Tag Archives: MAFLD

Resmetirom for MASH

Posted on by

SA Harrison et al. NEJM 2024; 390: 497-509. A Phase 3, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Resmetirom in NASH with Liver Fibrosis

This “MAESTRO-NASH” study enrolled 966 adult patients biopsy-confirmed NASH (now termed MASH) and a fibrosis stage of F1B, F2, or F3. Approximately 60% of each arm had F3 fibrosis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily d resmetirom at a dose of 80 mg or 100 mg or placebo; Resmetirom is an oral, liver-directed, thyroid hormone receptor beta–selective agonist.

Key findings:

  • MASH “resolution with no worsening of fibrosis was achieved in 25.9% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 29.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 9.7% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001)”
  • “Fibrosis improvement by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score was achieved in 24.2% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 25.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 14.2% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001)”
  • “Levels of a broad range of atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins, including LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a), appeared to be reduced by resmetirom relative to placebo, findings consistent with those of earlier studies.18,19“
  • Diarrhea and nausea were more frequent in the resmetirom group compared to placebo, though there were no differences in serious adverse effects. Patients in the 100 mg group were more likely to discontinue treatment (~7%) compared to 2% in the other two groups.
  • “In this trial, achievement of a 30% reduction in hepatic fat (MRI-PDFF) or a 120% increase in the sex hormone–binding globulin level appeared to be associated with biopsy responses.”

In their discussion, the authors note that “Noninvasive testing to identify patients with NASH for treatment and to monitor treatment response will be important in clinical practice in which liver biopsy is infrequently used.”

The associated editorial by Kenneth Cusi (pg 559-561) notes the following:

  • Resmetirom had neutral effects on body weight and insulin resistance. 
  • “Treatment affected the pituitary–thyroid hormone axis, with prohormone free T4 levels decreasing by approximately 17 to 21% and mean thyrotropin levels also decreasing.” It is unclear if this has any long-term significance (long-term data needed). ”Careful surveillance to detect early endocrine disease that is related to potential thyroid, gonadal, or bone disease appears warranted to avoid any potential risks from long-term treatment.”
  • When subtracting the placebo effect, he notes that “approximately 2 of 10 patients treated will have NASH resolution and approximately 1 of 10 patients treated will have fibrosis improvement.” Thus, combination therapy may be needed.

My take: This study brings us a step closer to having a medication which can improve MASH as currently there are no FDA-approved medications. My speculation is that medications which achieve persistent weight loss will have a more pronounced effect on liver health and overall health.

Related blog posts:

Three-fer on Steatotic Liver Disease

Posted on by
  1. JJ Wattacheril, MF Abdelmalek et al. Gastroenterol 2023; 165: 1080-1088. Open Access! AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Role of Noninvasive Biomarkers in the Evaluation and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Expert Review

This article offers best practice advice -here are two of them:

#2: A Fibrosis 4 Index score <1.3 is associated with strong negative predictive value for advanced hepatic fibrosis and may be useful for exclusion of advanced hepatic fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.

#8 Patients with NAFLD and NITs (noninvasive tests) results suggestive of advanced fibrosis (F3) or cirrhosis (F4) should be considered for surveillance of liver complications (eg, hepatocellular carcinoma screening and variceal screening per Baveno criteria). Patients with NAFLD and NITs suggestive of advanced hepatic fibrosis (F3) or (F4), should be monitored with serial liver stiffness measurement; vibration controlled transient elastography; or magnetic resonance elastography, given its correlation with clinically significant portal hypertension and clinical decompensation.

2. AJ Sanyal et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 2889-2900. Validation of a Clinical Risk-based Classification System in a Large Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Real-world Cohort

In this study from U.S., patients (n=2523) were divided into three categories based on FIB-4 scores: (A) Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) <1.3 and/or liver-stiffness measurement (LSM) measured by Fibroscan <8 kp, (B) FIB-4 1.31‒2.6 and/or LSM 8.1-12.5 kp, and (C) FIB-4 >2.6 and/or LSM >12.5 kp. However, those in class A with aspartate transaminase:alanine transaminase ratio >1 or platelets <150,000/mm3, or class B with aspartate transaminase:alanine transaminase ratio >1 or platelets <150,000/mm3 were upstaged by one class. The data were reviewed retrospectively from a prospective longitudinal cohort (TARGET-NASH)

Key findings: All adverse outcomes including liver and cardiovascular (see below) were correlated with FIB-4 staging.

S Man et al. Gastroenterol 2023; 165: 1025-1040. Open Access! Prevalence of Liver Steatosis and Fibrosis in the General Population and Various High-Risk Populations: A Nationwide Study With 5.7 Million Adults in China

Key findings: The prevalence of steatosis, severe steatosis, advanced fibrosis, and cirrhosis was 44.39%, 10.57%, 2.85%, and 0.87%, respectively in Chinese adults

Limitation: This data was derived from a health checkup cohort which could give different results than a random population sampling. Patients at health checkups may be more health conscious and/or be aware of underlying health concerns.

Prevalence of different grades of liver fibrosis in different age groups.

My take: Steatotic liver disease is a huge worldwide problem. The growing prevalence is going to result in extensive health issues.

—————

This year’s pumpkin 910/31/23):

It does not look like I will become a professional pumpkin artist anytime soon!

Does It Matter If Fatty Liver Disease Is Called MAFLD or NAFLD?

Posted on by

H Lee, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 2138-2147. Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fatty Liver Disease and Incident Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Nationwide Cohort Study

A recent study from South Korea with 9.5 million participants (followed for 10 years) shows that changing to metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) as a name change from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) changes the prevalence of at-risk individuals.

Key findings:

  • Prevalence of NAFLD and MAFLD were 28.0% and 37.3%, respectively
  • NAFLD and MAFLD were each associated with significantly higher risk for CVD events: multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for CVD events were 1.09 (1.03-1.15) in the NAFLD-only group, 1.43 (1.41-1.45) in the MAFLD-only group, and 1.56 (1.54-1.58) in the Both-FLD group
  • In the same issue, a study from Hong Kong showed similar prevalence rates between MAFLD (25.9%) and NAFLD (25.7%) (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 2161-2171). This study noted that many people with hepatic steatosis at baseline have less severe metabolic burden.
  • Also, in the same issue, using a well-define population of more than 13,000 from NHANES III, this retrospective study (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 2172-2181) found that Non-NAFLD MAFLD patients had the highest all-cause and cardiovascular-cause related mortality. In addition, this group had the highest rate of advanced fibrosis >7% (compared to <2% in other groups.

My take (borrowed from authors of first study): “The change from NAFLD to MAFLD criteria may identify a greater number of individuals with metabolically complicated fatty liver and increased risk for CVD.”

Another related article: M Eslam, AJ Sanyal, J George. MAFLD: A Consensus-Driven Proposed Nomenclature for Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease (2020). This article similar to a previous article (Improving Fatty Liver Nomenclature) suggests changing the name for NAFLD to MAFLD.

MAFLD Criteria in this study:

MAFLD is diagnosed based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with one or more of the following:

  1. diabetes mellitus
  2. overweight/obesity (BMI >/= 23)
  3. at least 2 metabolic abnormalities: a) Waist circumference ≥90 cm in men and 80 cm in women. b) Blood pressure ≥130/85 mmHg or under anti-hypertension therapy. c) High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) <40 mg/dL for males and <50 mg/dL for females. d) Triglyceride (TG) ≥150 mg/dL or specific drug treatment. e) fasting glucose ≥100 f) Homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) score ≥2.5; and g) Hypersensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) level >2 mg/L.

NAFLD Criteria in this study:

The presence of hepatic steatosis without 1. excessive drinking ( ≥30 g/day in men, ≥20 g/day in women) and 2. concomitant liver diseases

Fatty Liver Feast (of Articles): NAFLD 2020

Posted on by

An entire issue of Gastroenterology delved into the topics of “NAFLD 2020.”

This special May 2020 issue provides a comprehensive update on Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

Here are a few links to some of the articles:

Related blog posts: