Population Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Framework for Comprehensive NAFLD Care

Chronic liver diseases and associated comorbidities have long been addressed by PCPs and specialty providers working in isolation and within the narrow focus of each discipline. Contrary to working in silos of the past, a coordinated management strategy with other disciplines that cover these comorbidities needs to be established, or alternatively the PCP must be aware of the management of comorbidities to execute them independently. Integration of hepatology-driven NAFLD care with other specialties involves communication, collaboration, and sharing of resources and expertise that will address patient care needs. Obviously, this cannot be undertaken in a single outpatient visit and requires vertical and longitudinal follow-up over time. One important aspect of comprehensive NAFLD care is the targeting of a particular patient population rather than being seen as a panacea for all; cost-utility analysis is hampered by uncertainties around accuracy of noninvasive biomarkers reflecting liver injury and a lack of effectiveness data for treatment. However, it seems reasonable to screen patients at high risk for NASH and adverse clinical outcomes. Such a risk stratification approach should be cost-effective.

A first key step by the PCP is to identify whether a patient is at risk, especially patients with NASH. The majority of patients at risk are already seen by PCPs. While there is no consensus on ideal screening for NAFLD by PCPs, the use of ultrasound in the at-risk population is recommended in Europe.⁴² Although NASH remains a histopathologic diagnosis, a reasonable approach is to define NASH based on clinical criteria as done similarly in a real-world observational NAFLD cohort study.⁵⁴ In the absence of chronic alcohol consumption and viral hepatitis and in a real-world scenario, NASH can be defined as steatosis shown on liver imaging or biopsy and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels of > 25 U/L. In addition, ≥ 1 of the following criteria must be met: BMI > 30, T2DM, dyslipidemia, or metabolic syndrome (Table 1). 

This practical approach will reduce the number of patients without NASH but won’t eliminate other secondary causes of fatty liver disease.

In the absence of easy-to-use validated tests, all patients with NAFLD need to be assessed with simple, noninvasive scores for the presence of clinically relevant liver fibrosis (F2-portal fibrosis with septa; F3-bridging fibrosis; F4-liver cirrhosis); those that meet the fibrosis criteria should receive further assessment usually only offered in a comprehensive NAFLD clinic.¹ PCPs should focus on addressing 2 aspects related to NAFLD: (1) Does my patient have NASH based on clinical criteria; and (2) Is my patient at risk for clinically relevant liver fibrosis? PCPs are integral in optimal management of comorbidities and metabolic syndrome abnormalities with lifestyle and exercise interventions.

The care needs of a typical patient with NAFLD can be classified into 3 categories: liver disease (NAFLD) management, addressing NAFLD associated comorbidities, and attending to the personal care needs of the patient. With considerable interactions between these categories, interventions done within the framework of 1 category can influence the needs pertaining to another, requiring closer monitoring of the patient and potentially modifying care. For example, initiating a low carbohydrate diet in a patient with DM and NAFLD who is on antidiabetic medication may require adjusting the medication; disease progression or failure to achieve treatment goals may affect the emotional state of the patient, which can affect adherence.

Referrals to a comprehensive NAFLD clinic need to be standardized. Clearly, the referral process depends in part on local resources, comprehensiveness of available services, and patient characteristics, among others. Most often, PCPs refer patients with suspected diagnosis of NAFLD, with or without abnormal aminotransferases, to a hepatologist to confirm the diagnosis and for disease staging and liver disease management. This may have the advantage of greatest extent of access and should limit the number of patients with advanced liver fibrosis who otherwise may have been missed. On the other hand, different thresholds of PCPs for referrals may delay the patient’s access to comprehensive NAFLD care. Of those referred by primary care, the hepatologist identifies patients with NAFLD who benefit most from a comprehensive care approach. This automated referral process without predefined criteria remains more a vision than reality as it would require an infrastructure and resources that no health care system can provide currently.

The alternative approach of automatic referral may use predefined criteria related to patients’ diagnoses and prognoses (Figure 2). 

This can be applied in conjunction with or instead of physician-driven referral. However, employing more selective criteria, based on a combination of age, presence or absence of specific comorbidities, routine laboratory data, and personal care needs might help streamline referral practices. These criteria need to be dynamic in order to tailor patient volume to available resources. Institution-of-care pathways for referrals to comprehensive NAFLD care requires a consensus of institution-specific criteria, a process to routinely screen for patients who meet these criteria, a commitment to ensure adequate resources to support a sustainable program that can provide timely care, and the implementation of systems to provide improvement in quality of patient care.