Real-world management of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis differs from clinical practice guideline recommendations and across regions.
AASLD, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
ALT, alanine aminotransferase
AST, aspartate aminotransferase
EASD, European Association for the Study of Diabetes
EASL, European Association for the Study of the Liver
EASO, European Association for the Study of Obesity
EU5, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom
FIB-4, Fibrosis-4
HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin
NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
NASH, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis
NIT, non-invasive test
Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis
T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus
VCTE, vibration-controlled transient elastography
clinical practice guidelines
diagnostic pathways
liver disease
patient management
Journal
JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology
ISSN: 2589-5559
Titre abrégé: JHEP Rep
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101761237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
25
05
2021
revised:
20
10
2021
accepted:
09
11
2021
entrez:
3
1
2022
pubmed:
4
1
2022
medline:
4
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite availability of diagnostic and management reference guidelines outlining standard of care for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), national and regional guidelines are lacking, resulting in variations in patient management between regions. We retrospectively analyzed patient characteristics and management data from the Adelphi Real World NASH Disease Specific Programme™ for patients with NASH in the EU5, Canada, and the Middle East to identify gaps between real-world practice and that advocated by reference guidelines, irrespective of clinician awareness or consultation of guidelines. We performed an analysis of physicians (hepatologists, gastroenterologists, diabetologists) and their patients diagnosed with NASH. Physicians completed patient record forms for the next 5 consulting patients, collecting information on patient care, including diagnosis and disease management. A total of 429 physicians provided data for 2,267 patients with NASH (EU5, n = 1,844; Canada, n = 130; Middle East, n = 293). Patient age, physician-defined fibrosis stage, comorbidities and symptoms, and diagnostic testing practices highlighted statistically significant differences across regions. Substantial disconnects between reference guidelines and real-world practice were observed. Use of liver function tests, non-invasive tests ( Real-world NASH management approaches differ across regions and from proposed standard of care represented by reference multidisciplinary guidelines. Establishment and awareness of, and adherence to regional and national guidelines may improve identification and management of patients with NASH and potentially improve outcomes in this population. Although reference guidelines are available to guide the management of patients with NASH, these are not widely used and there is a lack of national guidelines. Our study shows how clinical practice in the EU, Canada, and Middle East differs from proposed standard of care, particularly relating to how patients are diagnosed and treated. Wider establishment of, awareness of, and reference to guidelines may improve how physicians identify and manage patients with NASH.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND & AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Despite availability of diagnostic and management reference guidelines outlining standard of care for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), national and regional guidelines are lacking, resulting in variations in patient management between regions. We retrospectively analyzed patient characteristics and management data from the Adelphi Real World NASH Disease Specific Programme™ for patients with NASH in the EU5, Canada, and the Middle East to identify gaps between real-world practice and that advocated by reference guidelines, irrespective of clinician awareness or consultation of guidelines.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed an analysis of physicians (hepatologists, gastroenterologists, diabetologists) and their patients diagnosed with NASH. Physicians completed patient record forms for the next 5 consulting patients, collecting information on patient care, including diagnosis and disease management.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 429 physicians provided data for 2,267 patients with NASH (EU5, n = 1,844; Canada, n = 130; Middle East, n = 293). Patient age, physician-defined fibrosis stage, comorbidities and symptoms, and diagnostic testing practices highlighted statistically significant differences across regions. Substantial disconnects between reference guidelines and real-world practice were observed. Use of liver function tests, non-invasive tests (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Real-world NASH management approaches differ across regions and from proposed standard of care represented by reference multidisciplinary guidelines. Establishment and awareness of, and adherence to regional and national guidelines may improve identification and management of patients with NASH and potentially improve outcomes in this population.
LAY SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Although reference guidelines are available to guide the management of patients with NASH, these are not widely used and there is a lack of national guidelines. Our study shows how clinical practice in the EU, Canada, and Middle East differs from proposed standard of care, particularly relating to how patients are diagnosed and treated. Wider establishment of, awareness of, and reference to guidelines may improve how physicians identify and manage patients with NASH.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34977520
doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2021.100411
pii: S2589-5559(21)00187-7
pmc: PMC8686034
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100411Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Quentin M. Anstee is coordinator of the IMI2 LITMUS consortium, which is funded by the EU Horizon 2020 programme and EFPIA. This multi-stakeholder consortium includes industry partners. He reports research grant funding from Allergan/Tobira, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Glympse Bio, Novartis Pharma AG, Pfizer Ltd., Vertex; royalties/licenses from Elsevier; consultancy on behalf of Newcastle University for 89Bio, Allergan/Tobira, Altimmune, AstraZeneca, Axcella, Blade, BMS, BNN Cardio, Cirius, CymaBay, EcoR1, E3Bio, Eli Lilly & Company, Galmed, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Grunthal, HistoIndex, Indalo, Intercept, Inventiva, IQVIA, Janssen, Madrigal, MedImmune, Medpace, Metacrine, NGMBio, North Sea Therapeutics, Novartis, Novo Nordisk A/S, PathAI, Pfizer Ltd., Poxel, ProSciento, Raptor Pharma, Roche, Servier, Terns, The Medicines Company, Viking Therapeutics; and speaker fees from Abbott Laboratories, Allergan/Tobira, BMS, Clinical Care Options, Falk, Fishawack, Genfit SA, Gilead, Integritas Communications, Kenes, MedScape. Kate Hallsworth is supported by a National Institute for Health Research/Health Education England Clinical Lectureship (CAT CL-2013-04-010). James Piercy and Victoria Higgins are employees of Adelphi Real World. Niall Lynch, Adrien Hauvespre, Eid Mansour, and Sam Kozma are employees of Gilead. John-Paul Marino was employed by and owned stock in Gilead at the time of the research. Juliana Bottomley has received consultancy payments from Gilead. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details.
Références
Hepatology. 2015 May;61(5):1547-54
pubmed: 25125077
Gut. 2010 Sep;59(9):1265-9
pubmed: 20801772
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jul;16(7):411-428
pubmed: 31028350
Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Apr;60(4):810-2
pubmed: 25618312
J Hepatol. 2019 Aug;71(2):371-378
pubmed: 30965069
Singapore Med J. 2018 Dec;59(12):628-633
pubmed: 30631885
Gastroenterology. 2020 May;158(6):1611-1625.e12
pubmed: 32027911
Dig Dis Sci. 2016 May;61(5):1387-97
pubmed: 26942734
Hepatology. 2019 Nov;70(5):1521-1530
pubmed: 31271665
Transl Behav Med. 2020 Oct 8;10(4):1016-1030
pubmed: 31120519
J Hepatol. 2015 Sep;63(3):705-12
pubmed: 25980762
J Hepatol. 2020 Jan;72(1):14-24
pubmed: 31518646
J Clin Pathol. 2013 Dec;66(12):1033-45
pubmed: 23940130
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Dec;34(12):2772-2778
pubmed: 31595464
Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2016 Nov 01;9:371-380
pubmed: 27843332
JHEP Rep. 2020 Jul 15;2(5):100142
pubmed: 32775976
Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2019 May 27;7(3):e00485
pubmed: 31149341
Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Nov;24(11):3063-72
pubmed: 18826746
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2012 Oct;8(10):661-8
pubmed: 24683373
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jan;15(1):11-20
pubmed: 28930295
Hepatol Int. 2020 Dec;14(6):889-919
pubmed: 33006093
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 May 24;67(20):2395-2410
pubmed: 27199064
J Hepatol. 2016 Jun;64(6):1388-402
pubmed: 27062661
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2016 Sep - Oct;59(2):153-164
pubmed: 27497504
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Oct;7(10):1104-12
pubmed: 19523535
Gastroenterology. 2015 Aug;149(2):367-78.e5; quiz e14-5
pubmed: 25865049
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 16;6(8):e010352
pubmed: 27531722
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul;17(7):377-379
pubmed: 32514153
Hepatology. 2018 Jan;67(1):328-357
pubmed: 28714183
Hepatology. 2010 Mar;51(3):828-35
pubmed: 20063276
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Jun;10(6):330-44
pubmed: 23507799
Hepatology. 2019 Nov;70(5):1500-1502
pubmed: 31381156
J Hepatol. 2018 Oct;69(4):896-904
pubmed: 29886156
N Engl J Med. 2010 May 6;362(18):1675-85
pubmed: 20427778
Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014 Sep;13(9):1227-39
pubmed: 25017015
Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Jan;28(1):23-30
pubmed: 24416739
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Dec;15(12):1968-1971
pubmed: 28624648
World J Gastroenterol. 2020 Jul 7;26(25):3528-3541
pubmed: 32742124