Indiana University School of Medicine

Potential conflict of interest: Dr. Chalasani consults for and received grants from Eli Lilly. He consults for NuSirt, AbbVie, Afimmune, Tobira, Madrigal, Shire, Cempra, Ardelyx, Axovant, and Amarin. He received grants from Intercept, Gilead, Galectin, and Cumberland. Dr. Younossi consults for Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Gilead, Intercept, Allergan, and GlaxoSmithKline. He advises for Vertex and Janssen. Dr. Brunt advises for Gilead. Dr. Charlton consults for and received grants from Gilead, Intercept, NGM Bio, Genfit, and Novartis. He received grants from Conatus. Dr. Cusi consults for and received grants from Novo Nordisk. He consults for Tobira. He received grants from Cirius, Novartis, Janssen, Zydus, Nordic, and Lilly. Dr. Rinella consults for Intercept, Gilead, Genfit, Novartis, NGM Bio, and Nusirt. She advises for Fibrogen, Immuron, Enanta, and AbbVie. Dr. Harrison consults for Madrigal, NGM Bio, Genfit, Echosens, Prometheus, Cirius, Perspectum, and HistoIndex. He advises for Garland, Intercept, Novartis, and Pfizer. He is on the speakers' bureau for AbbVie, Gilead, and Alexion. Dr. Sanyal consults for and received grants from Salix, Conatus, Galectin, Gilead, malinckrodt, Echosens‐Sandhill, Novartis, and Sequana. He consults for and is employed by Sanyal Bio. He consults for and owns stock in GenFit, Hemoshear, Durect, and Indalo. He consults for Immuron, Intercept, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingleheim, Nimbus, Nitto Denko, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Fractyl, Allergan, Chemomab, Affimmune, Teva, and Ardelyx. He received grants from Bristol‐Myers Squibb and Merck. He received royalties from UptoDate. He owns stock in Exhalenz, Arkana, and NewCo LLC. The funding for the development of this Practice Guidance was provided by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. This practice guidance was approved by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases on June 15, 2017. Preamble This guidance provides a data‐supported approach to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) care. A “Guidance” document is different from a “Guideline.” Guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts and rate the quality (level) of the evidence and the strength of each recommendation using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development, and Evaluation system. A guidance document is developed by a panel of experts in the topic, and guidance statements, not recommendations, are put forward to help clinicians understand and implement the most recent evidence. This Practice Guidance was commissioned by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and is an update to the Practice Guideline published in 2012 in conjunction with the American Gastroenterology Association and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).1 Sections where there have been no notable newer publications are not modified, so some paragraphs remain unchanged. This narrative review and guidance statements are based on the following: (1) a formal review and analysis of the recently published world literature on the topic (Medline search up to August 2016); (2) the American College of Physicians' Manual for Assessing Health Practices and Designing Practice Guidelines2; (3) guideline policies of the AASLD; and (4) the experience of the authors and independent reviewers with regard to NAFLD. This practice guidance is intended for use by physicians and other health professionals. As clinically appropriate, guidance statements should be tailored for individual patients. Specific guidance statements are evidence based whenever possible, and, when such evidence is not available or is inconsistent, guidance statements are made based on the consensus opinion of the authors.3 This is a practice guidance for clinicians rather than a review article, and interested readers can refer to several recent comprehensive reviews.4 Because this guidance document is lengthy, to make it easier for the reader, a list of all guidance statements and recommendations are provided in a tabular form as Supporting Table S1. Definitions For defining NAFLD, there must be (1) evidence of hepatic steatosis (HS), either by imaging or histology, and (2) lack of secondary causes of hepatic fat accumulation such as significant alcohol consumption, long‐term use of a steatogenic medication, or monogenic hereditary disorders (Table 1). In the majority of patients, NAFLD is commonly associated with metabolic comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia. NAFLD can be categorized histologically into nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH; Table 2). NAFL is defined as the presence of ≥5% HS without evidence of hepatocellular injury in the form of hepatocyte ballooning. NASH is defined as the presence of ≥5% HS and inflammation with hepatocyte injury (e.g., ballooning), with or without any fibrosis. For defining “advanced” fibrosis, this guidance document will be referring specifically to stages 3 or 4, that is, bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis. Table 1 - Common Causes of Secondary HS Macrovesicular steatosis ‐ Excessive alcohol consumption ‐ Hepatitis C (genotype 3) ‐ WD ‐ Lipodystrophy ‐ Starvation ‐ Parenteral nutrition ‐ Abetalipoproteinemia ‐ Medications (e.g., mipomersen, lomitapide, amiodarone, methotrexate, tamoxifen, corticosteroids) Microvesicular steatosis ‐ Reye's syndrome ‐ Medications (valproate, antiretroviral medicines) ‐ Acute fatty liver of pregnancy ‐ HELLP syndrome ‐ Inborn errors of metabolism (e.g., lecithin‐cholesterol acyltransferase deficiency, cholesterol ester storage disease, Wolman's disease) Table 2 - NAFLD and Related Definitions NAFLD Encompasses the entire spectrum of FLD in individuals without significant alcohol consumption, ranging from fatty liver to SH to cirrhosis NAFL Presence of ≥5% HS without evidence of hepatocellular injury in the form of ballooning of the hepatocytes or evidence of fibrosis. The risk of progression to cirrhosis and liver failure is considered minimal. NASH Presence of ≥5% HS with inflammation and hepatocyte injury with or without fibrosis. This can to liver and liver NASH cirrhosis Presence of cirrhosis with or evidence of steatosis or SH cirrhosis Presence of cirrhosis with no with cirrhosis are with metabolic risk such as and of and ballooning is a to in liver in with NAFLD in is A of steatosis inflammation ballooning), and and of NAFLD in the NAFLD is a of the of NAFLD in the A have of NAFLD from are In a that for of NAFLD by was In a of for of NAFLD by was In the of NAFLD using imaging and was to be In a of NAFLD for an of of developed NAFLD by to an rate of The for NAFLD in the of are commonly A from using of an rate for NAFLD of the of such as this most the of A from an rate of A recent that the of NAFLD from to be the rate from the is to be NAFLD In to the there is a of publications the of NAFLD in the are in a recent of the of The that the of NAFLD by imaging is The of NAFLD is from the and the rate is from As the for NASH a liver that liver is not in of the there is no of the or of there have been some to the of NASH by The the of NASH in the are in the The of NASH NAFLD liver for a is to be The of NASH NAFLD liver without a for is from to that the of NASH in the and of NAFLD in of metabolic syndrome are not in with NAFLD, of the risk of This NAFLD and of been In this Table 3 provides a list of the 2 and and and syndrome independent of that are associated with and is the most and risk for NAFLD. In the entire spectrum of obesity, ranging from to and is associated with NAFLD. In this the majority of with will have 2 diabetes is a of NAFLD in individuals with In some have that to of have is to the of NAFLD and In this and NAFLD can in a the of NAFLD in with or the of in with NAFLD. this and and are in with NAFLD. The of NAFLD in individuals with been to be In a a the into based on cholesterol to and to The rate of NAFLD was the NAFLD rate for with the cholesterol to and to was the rate in the with the was and The of NAFLD to and In the of NAFLD and of liver disease to with Table 3 - NAFLD Common Association NAFLD syndrome of the presence of or of the (1) than in or than in (2) or (3) cholesterol than in and than in (4) or or or and or been considered a risk for NAFLD. the of NAFLD in is 2 than in The of and on NAFLD have the In that to individuals have a of NAFLD, have a of the of NAFLD and to be to be is that most of the recent that the for NAFLD be by the to the 3 In the of NAFLD the ranging from to and of NAFLD the have the of with is evidence that with with some of fibrosis, are risk for such as cirrhosis and have the following: with NAFLD have to without The most of in with NAFLD is disease independent of other metabolic is the of in the it is the or of with is the causes of in with with NASH have an In a recent and NAFLD and NASH to be and and and The risk for and for NAFLD to be and The most of NAFLD associated with long‐term is 3 fibrosis fibrosis to fibrosis or cirrhosis are of NAFLD is considered the of hepatocellular in the to the of with the the of obesity, the of been to a with are have a have disease, and are to from liver than other of from a of from the not have cirrhosis. other NAFLD was associated with in the of cirrhosis. This of in NAFLD without is to that most with cirrhosis have is considered This of with cirrhosis have a of metabolic risk obesity, and that with NAFLD, the with NASH or steatosis in the presence of in NAFLD of the for liver disease is of hepatic fibrosis In the recent progression in with NASH a fibrosis progression rate of the of NASH cirrhosis in to with C a rate of and in with NASH cirrhosis as to with C a recent of NAFLD with fibrosis fibrosis and a of an of rate not different from with C This is with of with NAFLD with or liver In NASH is as the of and will as the of in the as C are with As long‐term of liver disease is the development of The rate NAFLD was to be In of with of the to to liver disease, to NAFLD, and to it is that the risk for in NAFLD without cirrhosis is the of with NAFLD without cirrhosis the and of NAFLD NAFLD the lack of evidence for or recent consumption of significant of the of significant alcohol consumption in with NAFLD is A consensus for NASH significant alcohol consumption be defined as in and in a liver to the on and a is any that of the of significant alcohol consumption in published NAFLD literature been Guidance or recent alcohol consumption on in and on in is a for significant alcohol consumption when with NAFLD. Evaluation of and imaging for other than liver or A recent that of with HS be risk for hepatic fibrosis based on the NAFLD fibrosis the and and for this have not been Guidance with HS on imaging have or to liver disease or have liver should be as have NAFLD and up with HS on imaging lack any or and have liver should be for metabolic risk (e.g., obesity, diabetes mellitus, or and causes for HS such as significant alcohol consumption or for NAFLD in and can be that there should be for NAFLD, individuals with diabetes or For not with 2 diabetes have of NAFLD, the available evidence of NASH and stages of fibrosis 2 diabetes there are significant in the and of NAFLD. A analysis using a that for NASH in individuals with diabetes is not of associated with available that liver can be in with NAFLD, not be to as liver or are as is experts recently have for for liver disease in with 2 not Guidance for NAFLD in or is not this of and with lack of to long‐term and of should be a of for NAFLD and NASH in with 2 such as or or can be to or risk for fibrosis fibrosis or of of In a that of with NASH have a In a of with and without NAFLD, for and the of liver fat was and fatty liver was in of of with NAFLD in the of and the of NAFLD have been ranging from no in a to in a of In an of in using to steatosis and fibrosis, steatosis and fibrosis not and, the of HS and was and Guidance of for NAFLD is not Evaluation of the NAFLD The of NAFLD that (1) there is HS by imaging or histology, (2) there is no significant alcohol consumption, (3) there are no for and (4) there are no causes of Common causes of HS are significant alcohol consumption, disease and (Table 1). a with NAFLD, it is to for liver disease, deficiency, and liver can in with NAFLD that not the presence of liver of this are and is a of NAFLD that not hepatic it can disease the are of was associated with fibrosis in a of and are in a with NAFLD, should be in the with in with NAFLD, and the is Liver should be considered in the of and a to the presence or of hepatic accumulation and to significant hepatic injury in a with NAFLD. of and are in with NAFLD and are considered to be an of no liver to In a of NAFLD from the NASH significant in or in and not associated with disease or other are should be for the presence of commonly associated obesity, diabetes or and Guidance a with NAFLD, it is to for steatosis and In with NAFLD, and in the of or a liver should be of in with other of liver disease or to should a for liver of with NAFLD should the presence of commonly associated comorbidities such as obesity, or and Assessment of and in NAFLD The of NAFLD is is NASH can to liver and liver Liver is the most approach for the presence of steatohepatitis and fibrosis in with NAFLD, it is that is by and and and imaging such as and not the spectrum of liver in with NAFLD. there been significant in and for SH in with NAFLD, is the of this practice NAFLD that of steatosis the of (e.g., ballooning and and the and of diabetes in with either by or by fat is an for HS and is in NAFLD The use of to is a for hepatic fat in an the of HS in with NAFLD in is NAFLD The presence of is a for the presence of SH in with NAFLD is associated with of the presence of an of metabolic such as 2 and obesity, to the risk of liver with NAFLD and risk such as and are the risk for of have been as for the presence of SH in with This is not available in a NAFLD The commonly for the presence of fibrosis in NAFLD (e.g., NAFLD fibrosis to Liver and or imaging and The is based on available and and is using the published In a of of the an the of for fibrosis bridging fibrosis with or A and to fibrosis, a and to the presence of fibrosis. is an based on and that with are with are to have A recent that risk and as as liver that and (1) than other such as and and (2) as as for fibrosis in with The panel of of 3 of and an of with and for fibrosis fibrosis or This panel been recently approved for use in is not available for use in the liver was recently approved by the and for use in and with liver recent the of in with NAFLD using an on the of in with NAFLD from the The liver for fibrosis was with and The for fibrosis was in of the the on the of using an with in with NAFLD The failure rate for in this was The for for fibrosis fibrosis and was The NASH recently experience with in with NAFLD in the using a with either an or rate for a liver was is for of fibrosis in with In the by than for fibrosis 2 or in fibrosis 3 or bridging for and and have associated several with SH and fibrosis in with for in is not Guidance In with NAFLD, the presence of and presence can be to for a liver or are clinically for NAFLD with of bridging fibrosis 3) or cirrhosis or are clinically for fibrosis in with NAFLD. to a Liver in NAFLD Liver the for liver in with NAFLD. is for and some and it should be in the most from and Guidance Liver should be considered in with NAFLD are risk of SH fibrosis. The presence of or or liver by or be for are risk for SH fibrosis. Liver should be considered in with NAFLD in for HS and the presence of be without a liver of NAFLD The of NAFLD are of with the of not by The for of liver in a with NAFLD or the and on of the is the to from on of and that is, The for NAFLD have been by the NASH NAFLD by not NASH with or without and 3 or 1 not all for SH with of steatosis or injury in 3 or and steatohepatitis hepatocellular and of NAFLD, have no fibrosis or any of fibrosis up to cirrhosis. 1 is 3 or 2 is 3 and 3 is bridging fibrosis with and is cirrhosis. of NAFLD in from in NAFLD, in be or in 1 and inflammation and fibrosis be in is readers refer to other recent publications for of of fatty liver disease in and are for of in NAFLD from the NASH and from the Liver of the and for The was developed as a of in from a the the for as as for use in and from with the of NAFLD and NASH in as with other of liver there is a for and for with histologically based and to the of (e.g., in and and The by that a of NASH was with in and when a a Guidance should a NAFL NAFL with and NASH with and inflammation and hepatocellular A on or be Specific such as be as The presence or of fibrosis should be a to and is of NAFLD The of NAFLD should of liver disease as as the associated metabolic comorbidities such as obesity, and that with NAFLD without SH or any fibrosis have from a liver liver disease should be to with NASH and fibrosis. Guidance liver disease should be to with NASH and fibrosis. of and been to with NAFLD. The to that is the to in the of In a of with histology, to of in was associated with have been by a recent with liver in In this a was the the of the significant the in such that was associated with in all of inflammation and fibrosis. it is to that ≥5% or fibrosis in of the of to a in this with a the is associated with of liver fat and in The of the to to be than the of in NAFLD are by a lack of as as and that by or by in in and The in fatty been in to a for and, there was no in significant in steatosis in the with are recommendations to can be The majority of NAFLD are in and this been associated with an risk of and the of on in NASH are a recent an in HS with no in The and of that than or by than have in independent of This is by a that of of a a or for was associated with the in of NAFLD development or in that NAFLD, independent of the The of on NASH are from a of NAFLD patients, of or was not associated with in NASH or fibrosis. recommendations have in of the recommendations was to have a on and are for with NAFLD to the of and on NAFLD are on in a analysis of in a than on NAFLD, a review of and in liver fat liver with of In the to 1 of a recommendations to in a of to in and Guidance either by or in conjunction with A of a by and is to the of of of to a is to the majority of the of fibrosis. in with NAFLD or to other aspects of liver the of on liver in with several have an in and not liver published that not liver in with NAFLD and Guidance is not for NASH in patients. are for the with on and as as on and The of to and in and have to in with an in not of or is no available in most and in the of of an in no was an review of all evidence by the In an an of in with NASH and or and and ballooning. The with in to of and there was a in fibrosis to In a recent Cusi with NASH either or with a from and or for by an with The was a of 2 in the different without of fibrosis. In with the and of NASH fibrosis and of no different was with and a of is of in with NASH without an with either or for in with steatosis not to hepatocellular injury and fibrosis. In the for the of with a in with to or for The was an in by with in hepatocellular ballooning and in either the inflammation or steatosis and no in the fibrosis This was in in the to in the and in the Because this of and a of was considered to be significant a there associated with this that not the of a secondary was in a of than and and there no in other is the most associated with from and from to in of to been a with either or for up to and no significant risk and use of or of in with Guidance liver in with and without with it be to patients. and should be with each and should not be to NAFLD without been an in the of as in with NAFLD and In a recently published of with for was associated with of SH and progression of As was associated with Guidance is to to specifically liver disease in with NAFLD or is considered a of hepatocellular injury and disease progression in with is an and been as a for is of for into the different of and of that the use of other or other and to most and not or of for it can be that (1) the use of is associated with a in in with (2) in that in in and ballooning and of SH in a of with and (3) not have an on In the the form of was a of for The was in a of to to In the of Liver in or in with NAFLD, of NASH was in with than in with recent significant with in with are the long‐term of that of associated with this been several with and A and other as as such as not A analysis of with the of that the by in in the in A that and from 1 to not a and In a published in a of was and associated with a in the risk of of of and this risk be by or associated with Guidance a of liver in with NASH and be considered for this and should be with each is not to NASH in patients, NAFLD without liver NASH or cirrhosis. NAFLD all stages is in for is in all of NAFLD, fibrosis, most is to and to or disease in most and long‐term and from and the most causes of in there are no of in NASH to be in the there are several and and with liver and metabolic with liver of and 1 and in with and in and to there was a significant in the and of steatosis and ballooning 1 and In with or NASH there was a significant in and and of or NASH 1 and 1 with no in liver 1 and a in fibrosis was the to this of fibrosis and bridging fibrosis, that there is no clinically significant in fibrosis that can be to the In a on with NASH with NASH the of and 1 of NASH in to fibrosis 1 in of a of available in that the majority of to or the of and ballooning. by a by in the of The and of in with NASH cirrhosis is not analysis from the and for with and without cirrhosis. to without cirrhosis was in with cirrhosis and in with cirrhosis A recent review of in with cirrhosis A and is associated with with cirrhosis Guidance can be considered in individuals with NAFLD or is to as an to specifically The and of in individuals with cirrhosis to NAFLD are not In with NASH or be considered on a by an have and to and steatosis in with NAFLD and liver in with have been with of a that no in with fatty approved in the to have been to NAFLD in and in In a review of the published literature in evidence to the use of fatty in with NAFLD to liver disease, the of was by and recently to for fatty in with NAFLD or than a other have been in and is the of this Guidance is not for the of NAFLD or fatty should not be as a of NAFLD or be considered to in with NAFLD. in NAFLD and NASH alcohol consumption is a risk for and should be by with NAFLD and or as than on any or than in or than on any or in several have a of alcohol consumption than on the presence either or by and of NAFLD, a recent analysis of from the of by are are no the of alcohol consumption on disease or of NAFLD or The of on the and have not been in individuals with NAFLD. Guidance with NAFLD should not of are to make recommendations with regard to consumption of alcohol by individuals with NAFLD. is a NAFLD and risk of and that for risk the NAFLD and NAFLD, a risk and to and of risk is there are NAFLD and stages of the and and of are not and with NAFLD have a by and to as as a of with to be by hepatic and the of rather than by the presence of have evidence of the long‐term of with NAFLD of in with diabetes or and A recent analysis of the The and Evaluation that and in with to analysis of the The and a of in with in to it is to in with NAFLD based on to use in with or NAFLD and several have the of in with liver disease of in liver the risk of is not in with are not in liver injury from is in of as for NASH are and have with liver or not all and

For the purposes of classification, it should be specified whether osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is of unknown origin (idiopathic, primary) or is related to a known medical condition or event (secondary). Clinical criteria for the classification of idiopathic OA of the knee were developed through a multicenter study group. Comparison diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis and other painful conditions of the knee, exclusive of referred or para-articular pain. Variables from the medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and radiographs were used to develop sets of criteria that serve different investigative purposes. In contrast to prior criteria, these proposed criteria utilize classification trees, or algorithms.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide, but few effective long-term treatments are available. In cardiovascular trials of inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), exploratory results have suggested that such drugs may improve renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: ), a doubling of the serum creatinine level, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Prespecified secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee. At that time, 4401 patients had undergone randomization, with a median follow-up of 2.62 years. The relative risk of the primary outcome was 30% lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group, with event rates of 43.2 and 61.2 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.82; P = 0.00001). The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P<0.001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.86; P = 0.002). The canagliflozin group also had a lower risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P = 0.01) and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of amputation or fracture. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, the risk of kidney failure and cardiovascular events was lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 2.62 years. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; CREDENCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02065791.).

INTRODUCTION: The SCARE Guidelines were first published in 2016 and were last updated in 2018. They provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports and are used and endorsed by authors, journal editors and reviewers, in order to increase robustness and transparency in reporting surgical cases. They must be kept up to date in order to drive forwards reporting quality. As such, we have updated these guidelines via a DELPHI consensus exercise. METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Members were invited from the previous DELPHI group, as well as editorial board members and peer reviewers of the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group completed an online survey to indicate their agreement with proposed changes to the checklist items. RESULTS: A total of 54 surgical experts agreed to participate and 53 (98%) completed the survey. The responses and suggested modifications were incorporated into the new 2020 guideline. There was a high degree of agreement amongst the SCARE Group, with all modified SCARE items receiving over 70% scores 7-9. CONCLUSION: A DELPHI consensus exercise was completed and an updated and improved SCARE Checklist is now presented.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-related bloodstream infections occurring in the intensive care unit (ICU) are common, costly, and potentially lethal. METHODS: We conducted a collaborative cohort study predominantly in ICUs in Michigan. An evidence-based intervention was used to reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections. Multilevel Poisson regression modeling was used to compare infection rates before, during, and up to 18 months after implementation of the study intervention. Rates of infection per 1000 catheter-days were measured at 3-month intervals, according to the guidelines of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. RESULTS: A total of 108 ICUs agreed to participate in the study, and 103 reported data. The analysis included 1981 ICU-months of data and 375,757 catheter-days. The median rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection per 1000 catheter-days decreased from 2.7 infections at baseline to 0 at 3 months after implementation of the study intervention (P< or =0.002), and the mean rate per 1000 catheter-days decreased from 7.7 at baseline to 1.4 at 16 to 18 months of follow-up (P<0.002). The regression model showed a significant decrease in infection rates from baseline, with incidence-rate ratios continuously decreasing from 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.81) at 0 to 3 months after implementation of the intervention to 0.34 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.50) at 16 to 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based intervention resulted in a large and sustained reduction (up to 66%) in rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection that was maintained throughout the 18-month study period.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are common in medical patients and are associated with diminished health status and increased health care utilization. This article presents a quantitative review and synthesis of studies correlating medical patients' treatment noncompliance with their anxiety and depression. METHODS: Research on patient adherence catalogued on MEDLINE and PsychLit from January 1, 1968, through March 31, 1998, was examined, and studies were included in this review if they measured patient compliance and depression or anxiety (with n>10); involved a medical regimen recommended by a nonpsychiatrist physician to a patient not being treated for anxiety, depression, or a psychiatric illness; and measured the relationship between patient compliance and patient anxiety and/or depression (or provided data to calculate it). RESULTS: Twelve articles about depression and 13 about anxiety met the inclusion criteria. The associations between anxiety and noncompliance were variable, and their averages were small and nonsignificant. The relationship between depression and noncompliance, however, was substantial and significant, with an odds ratio of 3.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.96-4.89). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with nondepressed patients, the odds are 3 times greater that depressed patients will be noncompliant with medical treatment recommendations. Recommendations for future research include attention to causal inferences and exploration of mechanisms to explain the effects. Evidence of strong covariation of depression and medical noncompliance suggests the importance of recognizing depression as a risk factor for poor outcomes among patients who might not be adhering to medical advice.

The upcoming 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours is part of an effort to hierarchically catalogue human cancers arising in various organ systems within a single relational database. This paper summarizes the new WHO classification scheme for myeloid and histiocytic/dendritic neoplasms and provides an overview of the principles and rationale underpinning changes from the prior edition. The definition and diagnosis of disease types continues to be based on multiple clinicopathologic parameters, but with refinement of diagnostic criteria and emphasis on therapeutically and/or prognostically actionable biomarkers. While a genetic basis for defining diseases is sought where possible, the classification strives to keep practical worldwide applicability in perspective. The result is an enhanced, contemporary, evidence-based classification of myeloid and histiocytic/dendritic neoplasms, rooted in molecular biology and an organizational structure that permits future scalability as new discoveries continue to inexorably inform future editions.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

These recommendations are based on the following: (1) a formal review and analysis of the recently published world literature on the topic [Medline search up to June 2011]; (2) the American College of Physicians' Manual for Assessing Health Practices and Designing Practice Guidelines;1 (3) guideline policies of the three societies approving this document; and (4) the experience of the authors and independent reviewers with regards to NAFLD. Intended for use by physicians and allied health professionals, these recommendations suggest preferred approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic and preventive aspects of care. They are intended to be flexible and adjustable for individual patients. Specific recommendations are evidence-based wherever possible, and when such evidence is not available or inconsistent, recommendations are made based on the consensus opinion of the authors. To best characterize the evidence cited in support of the recommendations, the AASLD Practice Guidelines Committee has adopted the classification used by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) workgroup with minor modifications (Table 1).2 The strength of recommendations in the GRADE system is classified as strong (1) or weak (2). The quality of evidence supporting strong or weak recommendations is designated by one of three levels: high (A), moderate (B) or low-quality (C).2 This is a practice guideline for clinicians rather than a review article and interested readers can refer to several comprehensive reviews published recently.3-8 NAFLD, Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; NAFL,Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver; NASH, Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis; T2DM, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus; AST, Aspartate Aminotransferase; ALT, Alanine Aminotransferase; HOMA,Homeostatic Model Assessment; RCT; Randomized Controlled Trial; PIVENS: Pioglitazone versus Vitamin E versus Placebo for the Treatment of Non-diabetic patients with Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; TONIC; Treatment of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Children; NAS, NAFLD Activity Score; CK18; Cytokeratin 18 Fragments; ELF, Enhanced Liver Fibrosis Panel; TZD; Thiazolidinediones; UDCA: Ursodeoxycholic Acid; ANA; Anti Nuclear Antibody; ASMA: Anti Smooth Muscle Antibody; US; Ultrasound; CT: Computerized Tomography; MR; Magnetic Resonance. The definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) requires that (a) there is evidence of hepatic steatosis, either by imaging or by histology and (b) there are no causes for secondary hepatic fat accumulation such as significant alcohol consumption, use of steatogenic medication or hereditary disorders (Table 2). In the majority of patients, NAFLD is associated with metabolic risk factors such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia. NAFLD is histologically further categorized into nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) (Table 3). NAFL is defined as the presence of hepatic steatosis with no evidence of hepatocellular injury in the form of ballooning of the hepatocytes. NASH is defined as the presence of hepatic steatosis and inflammation with hepatocyte injury (ballooning) with or without fibrosis. The incidence of NAFLD has been investigated in a limited number of studies. Two Japanese studies9, 10 reported an incidence rate of 31 and 86 cases of suspected NAFLD per 1,000 person-years respectively, whereas another study from England showed a much lower incidence rate of 29 cases per 100,000 person-years.11 More studies are needed to better understand the incidence of NAFLD across different age, ethnic, and geographic groups. The reported prevalence of NAFLD varies widely depending on the population studied and the definition used. The prevalence of histologically-defined NAFLD was 20% and 51% in two different studies comprised of potential living liver donors.12, 13 The reported prevalence of NAFLD when defined by liver ultrasound ranged between 17% and 46% depending on the population studied.4 In a study consisting of nearly 400 middle aged individuals, the prevalence of NAFLD defined by ultrasonography was 46% and the prevalence of histologically confirmed NASH was 12.2%.14 In the Dallas Heart Study, when assessed by MR spectroscopy the prevalence of NAFLD in the general population was 31%.15 The prevalence of suspected NAFLD when estimated using aminotransferases alone without imaging or histology ranged between 7% and 11%, but aminotransferases can be normal in individuals with NAFLD.4 In summary, estimates of the worldwide prevalence of NAFLD ranges from 6.3% to 33% with a median of 20% in the general population, based on a variety of assessment methods.4 On the other hand, the estimated prevalence of NASH is lower, ranging from 3 to 5%.4 The prevalence of NASH cirrhosis in the general population is not known. Obesity is a common and well documented risk factor for NAFLD. Both excessive BMI and visceral obesity are recognized risk factors for NAFLD. In patients with severe obesity undergoing bariatric surgery, the prevalence of NAFLD can exceed 90% and up to 5% of patients may have unsuspected cirrhosis.4, 16-20 There is a very high prevalence of NAFLD in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).4 An ultrasonographic study of patients with T2DM showed a 69% prevalence of NAFLD.21 In another study, 127 of 204 diabetic patients displayed fatty infiltration on ultrasound, and 87% of the patients with fatty infiltration who consented to biopsy had histologic confirmation of NAFLD.22 High serum triglyceride levels and low serum HDL levels are very common in patients with NAFLD. The prevalence of NAFLD in individuals with dyslipidemia attending lipid clinics was estimated to be 50%.23 Age, gender and ethnicity are also associated with a differential prevalence for NAFLD.4 A number of studies have shown that the prevalence of NAFLD increases with age.24-28 The likelihood of disease progression to advanced fibrosis or mortality increases in older patients with NAFLD.29-31 Many recent studies have reported that male gender is a risk factor for fatty liver disease.4 For example, in a study of 26,527 subjects undergoing medical checkups, the prevalence of NAFLD was 31% in men and 16% in women.32 Compared to non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic individuals have significantly higher and non-Hispanic blacks have significantly lower prevalence of NAFLD.15, 33-35 The prevalence of NAFLD in American-Indian and Alaskan-Native populations appears lower, ranging from 0.6% to 2.2%, although the lack of histologic definition makes it likely that is an underestimate.36, 37 There are data to suggest that hypothyroidism, hypopituitarism, hypogonadism, sleep apnea, and polycystic ovary syndrome independent of obesity are important risk factors for the presence of NAFLD (Table 4).3 The evolution of hepatic histologic changes in patients with NAFL and NASH has been investigated by several studies, but these generally included smaller number of patients and had relatively modest duration of follow-up.4, 7 Nonetheless, it is generally agreed that patients with simple steatosis have very slow, if any, histological progression, while patients with NASH can exhibit histological progression to cirrhotic-stage disease.4, 7 The long term outcomes of patients with NAFLD and NASH have been reported in several studies.31, 38-45 Their detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this guideline, but their findings can be summarized as follows; (a) patients with NAFLD have increased overall mortality compared to matched control populations, (b) the most common cause of death in patients with NAFLD, NAFL and NASH is cardiovascular disease, and (c) patients with NASH (but not NAFL) have an increased liver-related mortality rate. Another piece of indirect evidence that supports the progressive nature of NASH is in the features of cryptogenic cirrhosis which is closely related to NAFLD.46, 47 Patients with cryptogenic cirrhosis have disproportionately high prevalence of metabolic risk factors (T2DM, obesity, metabolic syndrome) typical of patients with NAFLD, their liver biopsies frequently show one or more features of NASH, and studies have demonstrated the loss of histological features of NASH with the development of cirrhosis.4, 7, 46, 47 Patients with NAFLD are at increased risk for HCC, but this risk is likely limited to those with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis.48-53 Several studies investigated the natural history of NASH cirrhosis in comparison to patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis.54-57 One large prospective US-based study55 observed a lower rate of decompensation and mortality in patients with NASH cirrhosis as compared to patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis. However, a more recent international study56 of 247 NAFLD patients with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis followed over a mean duration of 85.6 ± 54.5 months showed an overall 10-year survival of 81.5% that was not different from matched patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis. Importantly, both studies have shown that patients with NASH cirrhosis are at significantly lower risk for HCC than patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis.55, 56 By definition, NAFLD indicates the lack of any evidence of ongoing or recent consumption of significant quantities of alcohol. However, the precise definition of significant alcohol consumption in patients with suspected NAFLD is uncertain. A recent consensus meeting58 concluded that, for NASH clinical trials candidate eligibility purposes, significant alcohol consumption be defined as >21 drinks per week in men and >14 drinks per week in women over a 2-year period prior to baseline liver histology. Furthermore, this group recommended that validated questionnaires should be used to quantify the amount of alcohol consumption in the context of clinical trials. The definition of significant alcohol consumption in the published NAFLD literature has been inconsistent and ranged from > 1 alcoholic drink (∼ 10 grams of alcohol per one drink unit) per day to > 40 grams per day, and published studies have not always used gender-specific definitions.59 If self-reported alcohol consumption details are not consistent with clinical suspicion when evaluating a patient with suspected NAFLD, confirmation with a family member or a close friend should be considered. Recommendation 1. Ongoing or recent alcohol consumption > 21 drinks on average per week in men and > 14 drinks on average per week in women is a reasonable definition for significant alcohol consumption when evaluating patients with suspected NAFLD in clinical practice. (Strength – 2, Quality - C) Some patients undergoing thoracic and abdominal imaging for reasons other than liver symptoms, signs or biochemistry may demonstrate unsuspected hepatic steatosis. While this phenomenon is not uncommon in clinical practice, studies have not systematically examined the characteristics or natural history of NAFLD in this patient population. Recommendations 2. When patients with unsuspected hepatic steatosis detected on imaging have symptoms or signs attributable to liver disease or have abnormal liver biochemistries, they should be evaluated as though they have suspected NAFLD and worked-up accordingly. (Strength – 1, Evidence -A) 3. In patients with unsuspected hepatic steatosis detected on imaging who lack any liver-related symptoms or signs and have normal liver biochemistries, it is reasonable to assess for metabolic risk factors (e.g., obesity, glucose intolerance, dyslipidemia) and alternate causes for hepatic steatosis such as significant alcohol consumption or medications. (Strength – 1, Evidence -A) 4. In patients with unsuspected hepatic steatosis detected on imaging who are asymptomatic and have normal liver biochemistries, a liver biopsy cannot be recommended. (Strength – 1, Evidence -B) It can be argued that there should be systematic screening for NAFLD, at least among higher-risk individuals attending diabetes and obesity clinics. However, at present there are significant gaps in our knowledge regarding the diagnosis, natural history, and treatment of NAFLD. As liver biochemistries can be within normal ranges in patients with NAFLD and NASH, they may not be sufficiently sensitive to serve as screening tests, whereas liver ultrasound is potentially more sensitive but it is expensive and cumbersome as a screening test. Recommendation 5. Screening for NAFLD in adults attending primary care clinics or high-risk groups attending diabetes or obesity clinics is not advised at this time due to uncertainties surrounding diagnostic tests and treatment options, along with lack of knowledge related to the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of screening. (Strength – 1, Evidence -B) Anecdotal experience and some published studies suggest familial clustering and heritability of NAFLD,60-63 but conclusive studies are lacking. In a retrospective cohort study, Willner et al. observed that 18% of patients with NASH have a similarly affected first degree relative.61 A small familial aggregation study observed that patients with NAFLD have a significantly higher number of first degree relatives with cirrhosis and a trend towards familial clustering of NAFLD or cryptogenic cirrhosis than matched healthy controls.62 In another familial aggregation study63 of overweight children with and without NAFLD, after adjusting for age, gender, race, and BMI, the heritability of MR-measured liver fat fraction was 0.386, and fatty liver was present in 18% of family members of children with NAFLD despite normal ALT and lack of obesity. Recommendation 6. Systematic screening of family members for NAFLD is currently not recommended. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) The diagnosis of NAFLD requires that (a) there is hepatic steatosis by imaging or histology, (b) there is no significant alcohol consumption, (c) there are no competing etiologies for hepatic steatosis, and (d) there are no co-existing causes for chronic liver disease. Common alternative causes of hepatic steatosis are significant alcohol consumption, hepatitis C, medications, parenteral nutrition, Wilson's disease, and severe malnutrition (Table 2). When evaluating a patient with newly suspected NAFLD, it is important to exclude co-existing etiologies for chronic liver disease including hemochromatosis, autoimmune liver disease, chronic viral hepatitis, and Wilson's disease.3 Mildly elevated serum ferritin is common in patients with NAFLD and it does not necessarily indicate increased iron stores.3, 64 Elevated serum ferritin and transferrin saturation in patients with suspected NAFLD should lead to testing for genetic hemochromatosis. Mutations in the HFE gene occur with variable frequency in patients with NAFLD and their clinical significance is unclear.64 One should consider a liver biopsy to assess hepatic iron concentration and to exclude significant hepatic injury and fibrosis in a patient with suspected NAFLD with elevated serum ferritin and a homozygote or compound heterozygote C282Y mutation in the HFE gene.65 Elevated serum autoantibodies are common in patients with NAFLD and are generally considered to be an epiphenomenon.3 In a recently published large study from the NASH Clinical Research Network, positive serum autoantibodies, defined as ANA > 1:160 or ASMA >1:40 were present in 21% of patients with well-phenotyped NAFLD and were not associated with more advanced histologic features.66 Recommendations 7. When evaluating a patient with suspected NAFLD, it is essential to exclude competing etiologies for steatosis and co-existing common chronic liver disease. (Strength – 1, Evidence - A) 8. Persistently high serum ferritin and increased iron saturation, especially in the context of homozygote or heterozygote C282Y HFE mutations may warrant a liver biopsy. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) 9. High serum titers of autoantibodies in association with other features suggestive of autoimmune liver disease (very high aminotransferases, high globulin) should prompt a more complete work-up for autoimmune liver disease. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) The natural history of NAFLD is fairly dichotomous – NAFL is generally benign whereas NASH can progress to cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer. Existing dogma posits that liver biopsy is the most reliable approach for identifying the presence of steatohepatitis and fibrosis in patients with NAFLD, but it is generally acknowledged that biopsy is limited by cost, sampling error, and procedure-related morbidity and mortality. Serum aminotransferase levels and imaging tests such as ultrasound, CT, and MR do not reliably assess steatohepatitis and fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Therefore, there has been significant interest in developing clinical prediction rules and non-invasive biomarkers for identifying steatohepatitis in patients with NAFLD,7 but their detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this practice guideline. The presence of metabolic syndrome is a strong predictor for the presence of steatohepatitis in patients with NAFLD3, 7, 67-69 and may be used to best identify patients with persistently abnormal liver biochemistries who would benefit diagnostically and prognostically from a liver biopsy. There has been intense interest in non-invasive methods to identify advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD7;these include the NAFLD Fibrosis Score70, Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) panel70 and transient elastography. The NAFLD Fibrosis Score is based on six readily available variables (age, BMI, hyperglycemia, platelet count, albumin, AST/ALT ratio) and it is calculated using the published formula (http://nafldscore.com). In a meta-analysis of 13 studies consisting of 3,064 patients,7 NAFLD Fibrosis Score has an AUROC of 0.85 for predicting advanced fibrosis (i.e., bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis) and a score < −1.455 had 90% sensitivity and 60% specificity to exclude advanced fibrosis whereas a score > 0.676 had 67% sensitivity and 97% specificity to identify the presence of advanced fibrosis. The ELF panel consists of plasma levels of three matrix turnover proteins (hyaluronic acid, TIMP-1, and PIIINP) had an AUROC of 0.90 with 80% sensitivity and 90% specificity for detecting advanced fibrosis.71 Circulating levels of cytokeratin-18 (CK18) fragments have been investigated extensively as novel biomarkers for the presence of steatohepatitis in patients with NAFLD.7, 72 Wieckowska et al., measured CK18 fragments in plasma that had been obtained from 44 consecutive patients with suspected NAFLD at the time of liver biopsy, and correlated the findings with hepatic immunohistochemistry data.70 Plasma CK18 fragments were markedly increased in patients with NASH compared with patients with simple steatosis or normal biopsies (median 765.7 U/L versus 202.4 U/L or 215.5 U/L, respectively; P < 0.001), and independently predicted NASH (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.18-3.22 for every 50 U/L increase). This observation was reproduced in several subsequent studies and a recent meta-analysis estimated that plasma CK18 levels have a sensitivity of 78%, specificity of 87%, and an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) for steatohepatitis in patients with NAFLD.7 Although these are very encouraging results, currently this assay is not commercially available. Furthermore, as each study utilized a study-specific cut-off value, there is not an established cut-off value for identifying steatohepatitis. Transient elastography, which measures liver stiffness non-invasively, has been successful in identifying advanced fibrosis in patients with hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Although a recent meta-analysis showed high sensitivity and specificity for identifying fibrosis in NAFLD,7 it has a high failure rate in individuals with a higher BMI. Furthermore, it is not commercially available in the United States. Other imaging tools such as MR elastography, although commercially available in the United States, is rarely used in clinical practice. A major limitation of these prediction models and biomarkers is that they have largely been investigated in cross-sectional studies and thus their utility in monitoring disease natural history, predicting outcomes or response to therapeutic intervention is unknown. Recommendations 10. As the metabolic syndrome predicts the presence of steatohepatitis in patients with NAFLD, presence can be used to patients for a liver biopsy. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) NAFLD Fibrosis Score is a for identifying NAFLD patients with higher likelihood of bridging fibrosis cirrhosis. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) Although CK18 is a for identifying it is to in clinical practice. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) Liver biopsy the for liver histology in patients with NAFLD. However, it is expensive and some morbidity and very mortality it should be in those who would benefit the most from diagnostic, therapeutic and Recommendations Liver biopsy should be considered in patients with NAFLD who are at increased risk to have steatohepatitis and advanced fibrosis. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) The presence of metabolic syndrome and the NAFLD Fibrosis Score may be used for identifying patients who are at risk for steatohepatitis and advanced fibrosis. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) Liver biopsy should be considered in patients with suspected NAFLD in competing etiologies for hepatic steatosis and co-existing chronic liver cannot be without a liver biopsy. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) The of patients with NAFLD consists of liver disease as well as the associated metabolic such as obesity, and As patients with NAFLD without steatohepatitis have from a liver at liver disease should be limited to those with Many studies indicate that may aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis when measured either by or MR imaging and In a meta-analysis of and clinical studies between most studies reported in aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis by ultrasound across a of of different and high low high fat However, these studies were as a of largely and using histology as the primary More recent studies also showed an in aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis on histology with in with was investigated in two trials. In the study by et ALT and steatosis by but on liver histology not be evaluated the majority of patients not a liver biopsy. However, in the study by et not or liver histology. The best evidence for loss as a to liver histology in NASH from a that 31 with NASH to changes and a week of moderate for versus The had loss in the alone and to an in steatosis, and but not fibrosis. Importantly, with 7% loss had significant in steatosis, and NAFLD Activity Score There was a in the study by et who > 5% steatosis, whereas individuals with loss had significant in steatosis, and A number of recent studies used MR spectroscopy to assess changes in hepatic fat in response to The from these studies using a variety of either by or in with different have reported a significant in liver fat by an average of from 20% to The degree of hepatic fat was to the of the intervention and generally a loss between to The of without on hepatic steatosis was investigated in studies using MR of a week of over a period of to In but one liver fat without a significant in Recommendations loss generally hepatic steatosis, either by alone or in with increased (Strength – 1, Evidence - A) of at least of appears to steatosis, but a loss to may be needed to (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) alone in adults with NAFLD may hepatic steatosis but to other aspects of liver histology unknown. (Strength – 1, Evidence - B) Several studies investigated the of on aminotransferases and liver histology in patients with studies demonstrated a in and but no significant in liver An consisting of patients with NASH either 2 E or loss for more with than with E or However, there was a modest in hepatic steatosis and inflammation in the of patients undergoing liver biopsies with In a study in patients, NASH in of patients, although of the study was by a significant loss in the more than 10 et reported a lack of in a control of with a and intervention in both groups. Other studies also to show major benefit for on hepatic or liver A recent concluded that months of intervention not aminotransferases or liver histology, compared with intervention independently of or the presence of Recommendation has no significant on liver histology and is not recommended as a treatment for liver disease in adults with (Strength – 1, Evidence - A) Several studies investigated the of and on aminotransferases and liver histology in adults with In an in subjects with NASH, aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis, ballooning and inflammation but not fibrosis. in a subsequent et observed that aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis, but not or fibrosis and also showed et a of in patients with NASH who had glucose or Although there was a significant ± with it significantly aminotransferases, steatosis, and The with in compared to of patients and there was a trend towards in fibrosis among patients to et a of intervention with either or for months in a of patients with While steatosis not significantly compared to hepatocellular injury and fibrosis The study is a large that 247 patients with NASH to E or for The primary was an in 2 with at least 1 in hepatocellular ballooning and in either the inflammation or steatosis and no in the fibrosis It was in in the group compared to in the group and in the E group this study of two primary and E a of was considered to be significant a Therefore, although there were histological benefits associated with this study concluded that not the primary However, of NASH, a secondary was in significantly higher number of

Insulin resistance plays an important role in the pathophysiology of diabetes and is associated with obesity and other cardiovascular risk factors. The "gold standard" glucose clamp and minimal model analysis are two established methods for determining insulin sensitivity in vivo, but neither is easily implemented in large studies. Thus, it is of interest to develop a simple, accurate method for assessing insulin sensitivity that is useful for clinical investigations. We performed both hyperinsulinemic isoglycemic glucose clamp and insulin-modified frequently sampled iv glucose tolerance tests on 28 nonobese, 13 obese, and 15 type 2 diabetic subjects. We obtained correlations between indexes of insulin sensitivity from glucose clamp studies (SI(Clamp)) and minimal model analysis (SI(MM)) that were comparable to previous reports (r = 0.57). We performed a sensitivity analysis on our data and discovered that physiological steady state values [i.e. fasting insulin (I(0)) and glucose (G(0))] contain critical information about insulin sensitivity. We defined a quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI = 1/[log(I(0)) + log(G(0))]) that has substantially better correlation with SI(Clamp) (r = 0.78) than the correlation we observed between SI(MM) and SI(Clamp). Moreover, we observed a comparable overall correlation between QUICKI and SI(Clamp) in a totally independent group of 21 obese and 14 nonobese subjects from another institution. We conclude that QUICKI is an index of insulin sensitivity obtained from a fasting blood sample that may be useful for clinical research.

Because depression and painful symptoms commonly occur together, we conducted a literature review to determine the prevalence of both conditions and the effects of comorbidity on diagnosis, clinical outcomes, and treatment. The prevalences of pain in depressed cohorts and depression in pain cohorts are higher than when these conditions are individually examined. The presence of pain negatively affects the recognition and treatment of depression. When pain is moderate to severe, impairs function, and/or is refractory to treatment, it is associated with more depressive symptoms and worse depression outcomes (eg, lower quality of life, decreased work function, and increased health care utilization). Similarly, depression in patients with pain is associated with more pain complaints and greater impairment. Depression and pain share biological pathways and neurotransmitters, which has implications for the treatment of both concurrently. A model that incorporates assessment and treatment of depression and pain simultaneously is necessary for improved outcomes.

The principal limitations of the terms NAFLD and NASH are the reliance on exclusionary confounder terms and the use of potentially stigmatising language. This study set out to determine if content experts and patient advocates were in favor of a change in nomenclature and/or definition. A modified Delphi process was led by three large pan-national liver associations. The consensus was defined a priori as a supermajority (67%) vote. An independent committee of experts external to the nomenclature process made the final recommendation on the acronym and its diagnostic criteria. A total of 236 panelists from 56 countries participated in 4 online surveys and 2 hybrid meetings. Response rates across the 4 survey rounds were 87%, 83%, 83%, and 78%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change. The terms "nonalcoholic" and "fatty" were felt to be stigmatising by 61% and 66% of respondents, respectively. Steatotic liver disease was chosen as an overarching term to encompass the various aetiologies of steatosis. The term steatohepatitis was felt to be an important pathophysiological concept that should be retained. The name chosen to replace NAFLD was metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. There was consensus to change the definition to include the presence of at least 1 of 5 cardiometabolic risk factors. Those with no metabolic parameters and no known cause were deemed to have cryptogenic steatotic liver disease. A new category, outside pure metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, termed metabolic and alcohol related/associated liver disease (MetALD), was selected to describe those with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140-350 g/wk and 210-420 g/wk for females and males, respectively). The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported and nonstigmatising, and can improve awareness and patient identification.

Increasing evidence in both experimental and clinical studies suggests that oxidative stress plays a major role in the pathogenesis of both types of diabetes mellitus. Free radicals are formed disproportionately in diabetes by glucose oxidation, nonenzymatic glycation of proteins, and the subsequent oxidative degradation of glycated proteins. Abnormally high levels of free radicals and the simultaneous decline of antioxidant defense mechanisms can lead to damage of cellular organelles and enzymes, increased lipid peroxidation, and development of insulin resistance. These consequences of oxidative stress can promote the development of complications of diabetes mellitus. Changes in oxidative stress biomarkers, including superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione reductase, glutathione peroxidase, glutathione levels, vitamins, lipid peroxidation, nitrite concentration, nonenzymatic glycosylated proteins, and hyperglycemia in diabetes, and their consequences, are discussed in this review. In vivo studies of the effects of various conventional and alternative drugs on these biomarkers are surveyed. There is a need to continue to explore the relationship between free radicals, diabetes, and its complications, and to elucidate the mechanisms by which increased oxidative stress accelerates the development of diabetic complications, in an effort to expand treatment options.

There is increasing evidence that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in individuals with unimpaired performance on cognitive tests may represent the first symptomatic manifestation of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The research on SCD in early AD, however, is limited by the absence of common standards. The working group of the Subjective Cognitive Decline Initiative (SCD-I) addressed this deficiency by reaching consensus on terminology and on a conceptual framework for research on SCD in AD. In this publication, research criteria for SCD in pre-mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are presented. In addition, a list of core features proposed for reporting in SCD studies is provided, which will enable comparability of research across different settings. Finally, a set of features is presented, which in accordance with current knowledge, increases the likelihood of the presence of preclinical AD in individuals with SCD. This list is referred to as SCD plus.

The principal limitations of the terms NAFLD and NASH are the reliance on exclusionary confounder terms and the use of potentially stigmatising language. This study set out to determine if content experts and patient advocates were in favour of a change in nomenclature and/or definition. A modified Delphi process was led by three large pan-national liver associations. The consensus was defined a priori as a supermajority (67%) vote. An independent committee of experts external to the nomenclature process made the final recommendation on the acronym and its diagnostic criteria. A total of 236 panellists from 56 countries participated in 4 online surveys and 2 hybrid meetings. Response rates across the 4 survey rounds were 87%, 83%, 83%, and 78%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change. The terms "nonalcoholic" and "fatty" were felt to be stigmatising by 61% and 66% of respondents, respectively. Steatotic liver disease was chosen as an overarching term to encompass the various aetiologies of steatosis. The term steatohepatitis was felt to be an important pathophysiological concept that should be retained. The name chosen to replace NAFLD was metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). There was consensus to change the definition to include the presence of at least 1 of 5 cardiometabolic risk factors. Those with no metabolic parameters and no known cause were deemed to have cryptogenic steatotic liver disease. A new category, outside pure metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, termed metabolic and alcohol related/associated liver disease (MetALD), was selected to describe those with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140-350 g/wk and 210-420 g/wk for females and males, respectively). The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported and non-stigmatising, and can improve awareness and patient identification.

BACKGROUND: Hypothermia is protective against brain injury after asphyxiation in animal models. However, the safety and effectiveness of hypothermia in term infants with encephalopathy is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial of hypothermia in infants with a gestational age of at least 36 weeks who were admitted to the hospital at or before six hours of age with either severe acidosis or perinatal complications and resuscitation at birth and who had moderate or severe encephalopathy. Infants were randomly assigned to usual care (control group) or whole-body cooling to an esophageal temperature of 33.5 degrees C for 72 hours, followed by slow rewarming (hypothermia group). Neurodevelopmental outcome was assessed at 18 to 22 months of age. The primary outcome was a combined end point of death or moderate or severe disability. RESULTS: Of 239 eligible infants, 102 were assigned to the hypothermia group and 106 to the control group. Adverse events were similar in the two groups during the 72 hours of cooling. Primary outcome data were available for 205 infants. Death or moderate or severe disability occurred in 45 of 102 infants (44 percent) in the hypothermia group and 64 of 103 infants (62 percent) in the control group (risk ratio, 0.72; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.95; P=0.01). Twenty-four infants (24 percent) in the hypothermia group and 38 (37 percent) in the control group died (risk ratio, 0.68; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.44 to 1.05; P=0.08). There was no increase in major disability among survivors; the rate of cerebral palsy was 15 of 77 (19 percent) in the hypothermia group as compared with 19 of 64 (30 percent) in the control group (risk ratio, 0.68; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.38 to 1.22; P=0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Whole-body hypothermia reduces the risk of death or disability in infants with moderate or severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy combinations that include an alkylating agent and a platinum coordination complex have high response rates in women with advanced ovarian cancer. Such combinations provide long-term control of disease in few patients, however. We compared two combinations, cisplatin and cyclophosphamide and cisplatin and paclitaxel, in women with ovarian cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 410 women with advanced ovarian cancer and residual masses larger than 1 cm after initial surgery to receive cisplatin (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area) with either cyclophosphamide (750 mg per square meter) or paclitaxel (135 mg per square meter over 24 hours). RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-six women met all the eligibility criteria. Known prognostic factors were similar in the two treatment groups. Alopecia, neutropenia, fever, and allergic reactions were reported more frequently in the cisplatin-paclitaxel group. Among 216 women with measurable disease, 73 percent in the cisplatin-paclitaxel group responded to therapy, as compared with 60 percent in the cisplatin-cyclophosphamide group (P = 0.01). The frequency of surgically verified complete response was similar in the two groups. Progression-free survival was significantly longer (P < 0.001) in the cisplatin-paclitaxel group than in the cisplatin-cyclophosphamide group (median, 18 vs. 13 months). Survival was also significantly longer (P < 0.001) in the cisplatin-paclitaxel group (median, 38 vs. 24 months). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating paclitaxel into first-line therapy improves the duration of progression-free survival and of overall survival in women with incompletely resected stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Extremely preterm infants contribute disproportionately to neonatal morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To review 20-year trends in maternal/neonatal care, complications, and mortality among extremely preterm infants born at Neonatal Research Network centers. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Prospective registry of 34,636 infants, 22 to 28 weeks' gestation, birth weight of 401 to 1500 g, and born at 26 network centers between 1993 and 2012. EXPOSURES: Extremely preterm birth. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Maternal/neonatal care, morbidities, and survival. Major morbidities, reported for infants who survived more than 12 hours, were severe necrotizing enterocolitis, infection, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, severe intracranial hemorrhage, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, and/or severe retinopathy of prematurity. Regression models assessed yearly changes and were adjusted for study center, race/ethnicity, gestational age, birth weight for gestational age, and sex. RESULTS: Use of antenatal corticosteroids increased from 1993 to 2012 (24% [348 of 1431 infants]) to 87% (1674 of 1919 infants]; P < .001), as did cesarean delivery (44% [625 of 1431 births] to 64% [1227 of 1921]; P < .001). Delivery room intubation decreased from 80% (1144 of 1433 infants) in 1993 to 65% (1253 of 1922) in 2012 (P < .001). After increasing in the 1990s, postnatal steroid use declined to 8% (141 of 1757 infants) in 2004 (P < .001), with no significant change thereafter. Although most infants were ventilated, continuous positive airway pressure without ventilation increased from 7% (120 of 1666 infants) in 2002 to 11% (190 of 1756 infants) in 2012 (P < .001). Despite no improvement from 1993 to 2004, rates of late-onset sepsis declined between 2005 and 2012 for infants of each gestational age (median, 26 weeks [37% {109 of 296} to 27% {85 of 320}]; adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.92-0.94]). Rates of other morbidities declined, but bronchopulmonary dysplasia increased between 2009 and 2012 for infants at 26 to 27 weeks' gestation (26 weeks, 50% [130 of 258] to 55% [164 of 297]; P < .001). Survival increased between 2009 and 2012 for infants at 23 weeks' gestation (27% [41 of 152] to 33% [50 of 150]; adjusted RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05-1.14]) and 24 weeks (63% [156 of 248] to 65% [174 of 269]; adjusted RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.03-1.07]), with smaller relative increases for infants at 25 and 27 weeks' gestation, and no change for infants at 22, 26, and 28 weeks' gestation. Survival without major morbidity increased approximately 2% per year for infants at 25 to 28 weeks' gestation, with no change for infants at 22 to 24 weeks' gestation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among extremely preterm infants born at US academic centers over the last 20 years, changes in maternal and infant care practices and modest reductions in several morbidities were observed, although bronchopulmonary dysplasia increased. Survival increased most markedly for infants born at 23 and 24 weeks' gestation and survival without major morbidity increased for infants aged 25 to 28 weeks. These findings may be valuable in counseling families and developing novel interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00063063.

Importance: There are limited efficacious treatments for Alzheimer disease. Objective: To assess efficacy and adverse events of donanemab, an antibody designed to clear brain amyloid plaque. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter (277 medical research centers/hospitals in 8 countries), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 18-month phase 3 trial that enrolled 1736 participants with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease (mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia) with amyloid and low/medium or high tau pathology based on positron emission tomography imaging from June 2020 to November 2021 (last patient visit for primary outcome in April 2023). Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive donanemab (n = 860) or placebo (n = 876) intravenously every 4 weeks for 72 weeks. Participants in the donanemab group were switched to receive placebo in a blinded manner if dose completion criteria were met. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in integrated Alzheimer Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) score from baseline to 76 weeks (range, 0-144; lower scores indicate greater impairment). There were 24 gated outcomes (primary, secondary, and exploratory), including the secondary outcome of change in the sum of boxes of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR-SB) score (range, 0-18; higher scores indicate greater impairment). Statistical testing allocated α of .04 to testing low/medium tau population outcomes, with the remainder (.01) for combined population outcomes. Results: Among 1736 randomized participants (mean age, 73.0 years; 996 [57.4%] women; 1182 [68.1%] with low/medium tau pathology and 552 [31.8%] with high tau pathology), 1320 (76%) completed the trial. Of the 24 gated outcomes, 23 were statistically significant. The least-squares mean (LSM) change in iADRS score at 76 weeks was -6.02 (95% CI, -7.01 to -5.03) in the donanemab group and -9.27 (95% CI, -10.23 to -8.31) in the placebo group (difference, 3.25 [95% CI, 1.88-4.62]; P < .001) in the low/medium tau population and -10.2 (95% CI, -11.22 to -9.16) with donanemab and -13.1 (95% CI, -14.10 to -12.13) with placebo (difference, 2.92 [95% CI, 1.51-4.33]; P < .001) in the combined population. LSM change in CDR-SB score at 76 weeks was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.00-1.41) with donanemab and 1.88 (95% CI, 1.68-2.08) with placebo (difference, -0.67 [95% CI, -0.95 to -0.40]; P < .001) in the low/medium tau population and 1.72 (95% CI, 1.53-1.91) with donanemab and 2.42 (95% CI, 2.24-2.60) with placebo (difference, -0.7 [95% CI, -0.95 to -0.45]; P < .001) in the combined population. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities of edema or effusion occurred in 205 participants (24.0%; 52 symptomatic) in the donanemab group and 18 (2.1%; 0 symptomatic during study) in the placebo group and infusion-related reactions occurred in 74 participants (8.7%) with donanemab and 4 (0.5%) with placebo. Three deaths in the donanemab group and 1 in the placebo group were considered treatment related. Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease and amyloid and tau pathology, donanemab significantly slowed clinical progression at 76 weeks in those with low/medium tau and in the combined low/medium and high tau pathology population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04437511.

Epstein, Jonathan I MD; Allsbrook, William C Jr MD; Amin, Mahul B MD; Egevad, Lars L MD, PhD and the ISUP Grading Committee Author Information