence of NAFLD is both a marker and a promotor of insulin resistance and its complications.

Related: 

 

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

At 70% to 75%, the prevalence of NAFLD in patients with T2DM is more than twice as high as that in the general US adult population. Conversely, about 23% of patients with NAFLD also have T2DM.9

Influence of NAFLD on T2DM

Patients with ultrasound-based evidence of NAFLD are 2 to 5 times more likely to develop T2DM after adjusting for lifestyle and metabolic risk factors in multiple epidemiologic studies.10,11 The severity of hepaticfat content measured by ultrasound also is associated with an increasing risk of T2DM incidence over the next 5 years (normal,7%; mild, 9.8%; moderate-severe, 17.8%; P < .001).12 In another study, 58% of patientswith biopsy-proven NAFLD developed T2DM after a mean follow-up of 13.7 years.13 Those who were found to have NASH had a 3-fold higher risk of developing T2DM than did those with simple steatosis. This finding was confirmed in another study where T2DM incidence was 2 times higher in patients predicted to have advanced fibrosis compared with those who did not.14

Because liver steatosis interferes with insulin-induced glycogen production and suppression of gluconeogenesis, hepatic fat content predicts the insulin dose required for adequate glucose control in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and NAFLD.15 Higher levels of insulin are required in patients with DM and NAFLD compared with those without NAFLD.5 

Furthermore, patients with DM and NAFLD have increased complications, including both retinopathy and CKD.5 It is thus not surprising that a population-based study of more than 330 patients with T2DM found that the presence of NAFLD was associated with a 2-fold increase in all-cause mortality over a mean follow-up period of 11 years.16

Additionally, a 10-year cohort study found that resolution of ultrasound-based NAFLD in patients without baseline T2DM, was associated with a reduced T2DM incidence (multivariate odds ratio [OR] 0.27, 95% CI, 0.12-0.61) after controlling for factors such as age, BMI, and impaired fasting glucose.11,17

Given this close relationship between T2DM and NAFLD, both the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and European Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (EASL) guidelines recommend that patients found to have NAFLD should be screened for the presence of impaired fasting glucose/T2DM by testing hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels.18,19 Recognizing the role that NAFLD can play in patients with DM also is important, as improving hepatic steatosis may also improve DM.

 

 

Influence of DM on NAFLD

Patients with T2DM and NAFLD are at increased risk of progressive liver disease and have increased rates of NASH, cirrhosis, and HCC. In a paired-biopsy study, the development of T2DM was the strongest predictor of progression of NASH and hepatic fibrosis.20 This fibrosis progression can easily go undetected, as NASH can be present even with normal aminotransferases. This increased risk of fibrosis progression in the setting of comorbid T2DM is clinically important, as it is the severity of fibrosis that predicts all-cause and liver-related mortality in patients with NAFLD/NASH.21,22 In fact, the prevalence of biopsy-proven NASH in overweight/obese patients with DM with normal liver aminotransferases (defined as aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase < 40 U/L) was found to be 58%.23 Because chronic liver disease, including NAFLD, is underrecognized in the “healthy population” used to establish normal aminotransferase levels, more recent AASLD and ACG guidelines now define normal aminotransferase levels as < 35 U/L for males and < 25 U/L for females.24 These stricter cutoffs are based on populations with normal BMI and negative testing for chronic liver diseases.24 The lower cutoffs may improve recognition of progressive liver disease in NAFLD and NASH patients.

Medications used in the treatment of T2DM, such as metformin, pioglitazone, and liraglutide, have been studied in patients with biopsy-proven NASH. The initial data showing histologic improvement in NAFLD patients taking metformin was more likely related to the associated weight loss in the treatment group. In a study by Loomba and colleagues the improvement in the NAFLD activity score was only seen in patients who lost ≥ 5% of their total body weight.25 Pioglitazone is a PPAR-γ agonist that helps regulate glucose and lipid metabolism as well as inflammation. Pioglitazone helps adipose tissue, hepatocytes, and muscle cells restore insulin sensitivity. A recent trial in 100 patients with prediabetes or T2DM as well as NASH showed that 36 weeks of pioglitazone treatment was associated with significant improvements in steatosis, inflammation, and most important, in stage of fibrosis compared with that of placebo.26

Related: 

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as liraglutide, have effects on lipid and glucose metabolism as well. They can lower glucose levels by increasing insulin secretion, reducing glucagon concentration, suppressing appetite (resulting in weight loss), and increasing sensitivity to insulin in hepatocytes and adipocytes. Liraglutide has been studied in patients with NASH both with and without DM, and results of the largest study to date show that it is associated with significant improvement in hepatic inflammation compared with that of placebo.27 Additional phase 3 clinical trials are currently underway.

Current AASLD guidelines do not recommend routine screening for NAFLD, even among high-risk patients, such as patients with DM.18 This is due to the widespread prevalence of NAFLD, the unclear utility of diagnostic tests, and limited efficacy of available treatment. Lifestyle modification to achieve weight loss remains the backbone of management, and rates of successful adherence are low.28 Contrary to this, EASL guidelines state that NAFLD screening with ultrasound even in patients with normal liver enzymes should be performed in high-risk patients with T2DM.19

Once detected, T2DM should be diligently treated in patients with NAFLD, and pioglitazone may be considered in patients with biopsy-proven NASH per AASLD guidelines.18 Pioglitazone has been studied in patients with biopsy-proven NASH both with and without DM and has been associated with significant resolution of NASH, as well as improvement in histologic changes of NASH and improvement in fibrosis.29,30 Because of potential medication AEs, including a mean weight gain of 2.5 kg to 4.7 kg in trials of 12- to 36-months’ duration, as well as potential bone loss in women, discussions about the risks and benefits of treatment should occur prior to treatment initiation.18 Additionally, pioglitazone is not safe in the setting of left ventricular heart failure. Future studies may point to the utility of other DM medications, such as GLP-receptor agonists.

 

 

Cardiovascular Disease

Given the association between features of MetS and NAFLD, it is not surprising that the primary cause of death in patients with NAFLD is related to CVD.21,22,31 However, it is increasingly recognized that NAFLD predicts CVD independently of the traditional risk factors associated with MetS. The increase in cardiovascular risk in the setting of NAFLD can be partly explained by the increased hepatic de novo lipogenesis that is associated with increased production of highly atherogenic small dense low-density lipoproteins (sd-LDL) independent of BMI and presence of insulin resistance.32 Additionally, increased intracellular free fatty acids can activate proinflammatory cytokine production by hepatocytes in addition to the increase in systemic inflammatory mediators and oxidative stress associated with NASH.

A recent meta-analysis of 27 studies confirmed the association between NAFLD and many subclinical features of CVD, including increases in coronary-artery calcium score, carotid artery intimal media thickness, and arterial wall stiffness, as well as impaired flow-mediated vasodilation after controlling for classic CVD risk factors.33 The risk of subclinical carotid and coronary atherosclerosis progression was higher in NAFLD patients with evidence of advanced fibrosis using noninvasive measures. Additionally, NAFLD was associated with increased severity of coronary artery disease in > 600 patients undergoing cardiac angiograms.34 Conversely, the regression of NAFLD on ultrasound was associated with a decreased risk of carotid atherosclerosis progression.35

Multiple epidemiologic studies have found an increased incidence of clinically overt CVD in patients with NAFLD after controlling for confounders. The largest updated meta-analysis, which included more than 34,000 patients with 2,600 CVD outcomes over a median of 6.9 years found that the presence of NAFLD (based on imaging or biopsy) was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.64 (95% CI, 1.26-2.13) for fatal and nonfatal incident CVD.36 In the same meta-analysis, patients with NASH, with or without fibrosis, were at an even higher risk, with an OR of 2.58 (95% CI, 1.78-3.75).

Initial studies of statin medications for the treatment of NASH using surrogate endpoints like improvement in aminotransferases or imaging, suggested a potential liver-related benefit. However, there was no histologic improvement in the single study comparing 12 months of simvastatin therapy with placebo in patients with NASH.37 Although it is unclear whether statin use will directly improve NAFLD, there is no evidence to suggest that statin use should be avoided in patients with elevated CVD risk.38 Treatment with atorvastatin has been shown to be associated with a greater reduction in cardiovascular events in patients with NAFLD compared with that of patients without NAFLD.39

The strong association between CVD and NAFLD has important clinical implications that may influence the decision to initiate treatment for primary prevention, including lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, or antiplatelet therapies. The clinical algorithms currently used to help risk stratify patients and determine appropriate preventative strategies, the Framingham risk equation or the systemic coronary risk evaluation, do not incorporate NAFLD as a potential risk factor for CVD. Additional studies are needed to determine whether adding NAFLD to the assessment will improve the predictive accuracy of future CVD events. Nevertheless, European clinical guidelines recommend performing a CVD risk assessment for patients with NAFLD.19

 

 

Chronic Kidney Disease

The prevalence of CKD, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 60 mL/min/1.72 m2, abnormal albuminuria, or proteinuria, is significantly increased in patients with NAFLD. Several epidemiologic studies have shown the prevalence of CKD in NAFLD patients ranges from 20% to 55% compared with 5% to 30% among patients without NAFLD.40 Overall, patients with NAFLD have a 2-fold increased risk of prevalent (OR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.69-2.66) or incident (hazard ratio 1.79; 95% CI, 1.65-1.95) CKD, even after adjusting for T2DM, visceral fat, and insulin resistance.40 There is an additional 2-fold increase in CKD risk in patients with NASH and advanced fibrosis compared with those with NASH and mild/no fibrosis. Additionally, advancing NASH fibrosis stage is independently associated with worsening stage of CKD.41

Data regarding the exact mechanism of kidney pathology in the setting of NAFLD is lacking. The accelerated atherogenesis in NAFLD likely contributes to renal damage. Another potential mechanism to explain the association between NASH and CKD involves the increased activation of the angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) seen in NASH, which leads to increased hepatic fibrogenesis as well as kidney damage.42

Similar to the previously listed comorbidities, there is evidence that improvement in NAFLD can lead to improvements in renal disease. A prospective study of NASH patients undergoing 52 weeks of lifestyle modification found that the patients who had improvements in histologic NASH endpoints also had improvement in renal function.43

There are currently no specific recommendations on screening for CKD in professionalguidelines, but many experts propose monitoring for CKD yearly with serum creatinine and urinalysis and referring to nephrology if needed. Given the association between NASH and activation of the RAAS pathway that is associated with worsening hepatic fibrosis, RAAS-inhibitors should be a first-line agent in the treatment of hypertension in patients with NAFLD.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea

OSA is characterized by repeated pharyngeal collapse during sleep, which leads to chronic intermittent hypoxia and is associated with increased metabolic and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The cycle of intermittent hypoxia and reoxygenation in OSA results in inflammation and oxidative stress. Multiple studies have supported a link between NAFLD and OSA.

Hepatic fat content on ultrasound was increased in patients with OSA independent of BMI. There also has been evidence of a positive association between the severity of chronic intermittent hypoxia and increased hepatic fibrosis based on liver elastography.44 A meta-analysis using histologic NAFLD diagnosis showed that the presence of OSA was associated with a higher risk of fibrosis compared with that of patients with NAFLD without OSA (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.2).45

Based on animal models, hypoxia can drive fat accumulation and inflammation in the liver via multiple different pathways. Hypoxia can increase fasting glucose and systemic TG levels and induce hepatic lipogenesis by altering gene expression.45 Hypoxia also can increase oxidative stress and reduce β-oxidation, which leads to the production of lipotoxic lipids. These hypoxia-induced changes are typically more pronounced in subjects with obesity compared with that in subjects without obesity. Despite multiple adverse metabolic effects of OSA-induced hypoxia in the setting of NAFLD, preliminary, short-term studies have failed to find an association with OSA treatment with continuous positive airway pressure and improvement in NAFLD.45 Perhaps larger, long-term prospective trials will clarify this question.

 

 

Malignancy

Extrahepatic malignancy (colon, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, kidney, and breast) is the second most common cause of death in patients with NAFLD.21,22 The primary association between NAFLD and malignancy is found in the colon. Most large population-based studies have been performed in East Asia and have found that NAFLD is associated with a 1.5 to 1.7-fold increased risk for colonic adenomas and a 1.9 to 3.1-fold increased risk of colorectal cancer.46-49 Using magnetic resonance spectroscopy and liver biopsy to diagnose NAFLD and NASH, respectively, Wong and colleagues found that NASH, but not simple steatosis, is associated with a higher risk of advanced colorectalneoplasia (OR 5.34; 95% CI, 1.9-14.8), after adjusting for age, gender, BMI, family history, smoking, and T2DM.50

Data showing a definitive causative role of NAFLD in the development of colorectal cancer are lacking, but the presence of increased insulin levels has many potential effects on carcinogenesis in general, including stimulation of cell proliferation and apoptosis. Currently, there are no recommended changes to the standard colorectal cancer screening recommendations specifically for patients with NAFLD.

Conclusion

NAFLD is a multisystem disease that is associated with increased liver-related and all-cause mortality. Data on the close association between NAFLD and several extrahepatic complications, including MetS, T2DM, CVD, CKD, and malignancy are well established. There also is growing evidence of a bidirectional relationship between some of these diagnoses, whereas NAFLD is not only a consequence, but also a cause of MetS, T2DM, and CKD independent of other typical risk factors.

Given the multiple comorbidities associated with NAFLD and its potential to influence the severity of these diagnoses, management of these complex patients requires diligence and a multidisciplinary approach. In order to engage in early recognition and intervention to prevent potential morbidity and mortality, regular screening and surveillance for the development of NAFLD in patients with metabolic risk factors can be considered, and careful screening for metabolic complications in patients with established NAFLD is important.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014.

2. Breland JY, Phibbs CS, Hoggatt KJ, et al. The obesity epidemic in the Veterans Health Administration: prevalence among key populations of women and men veterans. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(suppl 1):11-17.

3. Machado M, Marques-Vidal P, Cortez-Pinto H. Hepatic histology in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. J Hepatol. 2006;45(4):600-606.

4. Subichin M, Clanton J, Makuszewski M, Bohon A, Zografakis JG, Dan A. Liver disease in the morbidly obese: a review of 1000 consecutive patients undergoing weight loss surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(1):137-141.

5. Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Study Group, Lonardo A, Bellentani S, et al. Epidemiological modifiers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: focus on high-risk groups. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47(12):997-1006.

6. Kim D, Kim WR. Nonobese fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15(4):474-485.

7. Kotronen A, Westerbacka J, Bergholm R, Pietiläinen KH, Yki-Järvinen H. Liver fat in the metabolic syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92(9):3490-3497.

8. Shulman GI. Ectopic fat in insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and cardiometabolic disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(12):1131-1141.

9. Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, Fazel Y, Henry L, Wymer M. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology. 2016;64(1):73-84.

10. Armstrong MJ, Adams LA, Canbay A, et al. Extrahepatic complications of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2014;59(3):1174-1197.

11. Kashanian S, Fuchs M. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with diabetes mellitus: a clinician’s perspective. Int J Dig Dis. 2015;1:1.

12. Park SK, Seo MH, Shin HC, Ryoo JH. Clinical availability of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease as an early predictor of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Korean men: 5-year prospective cohort study. Hepatology. 2013;57(4):1378-1383.

13. Ekstedt M, Franzen LE, Mathiesen UL, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with NAFLD and elevated liver enzymes. Hepatology. 2006;44(4):865-873.

14. Chang Y, Jung HS, Yun KE, Cho J, Cho YK, Ryu S. Cohort study of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, NAFLD fibrosis score, and the risk of incident diabetes in a Korean population. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(12):1861-1868.

15. Ryysy L, Hakkinen AM, Goto T, et al. Hepatic fat content and insulin action on free fatty acids and glucose metabolism rather than insulin absorption are associated with insulin requirements during insulin therapy in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes. 2000;49(5):749-758.

16. Adams LA, Harmsen S, St Sauver JL, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increases risk of death among patients with diabetes: a community-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(7):1567-1573.

17. Yamazaki H, Tsuboya T, Tsuji K, Dohke M, Maguchi H. Independent association between improvement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and reduced risk of incidence of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(9):1673-1679.

18. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):328-357.

19. European Association for the Study of the Liver; European Association for the Study of Diabetes; European Association for the Study of Obesity. EASL-EASD-EASO clinical practice guidelines for the management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016;64(6):1388-1402.

20. McPherson S, Hardy T, Henderson E, Burt AD, Day CP, Anstee QM. Evidence of NAFLD progression from steatosis to fibrosing steatohepatitis using paired biopsies: implications for prognosis and clinical management. J Hepatol. 2015;62(5):1148-1155.

21. Ekstedt M, Hagstrom H, Nasr P, et al. Fibrosis stage is the strongest predictor for disease-specific mortality in NAFLD after up to 33 years of follow-up. Hepatology. 2015;61(5):1547-1554.

22. Angulo P, Kleiner DE, Dam-Larsen S, et al. Liver fibrosis, but no other histologic feature, is associated with long-term outcomes in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):389-397.

23. Portillo-Sanchez P, Bril F, Maximos M, et al. High prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and normal aminotransferases. J Clin Endocrinol. Metab. 2015;100(6):2231-2238.

24. Kwo PY, Cohen SM, and Lim JK. ACG clinical guideline: evaluation of abnormal liver chemistries. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(1):18-35.

25. Loomba R, Lutchman G, Kleiner DE, et al. Clinical trial: pilot study of metformin for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29(2):172-182.

26. Cusi K, Orsak B, Lomonaco R, et al. Extended treatment with pioglitazone improves liver histology in patients with pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes mellitus and NASH. Hepatology. 2013;58(supp 1):248a.

27. Armstrong MJ, Gaunt P, Aithal GP, et al. Liraglutide safety and efficacy in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (LEAN): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Lancet. 2016;387(10019):679-690.

28. Patel YA, Gifford EJ, Glass LM, et al. Risk factors for biopsy-proven advanced non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in the Veterans Health Administration. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47(2):268-278.

29. Cusi K, Orsak B, Bril F, et al. Long-term pioglitazone treatment for patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and prediabetes or type diabetes mellitus: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(5):305-315.

30. Sanyal AJ, Chalasani N, Kowdley KV, et al; NASH CRN. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(18):1675-1685.

31. Ekstedt M, Frazen LE, Mathiesen UL, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with NAFLD and elevated liver enzymes. Hepatology. 2006;44(4):865-873.

32. Vanni E, Marengo A, Mezzabotta L, Bugianesi E. Systemic complications of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: when the liver is not an innocent bystander. Semin Liver Dis. 2015;35(3): 236-249.

33. Oni ET, Agatston AS, Blaha MJ, et al. A systematic review: burden and severity of subclinical cardiovascular disease among those with nonalcoholic fatty liver: should we care? Atherosclerosis. 2013;230(2):358-367.

34. Wong VW, Wong GL, Yip GW, et al. Coronary artery disease and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Gut. 2011;60(12):1721-1727.

35. Sinn DH, Cho SJ, Gu S. Persistent nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increased risk for carotid atherosclerosis. Gastroenterology. 2016;151(3):481-488.

36. Targher G, Byrne CD, Lonardo A, Zoppini G, Barbui C. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and risk of incident cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. J Hepatol. 2016;65(3):589-600.

37. Nelson A, Torres DM, Morgan AE, Fincke C, Harrison SA. A pilot study using simvastatin in the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;43(10):900-904.

38. Lewis JH, Mortensen ME, Zweig S, Fusco MJ, Medoff JR, Belder R; Pravastatin in Chronic Liver Disease Study Investigators. Efficacy and safety of high-dose pravastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients with well-compensated chronic liver disease: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Hepatology. 2007;46(5):1453-1463.

39. Athyros VG, Tziomalos K, Gossios TD, et al; GREACE Study Collaborative Group. Safety and efficacy of long-term statin treatment for cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease and abnormal liver tests in the Greek Atorvastatin and Coronary Heart Disease Evaluation (GREACE) study: a post-hoc analysis. Lancet. 2010;376(9756):1916-1922.

40. Musso G, Gambino R, Tabibian JH, et al. Association with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11(7):e1001680.

41. Targher G, Bertolini L, Rodella S, Lippi G, Zoppini G, Chonchol M. Relationship between kidney function and liver histology in subjects with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(12):2166-2171.

42. Vilar-Gomez E, Galzadilla-Bertot L, Friedman SL, et al. Improvement in liver histology due to lifestyle modification is independently associated with improved kidney function in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;45(2):332-344

43. Agrawal S, Duseja A, Aggarwal A, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea is an important predictor of hepatic fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a tertiary care center. Hepatol Int. 2015;9(2):283-291.

44. Sookoian S, Pirola CJ. Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with fatty liver and abnormal liver enzymes: a meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2013;23(11):1815-1825.

45. Aron-Wisnewsky J, Clement K, Pépin JL. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and obstructive sleep apnea. Metabolism. 2016;65(8):1124-1135.

46. Ding W, Fan J, Qin J. Association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and colorectal adenoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(1):322-333.

47. Shen H, Lipka S, Kumar A, Mustacchia P. Association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and colorectal adenoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014:5(6):440-446.

48. Lee YI, Lim YS, Park HS. Colorectal neoplasms in relation to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in Korean women: a retrospective cohort study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27(1):91-95.

49. Lin XF, Shi KQ, You J, et al. Increased risk of colorectal malignant neoplasm in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a large study. Mol Biol Rep. 2014;41(5):2989-2997.

50. Wong VW, Wong GL, Tsang SW, et al. High prevalence of colorectal neoplasm in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Gut. 2011;60(6):829-836.

51. Estes C, Razavi H, Loomba R, Younossi Z, Sanyal AJ. Modeling the epidemic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease demonstrates an exponential increase in burden of disease. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):123-133.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014.

2. Breland JY, Phibbs CS, Hoggatt KJ, et al. The obesity epidemic in the Veterans Health Administration: prevalence among key populations of women and men veterans. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(suppl 1):11-17.

3. Machado M, Marques-Vidal P, Cortez-Pinto H. Hepatic histology in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. J Hepatol. 2006;45(4):600-606.

4. Subichin M, Clanton J, Makuszewski M, Bohon A, Zografakis JG, Dan A. Liver disease in the morbidly obese: a review of 1000 consecutive patients undergoing weight loss surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(1):137-141.

5. Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Study Group, Lonardo A, Bellentani S, et al. Epidemiological modifiers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: focus on high-risk groups. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47(12):997-1006.

6. Kim D, Kim WR. Nonobese fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15(4):474-485.

7. Kotronen A, Westerbacka J, Bergholm R, Pietiläinen KH, Yki-Järvinen H. Liver fat in the metabolic syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92(9):3490-3497.

8. Shulman GI. Ectopic fat in insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and cardiometabolic disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(12):1131-1141.

9. Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, Fazel Y, Henry L, Wymer M. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology. 2016;64(1):73-84.

10. Armstrong MJ, Adams LA, Canbay A, et al. Extrahepatic complications of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2014;59(3):1174-1197.

11. Kashanian S, Fuchs M. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with diabetes mellitus: a clinician’s perspective. Int J Dig Dis. 2015;1:1.

12. Park SK, Seo MH, Shin HC, Ryoo JH. Clinical availability of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease as an early predictor of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Korean men: 5-year prospective cohort study. Hepatology. 2013;57(4):1378-1383.

13. Ekstedt M, Franzen LE, Mathiesen UL, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with NAFLD and elevated liver enzymes. Hepatology. 2006;44(4):865-873.

14. Chang Y, Jung HS, Yun KE, Cho J, Cho YK, Ryu S. Cohort study of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, NAFLD fibrosis score, and the risk of incident diabetes in a Korean population. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(12):1861-1868.

15. Ryysy L, Hakkinen AM, Goto T, et al. Hepatic fat content and insulin action on free fatty acids and glucose metabolism rather than insulin absorption are associated with insulin requirements during insulin therapy in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes. 2000;49(5):749-758.

16. Adams LA, Harmsen S, St Sauver JL, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increases risk of death among patients with diabetes: a community-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(7):1567-1573.

17. Yamazaki H, Tsuboya T, Tsuji K, Dohke M, Maguchi H. Independent association between improvement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and reduced risk of incidence of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(9):1673-1679.

18. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):328-357.

19. European Association for the Study of the Liver; European Association for the Study of Diabetes; European Association for the Study of Obesity. EASL-EASD-EASO clinical practice guidelines for the management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016;64(6):1388-1402.

20. McPherson S, Hardy T, Henderson E, Burt AD, Day CP, Anstee QM. Evidence of NAFLD progression from steatosis to fibrosing steatohepatitis using paired biopsies: implications for prognosis and clinical management. J Hepatol. 2015;62(5):1148-1155.

21. Ekstedt M, Hagstrom H, Nasr P, et al. Fibrosis stage is the strongest predictor for disease-specific mortality in NAFLD after up to 33 years of follow-up. Hepatology. 2015;61(5):1547-1554.

22. Angulo P, Kleiner DE, Dam-Larsen S, et al. Liver fibrosis, but no other histologic feature, is associated with long-term outcomes in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):389-397.

23. Portillo-Sanchez P, Bril F, Maximos M, et al. High prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and normal aminotransferases. J Clin Endocrinol. Metab. 2015;100(6):2231-2238.

24. Kwo PY, Cohen SM, and Lim JK. ACG clinical guideline: evaluation of abnormal liver chemistries. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(1):18-35.

25. Loomba R, Lutchman G, Kleiner DE, et al. Clinical trial: pilot study of metformin for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29(2):172-182.

26. Cusi K, Orsak B, Lomonaco R, et al. Extended treatment with pioglitazone improves liver histology in patients with pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes mellitus and NASH. Hepatology. 2013;58(supp 1):248a.

27. Armstrong MJ, Gaunt P, Aithal GP, et al. Liraglutide safety and efficacy in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (LEAN): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Lancet. 2016;387(10019):679-690.

28. Patel YA, Gifford EJ, Glass LM, et al. Risk factors for biopsy-proven advanced non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in the Veterans Health Administration. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47(2):268-278.

29. Cusi K, Orsak B, Bril F, et al. Long-term pioglitazone treatment for patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and prediabetes or type diabetes mellitus: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(5):305-315.

30. Sanyal AJ, Chalasani N, Kowdley KV, et al; NASH CRN. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(18):1675-1685.

31. Ekstedt M, Frazen LE, Mathiesen UL, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with NAFLD and elevated liver enzymes. Hepatology. 2006;44(4):865-873.

32. Vanni E, Marengo A, Mezzabotta L, Bugianesi E. Systemic complications of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: when the liver is not an innocent bystander. Semin Liver Dis. 2015;35(3): 236-249.

33. Oni ET, Agatston AS, Blaha MJ, et al. A systematic review: burden and severity of subclinical cardiovascular disease among those with nonalcoholic fatty liver: should we care? Atherosclerosis. 2013;230(2):358-367.

34. Wong VW, Wong GL, Yip GW, et al. Coronary artery disease and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Gut. 2011;60(12):1721-1727.

35. Sinn DH, Cho SJ, Gu S. Persistent nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increased risk for carotid atherosclerosis. Gastroenterology. 2016;151(3):481-488.

36. Targher G, Byrne CD, Lonardo A, Zoppini G, Barbui C. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and risk of incident cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. J Hepatol. 2016;65(3):589-600.

37. Nelson A, Torres DM, Morgan AE, Fincke C, Harrison SA. A pilot study using simvastatin in the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;43(10):900-904.

38. Lewis JH, Mortensen ME, Zweig S, Fusco MJ, Medoff JR, Belder R; Pravastatin in Chronic Liver Disease Study Investigators. Efficacy and safety of high-dose pravastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients with well-compensated chronic liver disease: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Hepatology. 2007;46(5):1453-1463.

39. Athyros VG, Tziomalos K, Gossios TD, et al; GREACE Study Collaborative Group. Safety and efficacy of long-term statin treatment for cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease and abnormal liver tests in the Greek Atorvastatin and Coronary Heart Disease Evaluation (GREACE) study: a post-hoc analysis. Lancet. 2010;376(9756):1916-1922.

40. Musso G, Gambino R, Tabibian JH, et al. Association with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11(7):e1001680.

41. Targher G, Bertolini L, Rodella S, Lippi G, Zoppini G, Chonchol M. Relationship between kidney function and liver histology in subjects with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(12):2166-2171.

42. Vilar-Gomez E, Galzadilla-Bertot L, Friedman SL, et al. Improvement in liver histology due to lifestyle modification is independently associated with improved kidney function in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;45(2):332-344

43. Agrawal S, Duseja A, Aggarwal A, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea is an important predictor of hepatic fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a tertiary care center. Hepatol Int. 2015;9(2):283-291.

44. Sookoian S, Pirola CJ. Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with fatty liver and abnormal liver enzymes: a meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2013;23(11):1815-1825.

45. Aron-Wisnewsky J, Clement K, Pépin JL. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and obstructive sleep apnea. Metabolism. 2016;65(8):1124-1135.

46. Ding W, Fan J, Qin J. Association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and colorectal adenoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(1):322-333.

47. Shen H, Lipka S, Kumar A, Mustacchia P. Association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and colorectal adenoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014:5(6):440-446.

48. Lee YI, Lim YS, Park HS. Colorectal neoplasms in relation to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in Korean women: a retrospective cohort study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27(1):91-95.

49. Lin XF, Shi KQ, You J, et al. Increased risk of colorectal malignant neoplasm in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a large study. Mol Biol Rep. 2014;41(5):2989-2997.

50. Wong VW, Wong GL, Tsang SW, et al. High prevalence of colorectal neoplasm in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Gut. 2011;60(6):829-836.

51. Estes C, Razavi H, Loomba R, Younossi Z, Sanyal AJ. Modeling the epidemic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease demonstrates an exponential increase in burden of disease. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):123-133.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(2)a
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(2)a
Page Number
64-71
Page Number
64-71
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

Identifying and Treating Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 02/04/2019 - 12:18
NAFLD improves with 7% or greater weight loss.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a silent epidemic affecting nearly 1 in 3 Americans and is increasing within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).1,2 NAFLD independently increases the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death and impairs health-related quality of life (QOL).3 NAFLD primarily affects those with metabolic risk factors (prediabetes, T2DM, and metabolic syndrome) or obesity (Figure 1).4,5 

In the US, 1 in 3 adults have prediabetes and 1 in 10 have T2DM (increasing to 1 in 4 aged ≥ 65 years).6 Among veterans, obesity affects 31% within 6 years postdeployment and 41% overall who receive VHA care.7,8 Other patient characteristics associated with higher rates of NAFLD include Hispanic ethnicity and older age.9-11

Among those with NAFLD, most have nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL), or simple steatosis, affecting > 5% of liver cells (Figure 2).12 

However, 25% to 30% exhibit nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), with steatosis, inflammation, hepatocyte injury, and often alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevations.13About 4% of patients progress to cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on 7- to 15-year follow-up (with 9% cirrhosis or end-stage liver disease rates in 1 recent study with up to 23-year follow-up).1,14

In most patients (80%), NAFLD progresses slowly over decades. The progression is related to continuing insulin resistance.15,16 Greater disease progression is seen in patients with T2DM or concomitant chronic liver disease (such as hepatitis C).10,11,16 Patients with NAFLD who develop advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis experience increased rates of overall mortality, liver-related events, and liver transplantation.1,9,17,18 Within the VHA, NAFLD is the third most common cause of cirrhosis and HCC, occurring at an average age of 66 and 70 years, respectively.19Less commonly, HCC also can occur in NAFLD without cirrhosis.20

Although no pharmaceuticals are yet approved to treat NAFLD, even modest weight loss is beneficial. For example, weight loss > 4% improves fatty liver, ≥ 7% improves liver inflammation, and ≥ 10% decreases liver fibrosis (or scarring).21-23 In patients with a prior lack of success with weight loss, weight loss medications may be beneficial for short-term use.24 When comparing the effects of diet, exercise, obesity pharmacotherapy, and combinations for these approaches, intensive lifestyle modification with exercise had the greatest, most enduring benefit.25 Additionally, bariatric (weight loss) surgery has significantly improved health and liver-related outcomes for patients with NASH.26

In at-risk veterans, NAFLD has myriad negative effects on health and QOL. To improve its early identification and management in the VHA, we summarize strategies that all providers can use to screen and treat patients for this condition.

Screening for Advanced Fibrosis

Advanced fibrosis in NAFLD is diagnosed by analyzing adequately sized liver biopsies.27,28 However, noninvasive approaches to quantify advanced fibrosis by imaging or use of a simple fibrosis prediction score also are available. Imaging modalities include measuring liver stiffness, using transient elastography (FibroScan, Waltham, MA) or magnetic resonance elastography.1,29-31 Fibrosis prediction scores use common clinical and laboratory data to predict the presence or absence of advanced fibrosis (Table 1).29 

Of these, the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index requires only ALT, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), platelet count, and age to calculate the score and performs similarly to the NAFLD fibrosis score.32-35 FIB-4 and the NAFLD fibrosis score are validated in ethnically diverse populations, recommended in evidence-based guidelines, and can be calculated using online calculators (eg, FIB-4).11,16,33 The easily summed BARD score also detects NAFLD advanced fibrosis yet incorrectly identified advanced fibrosis in many patients without liver biopsy evidence of advanced fibrosis in a recent VHA study.36,37 With increasing VHA rates of NAFLD, these scores are a simple way to identify patients with probable advanced fibrosis who may benefit from hepatology or gastroenterology consultation.2

 

 

Does This Patient Have NAFLD?

To identify NAFLD, patients with metabolic syndrome and modest or no alcohol use are first assessed for liver injury with ALT, AST, and complete blood count (Figure 3; Case 1).16 

Among patients presenting with incidental liver enzyme elevations to primary care, NAFLD was the most common cause.38

Next, common underlying liver diseases that cause liver injury should be excluded by hepatitis B and C virus serology.11,16 Other underlying liver diseases are uncommon and should be assessed only if clinically indicated. 

After excluding secondary causes of fatty liver (eg, drugs causing steatosis, parenteral nutrition, severe malnutrition, etc), NAFLD is likely, particularly in those displaying fatty liver or steatosis on liver imaging (Table 2).11,16

Evaluation of fasting glucose or hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)can identify undiagnosed T2DM. NAFL, or simple steatosis, is independently associated with an increased risk of T2DM, cardiovascular and kidney disease, yet not overall mortality.16 Over 10 to 20 years, few patients (4%) with simple steatosis progress to cirrhosis.39In contrast, NAFLD advanced fibrosis significantly increases overall and liver-related mortality and can be assessed with high probability by calculating the patient’s FIB-4, even in those with normal liver enzymes.11,16 Patients with highly probable advanced fibrosis merit evaluation by hepatology or gastroenterology (Figure 3).

In NAFLD, simple steatosis can resolve, and NASH can significantly improve with 7% to 10% weight loss.16,23,40 Patients with simple steatosis on imaging and normal liver enzymes should be monitored with periodic liver enzymes and fibrosis prediction scores (eg, FIB-4) and encouraged to pursue intensive lifestyle intervention.16,33 Without weight loss and exercise interventions metabolic syndrome, T2DM, and NAFLD may progress.

Patients with combined liver steatosis and liver enzyme elevations may exhibit NASH and warrant an evaluation by a hepatologist or gastroenterologist for consideration of additional testing or liver biopsy.16While ALT elevations often have been used as a marker of NASH, ALT can be normal in NASH and in advanced fibrosis.41,42 A liver biopsy is required to establish the diagnosis of NASH, which progresses to cirrhosis in 15% to 20% over a 10- to 20-year follow-up period (Case 2).39 Fibrosis prediction scores also can evaluate the probability of advanced fibrosis in these patients.

Encouraging Patients to Pursue Intensive Lifestyle InterventionS

Most veterans wish to collaborate in their care (Table 3, Figure 4) yet experience many barriers, such as low health literacy, high rates of comorbidities, and ongoing drug/alcohol misuse.43,44 

  To motivate patients to action to prevent the progression of NAFLD, patients must understand how it affects the development of T2DM, cardiovascular disease, and liver disease and the value of the intervention.  To enhance disease understanding, the VHA provides a simple 2-page patient information sheet about NAFLD and its treatment.45 A 2-page pictorial patient education handout on NAFLD and its treatment is available as well (eAppendix)
.

In addition to patient education, motivational interviewing significantly improves weight loss, resulting in a 3.3 lb (1.5 kg) increased weight loss in the intervention group vs the control group in weight loss studies.46By being supportive, empathic, and clearly sharing the rationale for change, motivational interviewing is a collaborative conversation to guide patients to strengthen their motivation and commitment to change.47 It helps patients examine and address their ambivalence—most recognize they should exercise and lose weight, but it can be difficult.

To start the conversation, the health care provider can explain that NAFLD increases the risk of T2DM, heart disease, and liver injury or scarring and can be effectively treated (or improved) with modest weight loss and regular exercise (ie, 14 lb weight loss if 200 lb, or 21 lb weight loss if 300 lb). Exercise can start with a 5-minute walk and build to 30 minutes daily). Then, the provider can ask the following 4 questions:

 

 

  1. Why would you want to lose weight and exercise?
  2. How might you go about it in order to succeed?
  3. What are the 3 best reasons for you to do it?
  4. How important is it for you to make this change, and why? The provider can also ask the patient to quantify on a scale of 1 to 10: (a) How likely is it that they will make each required change? (b) How hard will each change be for them?
  5. The provider then summarizes the patient’s reasons for wanting change, how he/she can effect change, what their best reasons are, and how to successfully change. The provider then asks a final question:
  6. So what do you think you will do?

Most patients report feeling engaged, empowered, open, and understood with motivational interviewing. People are “persuaded by what they hear themselves say,” increasing motivation to change.47

This personalized action plan facilitates successful health behavior change.48 Action plans should integrate daily routines. For example, by placing the scale near the toothbrush, daily weighing is encouraged. Daily weighing is associated with significantly greater weight loss and less weight regain.49 In a 6-month, randomized controlled weight loss trial in men and women, daily weighing (using a scale that automatically transmitted weight data), with weekly e-mails and tailored feedback yielded an overall 9% weight loss and increased use of exercise and diet behaviors associated with weight loss in comparison with those who weighed themselves less than weekly.50 This simple daily measure seems to reinforce a patient’s action plan.

Adherence to an action plan significantly improves with patient education, peer or social support, and addressing barriers to adherence.51 For example, by providing support with weekly text messaging of “How are you?” and addressing the issues that patients reported in a large randomized treatment trial, adherence was significantly improved.52 In VHA patients with low health literacy, peer support or telephone coaching also has proven effective in increasing weight loss and glycemic control in patients with T2DM.53,54 Providing multidisciplinary team support during intensive lifestyle intervention, providers can partner with patients to address questions or issues and applaud progress.

Effective VHA interventions

In an ethnically diverse population of patients with prediabetes, up to 7% weight loss was observed in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP).55 In this study patients were randomized to placebo; metformin 850 mg twice daily; or a lifestyle-modification program in which they received one-on-one culturally sensitive, individualized lessons in diet, moderate exercise (≥ 150 minutes weekly), and behavior modification from case managers over 16 sessions. Lessons were reinforced in both group and individual sessions. This intervention was associated with an average of 6% weight loss at 6 months (half of participants attained 7% weight loss) and a 58% decrease in the rate of progression to T2DM over a nearly 3-year follow-up of this population with prediabetes compared with that of the placebo group.55 Over a 15-year follow-up, the intensive lifestyle intervention group sustained a 27% decrease in the incidence of T2DM compared with that of the placebo group.56 To emulate the success of the DPP in the VHA, a web-based DPP-like study in female veterans was performed with online coaching and daily weighing. This study achieved a 5.2% weight loss from baseline at 4 months.57

 

 

To improve outcomes, the VHA MOVE! Weight Management Program has been revised to include more sustained intervention (16 sessions) and multiple modes for participating—in person, by telephone, via video, via MOVE! Coach phone app, or any combination.58 Using shared decision making between patients with NAFLD and their providers, a customized MOVE! weight loss program can be developed to enable sustained intensive lifestyle intervention: hypocaloric diet, ≥ 150 minutes of moderate exercise weekly, and behavioral change.

In addition to intensive lifestyle intervention, a prospective study found that bariatric surgery significantly improved outcomes in patients with NASH, with most patients experiencing resolution of their NASH and nearly half exhibiting significantly improved fibrosis.26 In the VHA, bariatric surgery has yielded excellent long-term outcomes, with 21% sustained weight loss from baseline (vs matched nonsurgical population) at 10 years postoperatively in patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.59 Bariatric surgery also results in long-term remission of T2DM in most patients and significant improvement in hypertension and dyslipidemia.60 The risks of bariatric surgery include 3% serious complications, 1% reoperation rates, and 0.4% 30-day mortality.61,62 Bariatric surgery can be considered in patients with BMI > 40 or in patients with BMI > 35 who have comorbidities and do not have decompensated cirrhosis.63,64

Beyond weight loss, more favorable liver-related outcomes and lower rates of advanced liver fibrosis are observed in those consuming filtered coffee; a reduction in liver steatosis also is observed with adherence to a Mediterranean diet.65,66 In NAFLD, statins may improve liver chemistries and fibrosis; this class of medications can be used safely even in the presence of an elevated ALT.11,67As a risk factor for chronic liver disease, alcohol consumption of ≥ 4 drinks per day or > 14 drinks per week for men or > 7 drinks per week for women should be avoided in patients with NAFLD.11

Conclusion

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease independently increases the risk of T2DM, cardiovascular disease and kidney disease. With its rates increasing in the VHA, earlier identification and intervention is warranted in patients at high risk (ie, those with metabolic syndrome, obesity, and T2DM).2 

In patients with metabolic syndrome and modest or no alcohol use, NAFLD can be identified by the presence of fatty liver on imaging in those in whom liver enzymes are measured and hepatitis B and C virus and secondary causes of fatty liver are excluded (aligning with the European Association of the Study of Liver Disease simple algorithm).16

NASH is more frequent in those with liver enzyme elevations or with an elevated FIB-4 and is associated with a long-term risk of cirrhosis. These patients merit referral to hepatology or gastroenterology for further evaluation and consideration of a liver biopsy to identify NASH. Patients with likely NAFLD without liver enzyme elevations can be further evaluated with FIB-4 scores to assess their probability of advanced liver fibrosis and potential need for referral to hepatology or gastroenterology.

Early NAFLD detection and intervention with intensive lifestyle modifications has the potential to avert progression to advanced fibrosis—and its associated increased overall and liver-related mortality, and impaired QOL.3,16,18  Although FIB-4 is a validated predictor of advanced fibrosis, this score is not yet used nationally to identify and risk stratify NAFLD in the VHA. Additionally, the very low use of VHA diet/exercise programs in eligible patients contributes to NAFLD progression.68 The cost-effective DPP has successfully yielded weight loss in patients with prediabetes and decreases in the incidence of T2DM through motivational interviewing and intensive lifestyle intervention.55 

By revising MOVE!, the VHA has enhanced its intensive lifestyle intervention program.

To improve NAFLD management, providers can successfully engage patients through motivational interviewing for intensive lifestyle intervention. Their resulting weight loss is enhanced with a personalized action plan, daily weighing, and peer support. When NAFLD is identified in patients with metabolic risk factors, the probability of advanced fibrosis is easily assessed in those with elevated FIB-4 scores who merit gastrointestinal referral.33,37

In all those identified with NAFLD, disease information should be provided to patients and their families. Intensive lifestyle modification targeting a ≥ 7% weight loss is recommended; motivational interviewing can increase commitment to change and yield a customized action plan for sustained weight loss. Working with the support and encouragement of their team of primary care providers, dieticians, and MOVE! coaches, patients can actively engage to improve their NAFLD and overall health.

References

1. Rinella ME. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;313(22):2263-2273.

2. Kanwal F, Kramer JR, Duan Z, et al. Trends in the burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a United States cohort of veterans. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(2):301-308.

3. Golabi P, Otgonsuren M, Cable R, et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with impairment of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):18.

4. Targher G, Bertolini  L, Padovani  R,  et al. Prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and its association with cardiovascular disease among type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(5):1212-1218.

5. Argo CK, Caldwell SH. Epidemiology and natural history of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin Liver Dis. 2009;13(4):511-531.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Prediabetes & Type 2 Diabetes. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/prediabetes-type2/index.html. Updated June 11, 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

7. Littman AJ, Jacobson IG, Boyko EJ, Powell TM, Smith TC; Millennium Cohort Study Team. Weight change following US military service. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37(2):244-253.

8. Breland JY, Phibbs CS, Hoggatt KJ, et al. The obesity epidemic in the Veterans Health Administration: prevalence among key populations of women and men veterans. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(suppl 1):11-17.

9. Angulo P, Hui JM, Marchesini G, et al. The NAFLD fibrosis score: a noninvasive system that identifies liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Hepatology. 2007;45(4):846-854.

10. Bazick J, Donithan M, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, et al. Clinical model for NASH and advanced fibrosis in adult patients with diabetes and NAFLD: guidelines for referral in NAFLD. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(7):1347-1355.

11. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):328-357.

12. Bril F, Barb D, Portillo‐Sanchez P, et al. Metabolic and histological implications of intrahepatic triglyceride content in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2017;65(4):1132-1144.

13. Diehl AM, Day C. Cause, pathogenesis, and treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(21):2063-2072.

14. Nasr P, Ignatova S, Kechagias S, Ekstedt M. Natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective follow-up study with serial biopsies. Hepatol Commun. 2018;27(2):199-210.

15. Singh S, Allen AM, Wang Z, Prokop LJ, Murad MH, Loomba R. Fibrosis progression in nonalcoholic fatty liver vs nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of paired-biopsy studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(4):643-654.

16. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL); European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD); European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO). EASL-EASD-EASO clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016;64(6):1388-1402.

17. Younossi ZM, Blissett D, Blissett R, et al. The economic and clinical burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the United States and Europe. Hepatology. 2016;64(5):1577-1586.

18. Angulo P, Kleiner DE, Dam-Larsen S, et al. Liver fibrosis, but no other histologic features, is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):389-397.

19. Beste LA, Leipertz SL, Green PK, Dominitz JA, Ross D, Ioannou GN. Trends in burden of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma by underlying liver disease in US Veterans, 2001-2013. Gastroenterology 2015;149(6):1471-1482.

20. Mittal S, El-Serag HB, Sada YH, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in the absence of cirrhosis in United States veterans is associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(1):124-131.

21. Kenneally S, Sier JH, Moore JB. Efficacy of dietary and physical activity intervention in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2017;4(1):e000139.

22. Thoma C, Day CP, Trenell MI. Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adults: a systematic review. J Hepatol. 2012;56(1):255-266.

23. Vilar-Gomez E, Martinez-Perez Y, Calzadilla-Bertot L, et al. Weight loss through lifestyle modification significantly reduces features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):367-378.

24. Apovian CM, Aronne LJ, Bessesen DH, et al; Endocrine Society. Pharmacological management of obesity: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(2):342-362.

25. Haw JS, Galaviz KI, Straus AN, et al. Long-term sustainability of diabetes prevention approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1808-1817.

26. Lassailly G, Caiazzo R, Buob D, et al. Bariatric surgery reduces features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in morbidly obese patients. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):379-388.

27. Kleiner DE, Brunt EM, Van Natta M, et al; Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network. Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2005;41(6):1313-1321.

28. Bedossa P; FLIP Pathology Consortium. Utility and appropriateness of the fatty liver inhibition of progression (FLIP) algorithm and steatosis, activity, and fibrosis (SAF) score in the evaluation of biopsies of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2014;60(2):565-567.

29. Tapper EB, Sengupta N, Hunink MG, Afdhal NH, Lai M. Cost-effective evaluation of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with NAFLD fibrosis score and vibration controlled transient elastography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(9):1298-1304.

30. Cui J, Ang B, Haufe W, et al. Comparative diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance elastography vs. eight clinical prediction rules for non‐invasive diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in biopsy‐proven non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;41(12):1271-1280.

31. Tapper EB, Lok AS-F. Use of liver imaging and biopsy in clinical practice. N Engl J Med . 2017;377(8):756-768.

32. Sterling RK, Lissen E, Clumeck N; APRICOT Clinical Investigators. Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. Hepatology. 2006;43(6):1317-1325.

33. Imler T. Indiana University School of Medicine - GIHep calculators. http://gihep.com/calculators/hepatology/fibrosis-4-score. Published 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

34. Sun W, Cui H , Li N, et al. Comparison of FIB-4 index, NAFLD fibrosis score and BARD score for prediction of advanced fibrosis in adult patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis study. Hepatol Res. 2016;46(9):862-870.

35. Imler T, Indiana University School of Medicine - GIHep calculators. http://gihep.com/calculators/hepatology/nafld-fibrosis-score. Published 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

36. Harrison SA, Oliver D, Arnold HL, Gogia S, Neuschwander-Tetri BA. Development and validation of a simple NAFLD clinical scoring system for identifying patients without advanced disease. Gut. 2008;57(10):1441-1447.

37. Patel YA, Gifford EJ, Glass LM, et al. Identifying non-alcoholic fatty liver disease advanced fibrosis in the Veterans Health Administration. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63(9): 2259-2266.

38. Armstrong MJ, Houlihan DD, Bentham L, et al. Presence and severity of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in a large prospective primary care cohort. J Hepatol. 2012;56(1):234-240.

39. Matteoni CA, Younossi ZM, Gramlich T, Boparai N, Liu YC, McCullough AJ. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a spectrum of clinical and pathological severity. Gastroenterology. 1999;116(6):1413-1419.

40. Promrat K, Kleiner DE, Niemeier HM, et al. Randomized controlled trial testing the effects of weight loss on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology. 2010;51(1):121-129.

41. Mofrad P, Contos MJ, Haque M, et al. Clinical and histologic spectrum of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease associated with normal ALT values. Hepatology. 2003;37(6):1286-1292.

42. Portillo-Sanchez P, Bril F, Maximos M, et al. High prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Normal Plasma Aminotransferase Levels. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015;100(6):2231-2238.

43. Rodriguez V, Andrade AD, Garcia-Retamero R, et al. Health literacy, numeracy, and graphical literacy among veterans in primary care and their effect on shared decision making and trust in physicians. J Health Commun. 2013;18(suppl 1):273-289.

44. Kramer JR, Kanwal F, Richardson P, Mei M, El-Serag HB. Gaps in the achievement of effectiveness of HCV treatment in national VA practice. J Hepatol. 2012;56(2):320-325.

45. Veterans Health Administration. Non-alcoholic fatty liver: information for patients. https://www.hepatitis.va.gov/pdf/NAFL.pdf. Published September 2017. Accessed November 7, 2018.

46. Armstrong MJ, Mottershead TA, Ronksley PE, Sigal RJ, Campbell TS, Hemmelgarn BR. Motivational interviewing to improve weight loss in overweight and/or obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2011;12(9):709-723.

47. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change. Guilford Press: NY, New York; 2013.

48. Leventhal H, Leventhal EA, Breland JY. Cognitive science speaks to the “common sense” of chronic illness management. Ann Behav Med. 2011;41(2):152-163.

49. Zheng Y, Klem ML, Sereika SM, Danford CA, Ewing LJ, Burke LE. Self-weighing in weight management: a systematic literature review. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2015;23(2):256-265.

50. Steinberg DM, Bennett GG, Askew S, Tate DF. Weighing every day matters; daily weighing improves weight loss and adoption of weight control behaviors. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115(4):511-518.

51. Charania MR, Marshall KJ, Lyles CM; HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis (PRS) Team. Identification of evidence-based interventions for promoting HIV medication adherence: findings from a systematic review of U.S.-based studies, 1996-2011. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(4):646-660.

52. Lester RT, Ritvo P, Mills EJ, et al. Effects of a mobile phone short message service on antiretroviral treatment adherence in Kenya (WelTel Kenya1): a randomised trial. Lancet 2010;376(9755):1838-1845.

53. Dutton GR, Phillips JM, Kukkamalla M, Cherrington AL, Safford MM. Pilot study evaluating the feasibility and initial outcomes of a primary care weight loss intervention with peer coaches. Diabetes Educ. 2015:41(3):361-368.

54. Fisher EB, Coufal MM, Parada H, et al. Peer support in health care and prevention: Cultural, organizational, and dissemination issues. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35(1):363-383.

55. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;(346):393-403.

56. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Long-term effects of lifestyle intervention or metformin on diabetes development and microvascular complications over 15-year follow-up: the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;3(11):866-875.

57. Moin T, Ertl K, Schneider J, et al. Women veterans’ experience with a web-based diabetes prevention program: a qualitative study to inform future practice. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(5):e127.

58. US Department of Veterans Affairs. MOVE! Weight management program. https://www.move.va.gov/MOVE/index.asp. Updated October 5, 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

59. Maciejewski ML, Arterburn DE, Van Scoyoc L, et al. Bariatric surgery and long-term durability of weight loss. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(11):1046-1055.

60. Adams TD, Davidson LE, Litwin SE, et al. Weight and metabolic outcomes 12 years after gastric bypass. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(12):1143-1155.

61. Dimick JB, Nicholas LH, Ryan AM, Thumma JR, Birkmeyer JD. Bariatric surgery complications beforevs after implementation of a national policy restricting coverage to centers of excellence. JAMA. 2013;309(8):792-799.

62. The Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS) Consortium, Flum DR, Belle SH, et al. Perioperative safety in the longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(5):445-454.

63. Brito JP, Montori VM, Davis AM; Delegates of the 2nd Diabetes Surgery Summit. Metabolic surgery in the treatment algorithm for type 2 diabetes: a joint statement by international diabetes organizations. JAMA. 2017;317(6):635-636.

64. Mosko JD, Nguyen GC. Increased perioperative mortality following bariatric surgery among patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(10):897-901.

65. Saab S, Mallam D, Cox GA 2nd, Tong MJ. Impact of coffee on liver diseases: a systematic review. Liver Int. 2014;34(4):495-504.

66. Ryan MC, Itsiopoulos C, Thodis T, et al. The Mediterranean diet improves hepatic steatosis and insulin sensitivity in individuals with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2013;59(1):138-143.

67. Musso G, Gambino R, Cassader M, Pagano G. A meta‐analysis of randomized trials for the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2010;52(1):79-104.

68. Patel Y, Gifford EJ, Glass LM, et al. Risk factors for biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease progression in the Veterans Health Administration. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47(2):268-278.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Christine Hunt is a Physician Affiliate, Marsha Turner is a Research Health Science Specialist at the Cooperative Studies Program Epidemiology Center, and Rachel Britt is a Hepatology Clinical Pharmacy Specialist, all at Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System in North Carolina. Elizabeth Gifford is an Assistant Research Professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University in Durham. Grace Su is a Professor of Medicine at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Systems in Michigan and at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Christine Hunt also is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
20-29
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Christine Hunt is a Physician Affiliate, Marsha Turner is a Research Health Science Specialist at the Cooperative Studies Program Epidemiology Center, and Rachel Britt is a Hepatology Clinical Pharmacy Specialist, all at Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System in North Carolina. Elizabeth Gifford is an Assistant Research Professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University in Durham. Grace Su is a Professor of Medicine at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Systems in Michigan and at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Christine Hunt also is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Author and Disclosure Information

Christine Hunt is a Physician Affiliate, Marsha Turner is a Research Health Science Specialist at the Cooperative Studies Program Epidemiology Center, and Rachel Britt is a Hepatology Clinical Pharmacy Specialist, all at Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System in North Carolina. Elizabeth Gifford is an Assistant Research Professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University in Durham. Grace Su is a Professor of Medicine at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Systems in Michigan and at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Christine Hunt also is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Article PDF
Article PDF
NAFLD improves with 7% or greater weight loss.
NAFLD improves with 7% or greater weight loss.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a silent epidemic affecting nearly 1 in 3 Americans and is increasing within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).1,2 NAFLD independently increases the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death and impairs health-related quality of life (QOL).3 NAFLD primarily affects those with metabolic risk factors (prediabetes, T2DM, and metabolic syndrome) or obesity (Figure 1).4,5 

In the US, 1 in 3 adults have prediabetes and 1 in 10 have T2DM (increasing to 1 in 4 aged ≥ 65 years).6 Among veterans, obesity affects 31% within 6 years postdeployment and 41% overall who receive VHA care.7,8 Other patient characteristics associated with higher rates of NAFLD include Hispanic ethnicity and older age.9-11

Among those with NAFLD, most have nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL), or simple steatosis, affecting > 5% of liver cells (Figure 2).12 

However, 25% to 30% exhibit nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), with steatosis, inflammation, hepatocyte injury, and often alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevations.13About 4% of patients progress to cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on 7- to 15-year follow-up (with 9% cirrhosis or end-stage liver disease rates in 1 recent study with up to 23-year follow-up).1,14

In most patients (80%), NAFLD progresses slowly over decades. The progression is related to continuing insulin resistance.15,16 Greater disease progression is seen in patients with T2DM or concomitant chronic liver disease (such as hepatitis C).10,11,16 Patients with NAFLD who develop advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis experience increased rates of overall mortality, liver-related events, and liver transplantation.1,9,17,18 Within the VHA, NAFLD is the third most common cause of cirrhosis and HCC, occurring at an average age of 66 and 70 years, respectively.19Less commonly, HCC also can occur in NAFLD without cirrhosis.20

Although no pharmaceuticals are yet approved to treat NAFLD, even modest weight loss is beneficial. For example, weight loss > 4% improves fatty liver, ≥ 7% improves liver inflammation, and ≥ 10% decreases liver fibrosis (or scarring).21-23 In patients with a prior lack of success with weight loss, weight loss medications may be beneficial for short-term use.24 When comparing the effects of diet, exercise, obesity pharmacotherapy, and combinations for these approaches, intensive lifestyle modification with exercise had the greatest, most enduring benefit.25 Additionally, bariatric (weight loss) surgery has significantly improved health and liver-related outcomes for patients with NASH.26

In at-risk veterans, NAFLD has myriad negative effects on health and QOL. To improve its early identification and management in the VHA, we summarize strategies that all providers can use to screen and treat patients for this condition.

Screening for Advanced Fibrosis

Advanced fibrosis in NAFLD is diagnosed by analyzing adequately sized liver biopsies.27,28 However, noninvasive approaches to quantify advanced fibrosis by imaging or use of a simple fibrosis prediction score also are available. Imaging modalities include measuring liver stiffness, using transient elastography (FibroScan, Waltham, MA) or magnetic resonance elastography.1,29-31 Fibrosis prediction scores use common clinical and laboratory data to predict the presence or absence of advanced fibrosis (Table 1).29 

Of these, the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index requires only ALT, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), platelet count, and age to calculate the score and performs similarly to the NAFLD fibrosis score.32-35 FIB-4 and the NAFLD fibrosis score are validated in ethnically diverse populations, recommended in evidence-based guidelines, and can be calculated using online calculators (eg, FIB-4).11,16,33 The easily summed BARD score also detects NAFLD advanced fibrosis yet incorrectly identified advanced fibrosis in many patients without liver biopsy evidence of advanced fibrosis in a recent VHA study.36,37 With increasing VHA rates of NAFLD, these scores are a simple way to identify patients with probable advanced fibrosis who may benefit from hepatology or gastroenterology consultation.2

 

 

Does This Patient Have NAFLD?

To identify NAFLD, patients with metabolic syndrome and modest or no alcohol use are first assessed for liver injury with ALT, AST, and complete blood count (Figure 3; Case 1).16 

Among patients presenting with incidental liver enzyme elevations to primary care, NAFLD was the most common cause.38

Next, common underlying liver diseases that cause liver injury should be excluded by hepatitis B and C virus serology.11,16 Other underlying liver diseases are uncommon and should be assessed only if clinically indicated. 

After excluding secondary causes of fatty liver (eg, drugs causing steatosis, parenteral nutrition, severe malnutrition, etc), NAFLD is likely, particularly in those displaying fatty liver or steatosis on liver imaging (Table 2).11,16

Evaluation of fasting glucose or hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)can identify undiagnosed T2DM. NAFL, or simple steatosis, is independently associated with an increased risk of T2DM, cardiovascular and kidney disease, yet not overall mortality.16 Over 10 to 20 years, few patients (4%) with simple steatosis progress to cirrhosis.39In contrast, NAFLD advanced fibrosis significantly increases overall and liver-related mortality and can be assessed with high probability by calculating the patient’s FIB-4, even in those with normal liver enzymes.11,16 Patients with highly probable advanced fibrosis merit evaluation by hepatology or gastroenterology (Figure 3).

In NAFLD, simple steatosis can resolve, and NASH can significantly improve with 7% to 10% weight loss.16,23,40 Patients with simple steatosis on imaging and normal liver enzymes should be monitored with periodic liver enzymes and fibrosis prediction scores (eg, FIB-4) and encouraged to pursue intensive lifestyle intervention.16,33 Without weight loss and exercise interventions metabolic syndrome, T2DM, and NAFLD may progress.

Patients with combined liver steatosis and liver enzyme elevations may exhibit NASH and warrant an evaluation by a hepatologist or gastroenterologist for consideration of additional testing or liver biopsy.16While ALT elevations often have been used as a marker of NASH, ALT can be normal in NASH and in advanced fibrosis.41,42 A liver biopsy is required to establish the diagnosis of NASH, which progresses to cirrhosis in 15% to 20% over a 10- to 20-year follow-up period (Case 2).39 Fibrosis prediction scores also can evaluate the probability of advanced fibrosis in these patients.

Encouraging Patients to Pursue Intensive Lifestyle InterventionS

Most veterans wish to collaborate in their care (Table 3, Figure 4) yet experience many barriers, such as low health literacy, high rates of comorbidities, and ongoing drug/alcohol misuse.43,44 

  To motivate patients to action to prevent the progression of NAFLD, patients must understand how it affects the development of T2DM, cardiovascular disease, and liver disease and the value of the intervention.  To enhance disease understanding, the VHA provides a simple 2-page patient information sheet about NAFLD and its treatment.45 A 2-page pictorial patient education handout on NAFLD and its treatment is available as well (eAppendix)
.

In addition to patient education, motivational interviewing significantly improves weight loss, resulting in a 3.3 lb (1.5 kg) increased weight loss in the intervention group vs the control group in weight loss studies.46By being supportive, empathic, and clearly sharing the rationale for change, motivational interviewing is a collaborative conversation to guide patients to strengthen their motivation and commitment to change.47 It helps patients examine and address their ambivalence—most recognize they should exercise and lose weight, but it can be difficult.

To start the conversation, the health care provider can explain that NAFLD increases the risk of T2DM, heart disease, and liver injury or scarring and can be effectively treated (or improved) with modest weight loss and regular exercise (ie, 14 lb weight loss if 200 lb, or 21 lb weight loss if 300 lb). Exercise can start with a 5-minute walk and build to 30 minutes daily). Then, the provider can ask the following 4 questions:

 

 

  1. Why would you want to lose weight and exercise?
  2. How might you go about it in order to succeed?
  3. What are the 3 best reasons for you to do it?
  4. How important is it for you to make this change, and why? The provider can also ask the patient to quantify on a scale of 1 to 10: (a) How likely is it that they will make each required change? (b) How hard will each change be for them?
  5. The provider then summarizes the patient’s reasons for wanting change, how he/she can effect change, what their best reasons are, and how to successfully change. The provider then asks a final question:
  6. So what do you think you will do?

Most patients report feeling engaged, empowered, open, and understood with motivational interviewing. People are “persuaded by what they hear themselves say,” increasing motivation to change.47

This personalized action plan facilitates successful health behavior change.48 Action plans should integrate daily routines. For example, by placing the scale near the toothbrush, daily weighing is encouraged. Daily weighing is associated with significantly greater weight loss and less weight regain.49 In a 6-month, randomized controlled weight loss trial in men and women, daily weighing (using a scale that automatically transmitted weight data), with weekly e-mails and tailored feedback yielded an overall 9% weight loss and increased use of exercise and diet behaviors associated with weight loss in comparison with those who weighed themselves less than weekly.50 This simple daily measure seems to reinforce a patient’s action plan.

Adherence to an action plan significantly improves with patient education, peer or social support, and addressing barriers to adherence.51 For example, by providing support with weekly text messaging of “How are you?” and addressing the issues that patients reported in a large randomized treatment trial, adherence was significantly improved.52 In VHA patients with low health literacy, peer support or telephone coaching also has proven effective in increasing weight loss and glycemic control in patients with T2DM.53,54 Providing multidisciplinary team support during intensive lifestyle intervention, providers can partner with patients to address questions or issues and applaud progress.

Effective VHA interventions

In an ethnically diverse population of patients with prediabetes, up to 7% weight loss was observed in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP).55 In this study patients were randomized to placebo; metformin 850 mg twice daily; or a lifestyle-modification program in which they received one-on-one culturally sensitive, individualized lessons in diet, moderate exercise (≥ 150 minutes weekly), and behavior modification from case managers over 16 sessions. Lessons were reinforced in both group and individual sessions. This intervention was associated with an average of 6% weight loss at 6 months (half of participants attained 7% weight loss) and a 58% decrease in the rate of progression to T2DM over a nearly 3-year follow-up of this population with prediabetes compared with that of the placebo group.55 Over a 15-year follow-up, the intensive lifestyle intervention group sustained a 27% decrease in the incidence of T2DM compared with that of the placebo group.56 To emulate the success of the DPP in the VHA, a web-based DPP-like study in female veterans was performed with online coaching and daily weighing. This study achieved a 5.2% weight loss from baseline at 4 months.57

 

 

To improve outcomes, the VHA MOVE! Weight Management Program has been revised to include more sustained intervention (16 sessions) and multiple modes for participating—in person, by telephone, via video, via MOVE! Coach phone app, or any combination.58 Using shared decision making between patients with NAFLD and their providers, a customized MOVE! weight loss program can be developed to enable sustained intensive lifestyle intervention: hypocaloric diet, ≥ 150 minutes of moderate exercise weekly, and behavioral change.

In addition to intensive lifestyle intervention, a prospective study found that bariatric surgery significantly improved outcomes in patients with NASH, with most patients experiencing resolution of their NASH and nearly half exhibiting significantly improved fibrosis.26 In the VHA, bariatric surgery has yielded excellent long-term outcomes, with 21% sustained weight loss from baseline (vs matched nonsurgical population) at 10 years postoperatively in patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.59 Bariatric surgery also results in long-term remission of T2DM in most patients and significant improvement in hypertension and dyslipidemia.60 The risks of bariatric surgery include 3% serious complications, 1% reoperation rates, and 0.4% 30-day mortality.61,62 Bariatric surgery can be considered in patients with BMI > 40 or in patients with BMI > 35 who have comorbidities and do not have decompensated cirrhosis.63,64

Beyond weight loss, more favorable liver-related outcomes and lower rates of advanced liver fibrosis are observed in those consuming filtered coffee; a reduction in liver steatosis also is observed with adherence to a Mediterranean diet.65,66 In NAFLD, statins may improve liver chemistries and fibrosis; this class of medications can be used safely even in the presence of an elevated ALT.11,67As a risk factor for chronic liver disease, alcohol consumption of ≥ 4 drinks per day or > 14 drinks per week for men or > 7 drinks per week for women should be avoided in patients with NAFLD.11

Conclusion

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease independently increases the risk of T2DM, cardiovascular disease and kidney disease. With its rates increasing in the VHA, earlier identification and intervention is warranted in patients at high risk (ie, those with metabolic syndrome, obesity, and T2DM).2 

In patients with metabolic syndrome and modest or no alcohol use, NAFLD can be identified by the presence of fatty liver on imaging in those in whom liver enzymes are measured and hepatitis B and C virus and secondary causes of fatty liver are excluded (aligning with the European Association of the Study of Liver Disease simple algorithm).16

NASH is more frequent in those with liver enzyme elevations or with an elevated FIB-4 and is associated with a long-term risk of cirrhosis. These patients merit referral to hepatology or gastroenterology for further evaluation and consideration of a liver biopsy to identify NASH. Patients with likely NAFLD without liver enzyme elevations can be further evaluated with FIB-4 scores to assess their probability of advanced liver fibrosis and potential need for referral to hepatology or gastroenterology.

Early NAFLD detection and intervention with intensive lifestyle modifications has the potential to avert progression to advanced fibrosis—and its associated increased overall and liver-related mortality, and impaired QOL.3,16,18  Although FIB-4 is a validated predictor of advanced fibrosis, this score is not yet used nationally to identify and risk stratify NAFLD in the VHA. Additionally, the very low use of VHA diet/exercise programs in eligible patients contributes to NAFLD progression.68 The cost-effective DPP has successfully yielded weight loss in patients with prediabetes and decreases in the incidence of T2DM through motivational interviewing and intensive lifestyle intervention.55 

By revising MOVE!, the VHA has enhanced its intensive lifestyle intervention program.

To improve NAFLD management, providers can successfully engage patients through motivational interviewing for intensive lifestyle intervention. Their resulting weight loss is enhanced with a personalized action plan, daily weighing, and peer support. When NAFLD is identified in patients with metabolic risk factors, the probability of advanced fibrosis is easily assessed in those with elevated FIB-4 scores who merit gastrointestinal referral.33,37

In all those identified with NAFLD, disease information should be provided to patients and their families. Intensive lifestyle modification targeting a ≥ 7% weight loss is recommended; motivational interviewing can increase commitment to change and yield a customized action plan for sustained weight loss. Working with the support and encouragement of their team of primary care providers, dieticians, and MOVE! coaches, patients can actively engage to improve their NAFLD and overall health.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a silent epidemic affecting nearly 1 in 3 Americans and is increasing within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).1,2 NAFLD independently increases the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death and impairs health-related quality of life (QOL).3 NAFLD primarily affects those with metabolic risk factors (prediabetes, T2DM, and metabolic syndrome) or obesity (Figure 1).4,5 

In the US, 1 in 3 adults have prediabetes and 1 in 10 have T2DM (increasing to 1 in 4 aged ≥ 65 years).6 Among veterans, obesity affects 31% within 6 years postdeployment and 41% overall who receive VHA care.7,8 Other patient characteristics associated with higher rates of NAFLD include Hispanic ethnicity and older age.9-11

Among those with NAFLD, most have nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL), or simple steatosis, affecting > 5% of liver cells (Figure 2).12 

However, 25% to 30% exhibit nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), with steatosis, inflammation, hepatocyte injury, and often alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevations.13About 4% of patients progress to cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on 7- to 15-year follow-up (with 9% cirrhosis or end-stage liver disease rates in 1 recent study with up to 23-year follow-up).1,14

In most patients (80%), NAFLD progresses slowly over decades. The progression is related to continuing insulin resistance.15,16 Greater disease progression is seen in patients with T2DM or concomitant chronic liver disease (such as hepatitis C).10,11,16 Patients with NAFLD who develop advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis experience increased rates of overall mortality, liver-related events, and liver transplantation.1,9,17,18 Within the VHA, NAFLD is the third most common cause of cirrhosis and HCC, occurring at an average age of 66 and 70 years, respectively.19Less commonly, HCC also can occur in NAFLD without cirrhosis.20

Although no pharmaceuticals are yet approved to treat NAFLD, even modest weight loss is beneficial. For example, weight loss > 4% improves fatty liver, ≥ 7% improves liver inflammation, and ≥ 10% decreases liver fibrosis (or scarring).21-23 In patients with a prior lack of success with weight loss, weight loss medications may be beneficial for short-term use.24 When comparing the effects of diet, exercise, obesity pharmacotherapy, and combinations for these approaches, intensive lifestyle modification with exercise had the greatest, most enduring benefit.25 Additionally, bariatric (weight loss) surgery has significantly improved health and liver-related outcomes for patients with NASH.26

In at-risk veterans, NAFLD has myriad negative effects on health and QOL. To improve its early identification and management in the VHA, we summarize strategies that all providers can use to screen and treat patients for this condition.

Screening for Advanced Fibrosis

Advanced fibrosis in NAFLD is diagnosed by analyzing adequately sized liver biopsies.27,28 However, noninvasive approaches to quantify advanced fibrosis by imaging or use of a simple fibrosis prediction score also are available. Imaging modalities include measuring liver stiffness, using transient elastography (FibroScan, Waltham, MA) or magnetic resonance elastography.1,29-31 Fibrosis prediction scores use common clinical and laboratory data to predict the presence or absence of advanced fibrosis (Table 1).29 

Of these, the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index requires only ALT, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), platelet count, and age to calculate the score and performs similarly to the NAFLD fibrosis score.32-35 FIB-4 and the NAFLD fibrosis score are validated in ethnically diverse populations, recommended in evidence-based guidelines, and can be calculated using online calculators (eg, FIB-4).11,16,33 The easily summed BARD score also detects NAFLD advanced fibrosis yet incorrectly identified advanced fibrosis in many patients without liver biopsy evidence of advanced fibrosis in a recent VHA study.36,37 With increasing VHA rates of NAFLD, these scores are a simple way to identify patients with probable advanced fibrosis who may benefit from hepatology or gastroenterology consultation.2

 

 

Does This Patient Have NAFLD?

To identify NAFLD, patients with metabolic syndrome and modest or no alcohol use are first assessed for liver injury with ALT, AST, and complete blood count (Figure 3; Case 1).16 

Among patients presenting with incidental liver enzyme elevations to primary care, NAFLD was the most common cause.38

Next, common underlying liver diseases that cause liver injury should be excluded by hepatitis B and C virus serology.11,16 Other underlying liver diseases are uncommon and should be assessed only if clinically indicated. 

After excluding secondary causes of fatty liver (eg, drugs causing steatosis, parenteral nutrition, severe malnutrition, etc), NAFLD is likely, particularly in those displaying fatty liver or steatosis on liver imaging (Table 2).11,16

Evaluation of fasting glucose or hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)can identify undiagnosed T2DM. NAFL, or simple steatosis, is independently associated with an increased risk of T2DM, cardiovascular and kidney disease, yet not overall mortality.16 Over 10 to 20 years, few patients (4%) with simple steatosis progress to cirrhosis.39In contrast, NAFLD advanced fibrosis significantly increases overall and liver-related mortality and can be assessed with high probability by calculating the patient’s FIB-4, even in those with normal liver enzymes.11,16 Patients with highly probable advanced fibrosis merit evaluation by hepatology or gastroenterology (Figure 3).

In NAFLD, simple steatosis can resolve, and NASH can significantly improve with 7% to 10% weight loss.16,23,40 Patients with simple steatosis on imaging and normal liver enzymes should be monitored with periodic liver enzymes and fibrosis prediction scores (eg, FIB-4) and encouraged to pursue intensive lifestyle intervention.16,33 Without weight loss and exercise interventions metabolic syndrome, T2DM, and NAFLD may progress.

Patients with combined liver steatosis and liver enzyme elevations may exhibit NASH and warrant an evaluation by a hepatologist or gastroenterologist for consideration of additional testing or liver biopsy.16While ALT elevations often have been used as a marker of NASH, ALT can be normal in NASH and in advanced fibrosis.41,42 A liver biopsy is required to establish the diagnosis of NASH, which progresses to cirrhosis in 15% to 20% over a 10- to 20-year follow-up period (Case 2).39 Fibrosis prediction scores also can evaluate the probability of advanced fibrosis in these patients.

Encouraging Patients to Pursue Intensive Lifestyle InterventionS

Most veterans wish to collaborate in their care (Table 3, Figure 4) yet experience many barriers, such as low health literacy, high rates of comorbidities, and ongoing drug/alcohol misuse.43,44 

  To motivate patients to action to prevent the progression of NAFLD, patients must understand how it affects the development of T2DM, cardiovascular disease, and liver disease and the value of the intervention.  To enhance disease understanding, the VHA provides a simple 2-page patient information sheet about NAFLD and its treatment.45 A 2-page pictorial patient education handout on NAFLD and its treatment is available as well (eAppendix)
.

In addition to patient education, motivational interviewing significantly improves weight loss, resulting in a 3.3 lb (1.5 kg) increased weight loss in the intervention group vs the control group in weight loss studies.46By being supportive, empathic, and clearly sharing the rationale for change, motivational interviewing is a collaborative conversation to guide patients to strengthen their motivation and commitment to change.47 It helps patients examine and address their ambivalence—most recognize they should exercise and lose weight, but it can be difficult.

To start the conversation, the health care provider can explain that NAFLD increases the risk of T2DM, heart disease, and liver injury or scarring and can be effectively treated (or improved) with modest weight loss and regular exercise (ie, 14 lb weight loss if 200 lb, or 21 lb weight loss if 300 lb). Exercise can start with a 5-minute walk and build to 30 minutes daily). Then, the provider can ask the following 4 questions:

 

 

  1. Why would you want to lose weight and exercise?
  2. How might you go about it in order to succeed?
  3. What are the 3 best reasons for you to do it?
  4. How important is it for you to make this change, and why? The provider can also ask the patient to quantify on a scale of 1 to 10: (a) How likely is it that they will make each required change? (b) How hard will each change be for them?
  5. The provider then summarizes the patient’s reasons for wanting change, how he/she can effect change, what their best reasons are, and how to successfully change. The provider then asks a final question:
  6. So what do you think you will do?

Most patients report feeling engaged, empowered, open, and understood with motivational interviewing. People are “persuaded by what they hear themselves say,” increasing motivation to change.47

This personalized action plan facilitates successful health behavior change.48 Action plans should integrate daily routines. For example, by placing the scale near the toothbrush, daily weighing is encouraged. Daily weighing is associated with significantly greater weight loss and less weight regain.49 In a 6-month, randomized controlled weight loss trial in men and women, daily weighing (using a scale that automatically transmitted weight data), with weekly e-mails and tailored feedback yielded an overall 9% weight loss and increased use of exercise and diet behaviors associated with weight loss in comparison with those who weighed themselves less than weekly.50 This simple daily measure seems to reinforce a patient’s action plan.

Adherence to an action plan significantly improves with patient education, peer or social support, and addressing barriers to adherence.51 For example, by providing support with weekly text messaging of “How are you?” and addressing the issues that patients reported in a large randomized treatment trial, adherence was significantly improved.52 In VHA patients with low health literacy, peer support or telephone coaching also has proven effective in increasing weight loss and glycemic control in patients with T2DM.53,54 Providing multidisciplinary team support during intensive lifestyle intervention, providers can partner with patients to address questions or issues and applaud progress.

Effective VHA interventions

In an ethnically diverse population of patients with prediabetes, up to 7% weight loss was observed in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP).55 In this study patients were randomized to placebo; metformin 850 mg twice daily; or a lifestyle-modification program in which they received one-on-one culturally sensitive, individualized lessons in diet, moderate exercise (≥ 150 minutes weekly), and behavior modification from case managers over 16 sessions. Lessons were reinforced in both group and individual sessions. This intervention was associated with an average of 6% weight loss at 6 months (half of participants attained 7% weight loss) and a 58% decrease in the rate of progression to T2DM over a nearly 3-year follow-up of this population with prediabetes compared with that of the placebo group.55 Over a 15-year follow-up, the intensive lifestyle intervention group sustained a 27% decrease in the incidence of T2DM compared with that of the placebo group.56 To emulate the success of the DPP in the VHA, a web-based DPP-like study in female veterans was performed with online coaching and daily weighing. This study achieved a 5.2% weight loss from baseline at 4 months.57

 

 

To improve outcomes, the VHA MOVE! Weight Management Program has been revised to include more sustained intervention (16 sessions) and multiple modes for participating—in person, by telephone, via video, via MOVE! Coach phone app, or any combination.58 Using shared decision making between patients with NAFLD and their providers, a customized MOVE! weight loss program can be developed to enable sustained intensive lifestyle intervention: hypocaloric diet, ≥ 150 minutes of moderate exercise weekly, and behavioral change.

In addition to intensive lifestyle intervention, a prospective study found that bariatric surgery significantly improved outcomes in patients with NASH, with most patients experiencing resolution of their NASH and nearly half exhibiting significantly improved fibrosis.26 In the VHA, bariatric surgery has yielded excellent long-term outcomes, with 21% sustained weight loss from baseline (vs matched nonsurgical population) at 10 years postoperatively in patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.59 Bariatric surgery also results in long-term remission of T2DM in most patients and significant improvement in hypertension and dyslipidemia.60 The risks of bariatric surgery include 3% serious complications, 1% reoperation rates, and 0.4% 30-day mortality.61,62 Bariatric surgery can be considered in patients with BMI > 40 or in patients with BMI > 35 who have comorbidities and do not have decompensated cirrhosis.63,64

Beyond weight loss, more favorable liver-related outcomes and lower rates of advanced liver fibrosis are observed in those consuming filtered coffee; a reduction in liver steatosis also is observed with adherence to a Mediterranean diet.65,66 In NAFLD, statins may improve liver chemistries and fibrosis; this class of medications can be used safely even in the presence of an elevated ALT.11,67As a risk factor for chronic liver disease, alcohol consumption of ≥ 4 drinks per day or > 14 drinks per week for men or > 7 drinks per week for women should be avoided in patients with NAFLD.11

Conclusion

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease independently increases the risk of T2DM, cardiovascular disease and kidney disease. With its rates increasing in the VHA, earlier identification and intervention is warranted in patients at high risk (ie, those with metabolic syndrome, obesity, and T2DM).2 

In patients with metabolic syndrome and modest or no alcohol use, NAFLD can be identified by the presence of fatty liver on imaging in those in whom liver enzymes are measured and hepatitis B and C virus and secondary causes of fatty liver are excluded (aligning with the European Association of the Study of Liver Disease simple algorithm).16

NASH is more frequent in those with liver enzyme elevations or with an elevated FIB-4 and is associated with a long-term risk of cirrhosis. These patients merit referral to hepatology or gastroenterology for further evaluation and consideration of a liver biopsy to identify NASH. Patients with likely NAFLD without liver enzyme elevations can be further evaluated with FIB-4 scores to assess their probability of advanced liver fibrosis and potential need for referral to hepatology or gastroenterology.

Early NAFLD detection and intervention with intensive lifestyle modifications has the potential to avert progression to advanced fibrosis—and its associated increased overall and liver-related mortality, and impaired QOL.3,16,18  Although FIB-4 is a validated predictor of advanced fibrosis, this score is not yet used nationally to identify and risk stratify NAFLD in the VHA. Additionally, the very low use of VHA diet/exercise programs in eligible patients contributes to NAFLD progression.68 The cost-effective DPP has successfully yielded weight loss in patients with prediabetes and decreases in the incidence of T2DM through motivational interviewing and intensive lifestyle intervention.55 

By revising MOVE!, the VHA has enhanced its intensive lifestyle intervention program.

To improve NAFLD management, providers can successfully engage patients through motivational interviewing for intensive lifestyle intervention. Their resulting weight loss is enhanced with a personalized action plan, daily weighing, and peer support. When NAFLD is identified in patients with metabolic risk factors, the probability of advanced fibrosis is easily assessed in those with elevated FIB-4 scores who merit gastrointestinal referral.33,37

In all those identified with NAFLD, disease information should be provided to patients and their families. Intensive lifestyle modification targeting a ≥ 7% weight loss is recommended; motivational interviewing can increase commitment to change and yield a customized action plan for sustained weight loss. Working with the support and encouragement of their team of primary care providers, dieticians, and MOVE! coaches, patients can actively engage to improve their NAFLD and overall health.

References

1. Rinella ME. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;313(22):2263-2273.

2. Kanwal F, Kramer JR, Duan Z, et al. Trends in the burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a United States cohort of veterans. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(2):301-308.

3. Golabi P, Otgonsuren M, Cable R, et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with impairment of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):18.

4. Targher G, Bertolini  L, Padovani  R,  et al. Prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and its association with cardiovascular disease among type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(5):1212-1218.

5. Argo CK, Caldwell SH. Epidemiology and natural history of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin Liver Dis. 2009;13(4):511-531.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Prediabetes & Type 2 Diabetes. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/prediabetes-type2/index.html. Updated June 11, 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

7. Littman AJ, Jacobson IG, Boyko EJ, Powell TM, Smith TC; Millennium Cohort Study Team. Weight change following US military service. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37(2):244-253.

8. Breland JY, Phibbs CS, Hoggatt KJ, et al. The obesity epidemic in the Veterans Health Administration: prevalence among key populations of women and men veterans. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(suppl 1):11-17.

9. Angulo P, Hui JM, Marchesini G, et al. The NAFLD fibrosis score: a noninvasive system that identifies liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Hepatology. 2007;45(4):846-854.

10. Bazick J, Donithan M, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, et al. Clinical model for NASH and advanced fibrosis in adult patients with diabetes and NAFLD: guidelines for referral in NAFLD. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(7):1347-1355.

11. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):328-357.

12. Bril F, Barb D, Portillo‐Sanchez P, et al. Metabolic and histological implications of intrahepatic triglyceride content in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2017;65(4):1132-1144.

13. Diehl AM, Day C. Cause, pathogenesis, and treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(21):2063-2072.

14. Nasr P, Ignatova S, Kechagias S, Ekstedt M. Natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective follow-up study with serial biopsies. Hepatol Commun. 2018;27(2):199-210.

15. Singh S, Allen AM, Wang Z, Prokop LJ, Murad MH, Loomba R. Fibrosis progression in nonalcoholic fatty liver vs nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of paired-biopsy studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(4):643-654.

16. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL); European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD); European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO). EASL-EASD-EASO clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016;64(6):1388-1402.

17. Younossi ZM, Blissett D, Blissett R, et al. The economic and clinical burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the United States and Europe. Hepatology. 2016;64(5):1577-1586.

18. Angulo P, Kleiner DE, Dam-Larsen S, et al. Liver fibrosis, but no other histologic features, is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):389-397.

19. Beste LA, Leipertz SL, Green PK, Dominitz JA, Ross D, Ioannou GN. Trends in burden of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma by underlying liver disease in US Veterans, 2001-2013. Gastroenterology 2015;149(6):1471-1482.

20. Mittal S, El-Serag HB, Sada YH, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in the absence of cirrhosis in United States veterans is associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(1):124-131.

21. Kenneally S, Sier JH, Moore JB. Efficacy of dietary and physical activity intervention in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2017;4(1):e000139.

22. Thoma C, Day CP, Trenell MI. Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adults: a systematic review. J Hepatol. 2012;56(1):255-266.

23. Vilar-Gomez E, Martinez-Perez Y, Calzadilla-Bertot L, et al. Weight loss through lifestyle modification significantly reduces features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):367-378.

24. Apovian CM, Aronne LJ, Bessesen DH, et al; Endocrine Society. Pharmacological management of obesity: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(2):342-362.

25. Haw JS, Galaviz KI, Straus AN, et al. Long-term sustainability of diabetes prevention approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1808-1817.

26. Lassailly G, Caiazzo R, Buob D, et al. Bariatric surgery reduces features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in morbidly obese patients. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):379-388.

27. Kleiner DE, Brunt EM, Van Natta M, et al; Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network. Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2005;41(6):1313-1321.

28. Bedossa P; FLIP Pathology Consortium. Utility and appropriateness of the fatty liver inhibition of progression (FLIP) algorithm and steatosis, activity, and fibrosis (SAF) score in the evaluation of biopsies of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2014;60(2):565-567.

29. Tapper EB, Sengupta N, Hunink MG, Afdhal NH, Lai M. Cost-effective evaluation of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with NAFLD fibrosis score and vibration controlled transient elastography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(9):1298-1304.

30. Cui J, Ang B, Haufe W, et al. Comparative diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance elastography vs. eight clinical prediction rules for non‐invasive diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in biopsy‐proven non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;41(12):1271-1280.

31. Tapper EB, Lok AS-F. Use of liver imaging and biopsy in clinical practice. N Engl J Med . 2017;377(8):756-768.

32. Sterling RK, Lissen E, Clumeck N; APRICOT Clinical Investigators. Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. Hepatology. 2006;43(6):1317-1325.

33. Imler T. Indiana University School of Medicine - GIHep calculators. http://gihep.com/calculators/hepatology/fibrosis-4-score. Published 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

34. Sun W, Cui H , Li N, et al. Comparison of FIB-4 index, NAFLD fibrosis score and BARD score for prediction of advanced fibrosis in adult patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis study. Hepatol Res. 2016;46(9):862-870.

35. Imler T, Indiana University School of Medicine - GIHep calculators. http://gihep.com/calculators/hepatology/nafld-fibrosis-score. Published 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

36. Harrison SA, Oliver D, Arnold HL, Gogia S, Neuschwander-Tetri BA. Development and validation of a simple NAFLD clinical scoring system for identifying patients without advanced disease. Gut. 2008;57(10):1441-1447.

37. Patel YA, Gifford EJ, Glass LM, et al. Identifying non-alcoholic fatty liver disease advanced fibrosis in the Veterans Health Administration. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63(9): 2259-2266.

38. Armstrong MJ, Houlihan DD, Bentham L, et al. Presence and severity of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in a large prospective primary care cohort. J Hepatol. 2012;56(1):234-240.

39. Matteoni CA, Younossi ZM, Gramlich T, Boparai N, Liu YC, McCullough AJ. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a spectrum of clinical and pathological severity. Gastroenterology. 1999;116(6):1413-1419.

40. Promrat K, Kleiner DE, Niemeier HM, et al. Randomized controlled trial testing the effects of weight loss on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology. 2010;51(1):121-129.

41. Mofrad P, Contos MJ, Haque M, et al. Clinical and histologic spectrum of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease associated with normal ALT values. Hepatology. 2003;37(6):1286-1292.

42. Portillo-Sanchez P, Bril F, Maximos M, et al. High prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Normal Plasma Aminotransferase Levels. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015;100(6):2231-2238.

43. Rodriguez V, Andrade AD, Garcia-Retamero R, et al. Health literacy, numeracy, and graphical literacy among veterans in primary care and their effect on shared decision making and trust in physicians. J Health Commun. 2013;18(suppl 1):273-289.

44. Kramer JR, Kanwal F, Richardson P, Mei M, El-Serag HB. Gaps in the achievement of effectiveness of HCV treatment in national VA practice. J Hepatol. 2012;56(2):320-325.

45. Veterans Health Administration. Non-alcoholic fatty liver: information for patients. https://www.hepatitis.va.gov/pdf/NAFL.pdf. Published September 2017. Accessed November 7, 2018.

46. Armstrong MJ, Mottershead TA, Ronksley PE, Sigal RJ, Campbell TS, Hemmelgarn BR. Motivational interviewing to improve weight loss in overweight and/or obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2011;12(9):709-723.

47. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change. Guilford Press: NY, New York; 2013.

48. Leventhal H, Leventhal EA, Breland JY. Cognitive science speaks to the “common sense” of chronic illness management. Ann Behav Med. 2011;41(2):152-163.

49. Zheng Y, Klem ML, Sereika SM, Danford CA, Ewing LJ, Burke LE. Self-weighing in weight management: a systematic literature review. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2015;23(2):256-265.

50. Steinberg DM, Bennett GG, Askew S, Tate DF. Weighing every day matters; daily weighing improves weight loss and adoption of weight control behaviors. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115(4):511-518.

51. Charania MR, Marshall KJ, Lyles CM; HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis (PRS) Team. Identification of evidence-based interventions for promoting HIV medication adherence: findings from a systematic review of U.S.-based studies, 1996-2011. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(4):646-660.

52. Lester RT, Ritvo P, Mills EJ, et al. Effects of a mobile phone short message service on antiretroviral treatment adherence in Kenya (WelTel Kenya1): a randomised trial. Lancet 2010;376(9755):1838-1845.

53. Dutton GR, Phillips JM, Kukkamalla M, Cherrington AL, Safford MM. Pilot study evaluating the feasibility and initial outcomes of a primary care weight loss intervention with peer coaches. Diabetes Educ. 2015:41(3):361-368.

54. Fisher EB, Coufal MM, Parada H, et al. Peer support in health care and prevention: Cultural, organizational, and dissemination issues. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35(1):363-383.

55. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;(346):393-403.

56. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Long-term effects of lifestyle intervention or metformin on diabetes development and microvascular complications over 15-year follow-up: the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;3(11):866-875.

57. Moin T, Ertl K, Schneider J, et al. Women veterans’ experience with a web-based diabetes prevention program: a qualitative study to inform future practice. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(5):e127.

58. US Department of Veterans Affairs. MOVE! Weight management program. https://www.move.va.gov/MOVE/index.asp. Updated October 5, 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

59. Maciejewski ML, Arterburn DE, Van Scoyoc L, et al. Bariatric surgery and long-term durability of weight loss. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(11):1046-1055.

60. Adams TD, Davidson LE, Litwin SE, et al. Weight and metabolic outcomes 12 years after gastric bypass. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(12):1143-1155.

61. Dimick JB, Nicholas LH, Ryan AM, Thumma JR, Birkmeyer JD. Bariatric surgery complications beforevs after implementation of a national policy restricting coverage to centers of excellence. JAMA. 2013;309(8):792-799.

62. The Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS) Consortium, Flum DR, Belle SH, et al. Perioperative safety in the longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(5):445-454.

63. Brito JP, Montori VM, Davis AM; Delegates of the 2nd Diabetes Surgery Summit. Metabolic surgery in the treatment algorithm for type 2 diabetes: a joint statement by international diabetes organizations. JAMA. 2017;317(6):635-636.

64. Mosko JD, Nguyen GC. Increased perioperative mortality following bariatric surgery among patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(10):897-901.

65. Saab S, Mallam D, Cox GA 2nd, Tong MJ. Impact of coffee on liver diseases: a systematic review. Liver Int. 2014;34(4):495-504.

66. Ryan MC, Itsiopoulos C, Thodis T, et al. The Mediterranean diet improves hepatic steatosis and insulin sensitivity in individuals with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2013;59(1):138-143.

67. Musso G, Gambino R, Cassader M, Pagano G. A meta‐analysis of randomized trials for the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2010;52(1):79-104.

68. Patel Y, Gifford EJ, Glass LM, et al. Risk factors for biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease progression in the Veterans Health Administration. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47(2):268-278.

References

1. Rinella ME. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;313(22):2263-2273.

2. Kanwal F, Kramer JR, Duan Z, et al. Trends in the burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a United States cohort of veterans. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(2):301-308.

3. Golabi P, Otgonsuren M, Cable R, et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with impairment of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):18.

4. Targher G, Bertolini  L, Padovani  R,  et al. Prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and its association with cardiovascular disease among type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(5):1212-1218.

5. Argo CK, Caldwell SH. Epidemiology and natural history of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin Liver Dis. 2009;13(4):511-531.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Prediabetes & Type 2 Diabetes. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/prediabetes-type2/index.html. Updated June 11, 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

7. Littman AJ, Jacobson IG, Boyko EJ, Powell TM, Smith TC; Millennium Cohort Study Team. Weight change following US military service. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37(2):244-253.

8. Breland JY, Phibbs CS, Hoggatt KJ, et al. The obesity epidemic in the Veterans Health Administration: prevalence among key populations of women and men veterans. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(suppl 1):11-17.

9. Angulo P, Hui JM, Marchesini G, et al. The NAFLD fibrosis score: a noninvasive system that identifies liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Hepatology. 2007;45(4):846-854.

10. Bazick J, Donithan M, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, et al. Clinical model for NASH and advanced fibrosis in adult patients with diabetes and NAFLD: guidelines for referral in NAFLD. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(7):1347-1355.

11. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):328-357.

12. Bril F, Barb D, Portillo‐Sanchez P, et al. Metabolic and histological implications of intrahepatic triglyceride content in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2017;65(4):1132-1144.

13. Diehl AM, Day C. Cause, pathogenesis, and treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(21):2063-2072.

14. Nasr P, Ignatova S, Kechagias S, Ekstedt M. Natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective follow-up study with serial biopsies. Hepatol Commun. 2018;27(2):199-210.

15. Singh S, Allen AM, Wang Z, Prokop LJ, Murad MH, Loomba R. Fibrosis progression in nonalcoholic fatty liver vs nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of paired-biopsy studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(4):643-654.

16. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL); European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD); European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO). EASL-EASD-EASO clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016;64(6):1388-1402.

17. Younossi ZM, Blissett D, Blissett R, et al. The economic and clinical burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the United States and Europe. Hepatology. 2016;64(5):1577-1586.

18. Angulo P, Kleiner DE, Dam-Larsen S, et al. Liver fibrosis, but no other histologic features, is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):389-397.

19. Beste LA, Leipertz SL, Green PK, Dominitz JA, Ross D, Ioannou GN. Trends in burden of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma by underlying liver disease in US Veterans, 2001-2013. Gastroenterology 2015;149(6):1471-1482.

20. Mittal S, El-Serag HB, Sada YH, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in the absence of cirrhosis in United States veterans is associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(1):124-131.

21. Kenneally S, Sier JH, Moore JB. Efficacy of dietary and physical activity intervention in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2017;4(1):e000139.

22. Thoma C, Day CP, Trenell MI. Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adults: a systematic review. J Hepatol. 2012;56(1):255-266.

23. Vilar-Gomez E, Martinez-Perez Y, Calzadilla-Bertot L, et al. Weight loss through lifestyle modification significantly reduces features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):367-378.

24. Apovian CM, Aronne LJ, Bessesen DH, et al; Endocrine Society. Pharmacological management of obesity: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(2):342-362.

25. Haw JS, Galaviz KI, Straus AN, et al. Long-term sustainability of diabetes prevention approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1808-1817.

26. Lassailly G, Caiazzo R, Buob D, et al. Bariatric surgery reduces features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in morbidly obese patients. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):379-388.

27. Kleiner DE, Brunt EM, Van Natta M, et al; Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network. Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2005;41(6):1313-1321.

28. Bedossa P; FLIP Pathology Consortium. Utility and appropriateness of the fatty liver inhibition of progression (FLIP) algorithm and steatosis, activity, and fibrosis (SAF) score in the evaluation of biopsies of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2014;60(2):565-567.

29. Tapper EB, Sengupta N, Hunink MG, Afdhal NH, Lai M. Cost-effective evaluation of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with NAFLD fibrosis score and vibration controlled transient elastography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(9):1298-1304.

30. Cui J, Ang B, Haufe W, et al. Comparative diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance elastography vs. eight clinical prediction rules for non‐invasive diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in biopsy‐proven non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;41(12):1271-1280.

31. Tapper EB, Lok AS-F. Use of liver imaging and biopsy in clinical practice. N Engl J Med . 2017;377(8):756-768.

32. Sterling RK, Lissen E, Clumeck N; APRICOT Clinical Investigators. Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. Hepatology. 2006;43(6):1317-1325.

33. Imler T. Indiana University School of Medicine - GIHep calculators. http://gihep.com/calculators/hepatology/fibrosis-4-score. Published 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

34. Sun W, Cui H , Li N, et al. Comparison of FIB-4 index, NAFLD fibrosis score and BARD score for prediction of advanced fibrosis in adult patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis study. Hepatol Res. 2016;46(9):862-870.

35. Imler T, Indiana University School of Medicine - GIHep calculators. http://gihep.com/calculators/hepatology/nafld-fibrosis-score. Published 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

36. Harrison SA, Oliver D, Arnold HL, Gogia S, Neuschwander-Tetri BA. Development and validation of a simple NAFLD clinical scoring system for identifying patients without advanced disease. Gut. 2008;57(10):1441-1447.

37. Patel YA, Gifford EJ, Glass LM, et al. Identifying non-alcoholic fatty liver disease advanced fibrosis in the Veterans Health Administration. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63(9): 2259-2266.

38. Armstrong MJ, Houlihan DD, Bentham L, et al. Presence and severity of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in a large prospective primary care cohort. J Hepatol. 2012;56(1):234-240.

39. Matteoni CA, Younossi ZM, Gramlich T, Boparai N, Liu YC, McCullough AJ. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a spectrum of clinical and pathological severity. Gastroenterology. 1999;116(6):1413-1419.

40. Promrat K, Kleiner DE, Niemeier HM, et al. Randomized controlled trial testing the effects of weight loss on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology. 2010;51(1):121-129.

41. Mofrad P, Contos MJ, Haque M, et al. Clinical and histologic spectrum of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease associated with normal ALT values. Hepatology. 2003;37(6):1286-1292.

42. Portillo-Sanchez P, Bril F, Maximos M, et al. High prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Normal Plasma Aminotransferase Levels. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015;100(6):2231-2238.

43. Rodriguez V, Andrade AD, Garcia-Retamero R, et al. Health literacy, numeracy, and graphical literacy among veterans in primary care and their effect on shared decision making and trust in physicians. J Health Commun. 2013;18(suppl 1):273-289.

44. Kramer JR, Kanwal F, Richardson P, Mei M, El-Serag HB. Gaps in the achievement of effectiveness of HCV treatment in national VA practice. J Hepatol. 2012;56(2):320-325.

45. Veterans Health Administration. Non-alcoholic fatty liver: information for patients. https://www.hepatitis.va.gov/pdf/NAFL.pdf. Published September 2017. Accessed November 7, 2018.

46. Armstrong MJ, Mottershead TA, Ronksley PE, Sigal RJ, Campbell TS, Hemmelgarn BR. Motivational interviewing to improve weight loss in overweight and/or obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2011;12(9):709-723.

47. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change. Guilford Press: NY, New York; 2013.

48. Leventhal H, Leventhal EA, Breland JY. Cognitive science speaks to the “common sense” of chronic illness management. Ann Behav Med. 2011;41(2):152-163.

49. Zheng Y, Klem ML, Sereika SM, Danford CA, Ewing LJ, Burke LE. Self-weighing in weight management: a systematic literature review. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2015;23(2):256-265.

50. Steinberg DM, Bennett GG, Askew S, Tate DF. Weighing every day matters; daily weighing improves weight loss and adoption of weight control behaviors. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115(4):511-518.

51. Charania MR, Marshall KJ, Lyles CM; HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis (PRS) Team. Identification of evidence-based interventions for promoting HIV medication adherence: findings from a systematic review of U.S.-based studies, 1996-2011. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(4):646-660.

52. Lester RT, Ritvo P, Mills EJ, et al. Effects of a mobile phone short message service on antiretroviral treatment adherence in Kenya (WelTel Kenya1): a randomised trial. Lancet 2010;376(9755):1838-1845.

53. Dutton GR, Phillips JM, Kukkamalla M, Cherrington AL, Safford MM. Pilot study evaluating the feasibility and initial outcomes of a primary care weight loss intervention with peer coaches. Diabetes Educ. 2015:41(3):361-368.

54. Fisher EB, Coufal MM, Parada H, et al. Peer support in health care and prevention: Cultural, organizational, and dissemination issues. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35(1):363-383.

55. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;(346):393-403.

56. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Long-term effects of lifestyle intervention or metformin on diabetes development and microvascular complications over 15-year follow-up: the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;3(11):866-875.

57. Moin T, Ertl K, Schneider J, et al. Women veterans’ experience with a web-based diabetes prevention program: a qualitative study to inform future practice. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(5):e127.

58. US Department of Veterans Affairs. MOVE! Weight management program. https://www.move.va.gov/MOVE/index.asp. Updated October 5, 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018.

59. Maciejewski ML, Arterburn DE, Van Scoyoc L, et al. Bariatric surgery and long-term durability of weight loss. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(11):1046-1055.

60. Adams TD, Davidson LE, Litwin SE, et al. Weight and metabolic outcomes 12 years after gastric bypass. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(12):1143-1155.

61. Dimick JB, Nicholas LH, Ryan AM, Thumma JR, Birkmeyer JD. Bariatric surgery complications beforevs after implementation of a national policy restricting coverage to centers of excellence. JAMA. 2013;309(8):792-799.

62. The Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS) Consortium, Flum DR, Belle SH, et al. Perioperative safety in the longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(5):445-454.

63. Brito JP, Montori VM, Davis AM; Delegates of the 2nd Diabetes Surgery Summit. Metabolic surgery in the treatment algorithm for type 2 diabetes: a joint statement by international diabetes organizations. JAMA. 2017;317(6):635-636.

64. Mosko JD, Nguyen GC. Increased perioperative mortality following bariatric surgery among patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(10):897-901.

65. Saab S, Mallam D, Cox GA 2nd, Tong MJ. Impact of coffee on liver diseases: a systematic review. Liver Int. 2014;34(4):495-504.

66. Ryan MC, Itsiopoulos C, Thodis T, et al. The Mediterranean diet improves hepatic steatosis and insulin sensitivity in individuals with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2013;59(1):138-143.

67. Musso G, Gambino R, Cassader M, Pagano G. A meta‐analysis of randomized trials for the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2010;52(1):79-104.

68. Patel Y, Gifford EJ, Glass LM, et al. Risk factors for biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease progression in the Veterans Health Administration. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47(2):268-278.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(1)
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(1)
Page Number
20-29
Page Number
20-29
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media