Diagnosis and Management of Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Practice Guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Gastroenterological Association

Naga Chalasani, MD, FACG1, Zobair Younossi, MD, FACG2, Joel E. Lavine, MD, PhD3, Anna Mae Diehl, MD4, Elizabeth M. Brunt, MD5, Kenneth Cusi, MD6, Michael Charlton, MD7 and Arun J. Sanyal, MD8

1Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA; 2Department of Medicine, Center for Liver Disease, InovaFairfax Hospital, New York, New York, USA; 3Falls Church Columbia University, New York, New York, USA; 4Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA; 5Washington University, St Louis, Missouri, USA; 6University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA; 7Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; 8Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.

Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 811– 826; doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.128; published online 29 May 2012
Submitted for Governing Board approval by AASLD, ACG, and AGA on 22 February 2012.
This article is being published jointly in 2012 in Gastroenterology, American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Hepatology.
Received 4 April 2012; accepted 4 April 2012

Correspondence: Naga Chalasani, MD, FACG, Medicine and Cellular and Integrative Physiology, Director, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, RG 4100, 1050 Wishard Boulevard, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, USA. E-mail: nchalasa@iupui.edu

Preamble

These recommendations are based on the following: (i) a formal review and analysis of the recently published world literature on the topic (Medline search up to June 2011); (ii) the American College of Physicians’ Manual for Assessing Health Practices and Designing Practice Guidelines; (1) (iii) guideline policies of the three societies approving this document; and (iv) the experience of the authors and independent reviewers with regards to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (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 GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) 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 (3,4,5,6,7,8).

Table 1. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE).
Strength of recommendation Criteria
Strong (1) Factors infl uencing the strength of the recommendation
included the quality of the evidence,
presumed patient-important outcomes, and cost
Weak (2) Variability in preferences and values, or more uncertainty.
Recommendation is made with less certainty,
higher cost, or resource consumption
Quality of evidence
High (A) Further research is unlikely to change confi dence in
the estimate of the clinical effect
Moderate (B) Further research may change confi dence in the
estimate of the clinical effect
Low (C) Further research is very likely to impact confi dence
on the estimate of clinical effect

Definitions

The definition of NAFLD requires that (i) there is evidence of hepatic steatosis, either by imaging or by histology and (ii) 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 non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) and non-alcoholic 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.

Table 2. Common causes of secondary hepatic steatosis.
Macrovesicularsteatosis
Excessive alcohol consumption
Hepatitis C (genotype 3)
Wilson’s disease
Lipodystrophy
Starvation
Parenteral nutrition
Abetalipoproteinemia
Medications (e.g., amiodarone, methotrexate, tamoxifen, corticosteroids)
Microvesicularsteatosis
Reye’s syndrome
Medications (valproate, antiretroviral medicines)
Acute fatty liver of pregnancy
HELLP syndrome
Inborn errors of metabolism (e.g., LCAT defi ciency, cholesterol ester
storage disease, Wolman disease)
Table 3. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and related definitions.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) Encompasses the entire spectrum of fatty liver disease in individuals without significant alcohol consumption, ranging from fatty liver to steatohepatitis and cirrhosis
Nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) Presence of hepatic steatosis with no evidence of hepatocellular injury in the form of ballooning of the hepatocytes or no evidence of fibrosis. The risk of progression to cirrhosis and liver failure is minimal
Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) Presence of hepatic steatosis and infl ammation with hepatocyte injury (ballooning) with or without fibrosis. This can progress to cirrhosis, liver failure, and rarely liver cancer
NASH cirrhosis Presence of cirrhosis with current or previous histological evidence of steatosis or steatohepatitis
Cryptogenic cirrhosis Presence of cirrhosis with no obvious etiology. Patients with cryptogenic cirrhosis are heavily enriched with metabolic risk factors such as obesity and metabolic syndrome
NAFLD activity score (NAS) An unweighted composite of steatosis, infl ammation, and ballooning scores. It is a useful tool to measure changes in liver histology in patients with NAFLD in clinical trials

Incidence and prevalence in the general population

The incidence of NAFLD has been investigated in a limited number of studies. Two Japanese studies (9,10) 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 (US) 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 magnetic resonance (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.

Prevalence of NAFLD in high-risk groups (Table 4)

Obesity is a common and well-documented risk factor for NAFLD. Both excessive body mass index (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 (4,16,17,18,19,20). 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, 127of 204 diabetic patients displayed fatty infiltration on US, 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 (24,25,26,27,28). The likelihood of disease progression to advanced fibrosis or mortality increases in older patients with NAFLD (29,30,31). 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 with non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic individuals have significantly higher and non-Hispanic blacks have significantly lower prevalence of NAFLD (15,33,34,35). 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).

Table 4 – Risk factors associated with NAFLD.
Conditions with established association Conditions with emerging association a
Obesity
Type2 diabetes mellitus
Dyslipidemia
Metabolic syndrome b
Polycystic ovary syndrome
Hypothyroidism
Obstructive sleep apnea
Hypopituitarism
Hypogonadism
Pancreato-duodenal resection
a Few studies suggested that individuals with type 1 diabetes have increased prevalence of hepatic steatosis based on liver imaging, but there is limited histological evidence.
b The Adult Treatment Panel III clinical definition of the metabolic syndrome requires the presence of three or more of the following features: (1) waist circumference > 102 cm in men or > 88 cm in women; (2) triglyceride level ≥ 150 mg / dl; (3) high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level < 40 mg / dl in men and < 50 mg / dl in women; (4) systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic pressure ≥ 85 mm Hg; and (5) fasting plasma glucose level ≥ 110 mg / dl ( 197 ).

Natural history

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 (31,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45). Their detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this guideline, but their findings can be summarized as follows: (i) patients with NAFLD have increased overall mortality compared with matched control populations; (ii) the most common cause of death in patients with NAFLD, NAFL, and NASH is cardiovascular disease; and (iii) 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 (48,49,50,51,52,53). Several studies investigated the natural history of NASH cirrhosis in comparison to patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis (54,55,56,57). One large prospective US-based study (55) observed a lower rate of decompensation and mortality in patients with NASH cirrhosis as compared with patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis. However, a more recent international study (56) 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).

Alcohol consumption and definition of NAFLD

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 meeting (58) 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 before 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 g of alcohol per one drink unit) per day to >40 g 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)

Evaluation of incidentally discovered hepatic steatosis

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.

Recommendation

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)

Screening in primary care, diabetes, and obesity clinics

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 US is potentially more sensitive but it is expensive and cumbersome as a screening test.

Recommendation

  1. 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)

Screening of family members

Anecdotal experience and some published studies suggest familial clustering and heritability of NAFLD (60,61,62,63), but conclusive studies are lacking. In a retrospective cohort study, Willner et al. (61) observed that 18% of patients with NASH have a similarly affected first-degree relative. A small familial aggregation study observed that patients with NAFLD have a significantly higher number of first-degree relatives with cirrhosis and a trend toward familial clustering of NAFLD or cryptogenic cirrhosis than matched healthy controls (62). In another familial aggregation study (63) 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 alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and lack of obesity.

Recommendation

  1. Systematic screening of family members for NAFLD is currently not recommended. (Strength – 1, Evidence – B)

Initial evaluation

The diagnosis of NAFLD requires that (i) there is hepatic steatosis by imaging or histology, (ii) there is no significant alcohol consumption, (iii) there are no competing etiologies for hepatic steatosis, and (iv) there are no coexisting 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 coexisting 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 epiphenomenona (3). In a recently published large study from the NASH Clinical Research Network, positive serum autoantibodies, defined as antinuclear antibody >1:160 or antismooth muscle antibody >1:40 were present in 21% of patients with well-phenotyped NAFLD and were not associated with more advanced histologic features (66).

Recommendation

  1. When evaluating a patient with suspected NAFLD, it is essential to exclude competing etiologies for steatosis and coexisting common chronic liver disease. (Strength – 1, Evidence – A)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)

Non-invasive assessment of steatohepatitis and advanced fibrosis in NAFLD

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 US, computerized tomography, 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 NAFLD (3,7,67,68,69) 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 NAFLD (7); these include the NAFLD Fibrosis Score (70), ELF (enhanced liver fibrosis) panel (70) and transient elastography. The NAFLD Fibrosis Score is based on six readily available variables (age, BMI, hyperglycemia, platelet count, albumin, AST (aspartate aminotransferase)/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 (area under the receiver operating curve) 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. (70) 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. Plasma CK18 fragments were markedly increased in patients with NASH compared with patients with simple steatosis or normal biopsies (median 765.7 U/l vs. 202.4 U/l or 215.5 U/l, respectively; P<0.001), and independently predicted NASH (odds ratio (OR): 1.95; 95% confidence interval (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 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 cutoff value, there is not an established cutoff 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.

Recommendation

  1. As the metabolic syndrome predicts the presence of steatohepatitis in patients with NAFLD, its presence can be used to target patients for a liver biopsy. (Strength – 1, Evidence – B)
  2. NAFLD Fibrosis Score is a clinically useful tool for identifying NAFLD patients with higher likelihood of having bridging fibrosis and/ or cirrhosis. (Strength – 1, Evidence – B)
  3. Although serum/ plasma CK18 is a promising biomarker for identifying steatohepatitis, it is premature to recommend in routine clinical practice. (Strength – 1, Evidence – B)

When to obtain a liver biopsy in patients with NAFLD?

Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for characterizing liver histology in patients with NAFLD. However, it is expensive and carries some morbidity and very rare mortality risk. Thus, it should be performed in those who would benefit the most from diagnostic, therapeutic guidance, and prognostic perspectives.

Recommendation

  1. Liver biopsy should be considered in patients with NAFLD who are at increased risk to have steatohepatitis and advanced fibrosis. (Strength – 1, Evidence – B)
  2. 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)
  3. Liver biopsy should be considered in patients with suspected NAFLD in whom competing etiologies for hepatic steatosis and coexisting chronic liver diseases cannot be excluded without a liver biopsy. (Strength – 1, Evidence – B)

MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH NAFLD

The management of patients with NAFLD consists of treating liver disease as well as the associated metabolic comorbidities such as obesity, hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance, and T2DM. As patients with NAFLD without steatohepatitis have excellent prognosis from a liver standpoint, treatments aimed at improving liver disease should be limited to those with NASH.

Lifestyle intervention

Many studies indicate that lifestyle modification may reduce aminotransferases and improve hepatic steatosis when measured by either US (73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80) or MR imaging and spectroscopy (81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94). In a meta-analysis of 15 early case series and clinical studies spanning between 1967 through 2000, most studies reported reductions in aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis by US across a broad spectrum of diets of different caloric restriction intensities and macronutrient composition (low vs. high carbohydrate, low vs. high fat, saturated vs. unsaturated fat diets) (95). However, these early studies were inconclusive as a result of being small, largely uncontrolled and few using histology as the primary end point. More recent uncontrolled studies also showed an improvement in aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis on histology with lifestyle modification (96,97,98).

Orlistat (an enteric lipase inhibitor) in conjunction with lifestyle modification was investigated in two randomized controlled trials. In the study by Zelber-Sagi et al. (99), orlistat reportedly improved ALT and steatosis by US, but its effect on liver histology could not be evaluated because the majority of patients did not undergo a follow-up liver biopsy. However, in the study by Harrison et al. (100), orlistat did not improve body weight or liver histology.

The best evidence for weight loss as a means to improve liver histology in NASH comes from a trial that randomized 31 obese persons with NASH to intensive lifestyle changes (diet, behavior modification, and 200 min a week of moderate physical activity for 48 weeks) vs. structured basic education alone (101). The intensive arm had 9.3% weight loss (vs. 0.2% in the dietary counseling alone arm) and led to an improvement in steatosis, necrosis, and inflammation, but not fibrosis. Importantly, participants with ≥ 7% weight loss had significant improvement in steatosis, lobular inflammation, ballooning, and NAFLD Activity Score (NAS) (101). There was a similar pattern in the study by Harrison et al. (100), where participants who lost >5% body weight improved steatosis, whereas individuals with ≥ 9% weight loss had significant improvement in steatosis, lobular inflammation, ballooning, and NAS.

A number of recent studies used MR spectroscopy to assess changes in hepatic fat in response to lifestyle modification. The results from these studies using a variety of interventions, either by diet alone (81,83,84,89,92,93) or in combination with different exercise prescriptions (82,85,86,87,88,92,94), have consistently reported a significant reduction in liver fat by an average of ~40% (ranging from 20 to 81%). The degree of hepatic fat reduction was proportional to the intensity of the lifestyle intervention and generally required a body weight loss between ~5 and 10% (82,88,92).

The effect of exercise without dietary modification on hepatic steatosis was investigated in four studies using MR spectroscopy (102,103,104,105). Exercise programs consisted of 2–3 sessions a week of 30–60 min over a period of 6–12 weeks. In all but one study (101), liver fat content diminished without a significant change in body weight.

Recommendation

  1. Weight loss generally reduces hepatic steatosis, achieved either by hypocaloric diet alone or in conjunction with increased physical activity. (Strength – 1, Evidence – A)
  2. Loss of at least 3 – 5 % of body weight appears necessary to improve steatosis, but a greater weight loss (up to 10 % ) may be needed to improve necroinflammation. (Strength – 1, Evidence – B)
  3. Exercise alone in adults with NAFLD may reduce hepatic steatosis but its ability to improve other aspects of liver histology remains unknown. (Strength – 1, Evidence – B)

INSULIN SENSITIZING AGENTS

Metformin

Several studies investigated the effect of metformin on aminotransferases and liver histology in patients with NASH. Early small, open-label studies demonstrated a reduction in insulin resistance and aminotransferases (106,107,108) but no significant improvement in liver histology (107,108). An open-label trial consisting of110 patients with NASH received either metformin 2 g/day (55 patients), vitamin E 800 IU/day (28 patients), or dietary-induced weight loss (27 patients) for 12 months (109). Aminotransferases improved more with metformin than with vitamin E or diet alone. However, there was only a modest improvement in hepatic steatosis and inflammation in the subset of 17 patients undergoing paired liver biopsies with metformin treatment. In a 48-week open-label study in 26 patients, metformin improved NASH activity in only 30% of patients, although interpretation of the study was confounded by a significant weight loss in the responders (19% lost >10 kg) (110). Haukeland et al. (112) reported a similar lack of efficacy in a larger (n=48) randomized control trial (RCT) of metformin vs. placebo with a similar dietary and exercise intervention in both groups. Other studies also failed to show major benefit for metformin on hepatic insulin sensitivity, aminotransferases (111,112,113,114,115,116) or liver histology (112,113,116). A recent meta-analysis (4) concluded that 6–12 months of metformin plus lifestyle intervention did not improve aminotransferases or liver histology, compared with lifestyle intervention alone, independently of metformin dose or the presence of diabetes.

Recommendation

  1. Metformin has no significant effect on liver histology and is not recommended as a specific treatment for liver disease in adults with NASH. (Strength – 1, Evidence – A)

Thiazolidinediones

Several studies investigated the effect of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone on aminotransferases and liver histology in adults with NASH. In an early uncontrolled open-label study (117) in 22 subjects with biopsy-proven NASH, rosiglitazone improved aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis, ballooning and inflammation scores, but not fibrosis. But in a subsequent RCT, Ratziu et al. (118) observed that rosiglitazone improved aminotransferases and hepatic steatosis, but not necroinflammation or fibrosis and its 2-year open-label extension phase also showed similar results (119). Belfort et al. (120) conducted a RCT of pioglitazone (45 mg/day) in patients with NASH who had impaired glucose tolerance or T2DM. Although there was a significant weight gain (2.5±0.5 kg) with pioglitazone, it significantly improved aminotransferases, steatosis, ballooning, and inflammation. The NAS improved with pioglitazone in 73% compared with 24% of placebo-treated patients (P<0.001) and there was a trend toward improvement in fibrosis among patients randomized to pioglitazone (P=0.08). Aithal et al. (121) performed a RCT of lifestyle intervention with either pioglitazone 30 mg/day or placebo for 12 months in a total of 74 patients with NASH. While steatosis did not improve significantly compared with placebo, hepatocellular injury and fibrosis improved significantly (121). The PIVENS (pioglitazone vs. vitamin E vs. placebo for the treatment of non-diabetic patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis) (122) study is a large multicenter RCT that randomized 247 non-diabetic patients with NASH to pioglitazone (30 mg/day), vitamin E (800 IU/day), or placebo for 24 months. The primary end point was an improvement in NAS≥2 points with at least one-point improvement in hepatocellular ballooning and one-point improvement in either the lobular inflammation or steatosis score, and no increase in the fibrosis score (122). It was achieved in 19% in the placebo group compared with 34% in the pioglitazone group (P=0.04 vs. placebo) and 43% in the vitamin E group (P=0.001 vs. placebo) (122). Because this study consisted of two primary comparisons (pioglitazone vs. placebo and vitamin E vs. placebo), a P value of 0.025 was considered to be significant a priori. Therefore, although there were histological benefits associated with pioglitazone, this study concluded that pioglitazone did not meet the primary end point. However, resolution of NASH, a key secondary end point, was achieved in significantly higher number of patients receiving pioglitazone than receiving placebo (47 vs. 21%, P=0.001) (122). Of note, pioglitazone was associated with a 4.7-kg weight gain compared with placebo (P<0.001). Vitamin E and pioglitazone were well tolerated and there were no differences in other adverse events.

A recent meta-analysis (4) that included five RCTs showed that pioglitazone significantly improved steatosis (OR: 4.05, 95% CI: 2.58–6.35) and inflammation (OR: 3.53, 95% CI: 2.21–5.64), but not fibrosis (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 0.87–2.24).

There has been considerable debate about the long-term safety of thiazolidinediones regarding cardiovascular disease, congestive heart failure, bladder cancer, and bone loss. In a recent meta-analysis (123) of 19 trials enrolling a total of 16,390 patients with T2DM, pioglitazone treatment was associated with a significant reduction (~18%) in the primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (P=0.005). However, there was also a higher rate of congestive heart failure with pioglitazone (2.3 vs. 1.8% in the control group, P=0.002), so caution must be exercised when considering its use in patients with impaired myocardial function. Due to increased risk of coronary events, rosiglitazone is no longer marketed in Europe and its use is highly restricted in the United States.

Recommendation

  1. Pioglitazone can be used to treat steatohepatitis in patients with biopsy-proven NASH. However, it should be noted that the majority of the patients who participated in clinical trials that investigated pioglitazone for NASH were non-diabetic and that long-term safety and efficacy of pioglitazone in patients with NASH is not established. (Strength – 1, Evidence – B)

Vitamin E

Oxidative stress is considered to be a key mechanism of hepatocellular injury and disease progression in subjects with NASH. Vitamin E is an antioxidant and has been investigated to treat NASH (124,125,126,127,128). Comparison between these trials is difficult due to varying criteria for entry into the study, different doses of vitamin E, and unclear formulations of vitamin E used, which could affect its bioavailability, the additional use of other antioxidants or other drugs, and limited histologic data to assess outcomes. Also, most studies were relatively underpowered and did not meet or publish CONSORT criteria for clinical trials. Despite these limitations, it can be summarized that (i) the use of vitamin E is associated with a decrease in aminotransferases in subjects with NASH; (ii) studies where histologic end points were evaluated indicate that vitamin E causes improvement in steatosis, inflammation, and ballooning and resolution of steatohepatitis in adults with NASH; and (iii) vitamin E has no effect on hepatic fibrosis. Although two meta-analyses (8,129) failed to observe significant histological benefits with vitamin E in patients with NASH, these analyses were conducted before PIVENS (122) and TONIC (treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in children) (130) trials were published. In the largest clinical trial (PIVENS) (122) reported to date, the pure form of rrrα-tocopherol was orally administered at a dose of 800 IU/day for 96 weeks. The primary end point as stated previously was achieved in a significantly greater number of participants receiving vitamin E compared with placebo (42 vs. 19%, P<0.001, number needed to treat=4.4).

One concern with vitamin E is the controversial issue of whether it increases all-cause mortality. Some meta-analyses have reported an increase in all-cause mortality with high-dose vitamin E (131,132), but others failed to confirm such an association (133,134,135). A recently published RCT showed that vitamin E administered at a dose of 400 IU/day increased the risk of prostate cancer in relatively healthy men (absolute increase of 1.6 per 1,000 person-years of vitamin E use) (136).

Recommendation

  1. Vitamin E (α -tocopherol) administered at daily dose of 800 I U / day improves liver histology in non-diabetic adults with biopsy-proven NASH and therefore it should be considered as a first-line pharmacotherapy for this patient population. (Strength -1, Quality – B)
  2. Until further data supporting its effectiveness become available, vitamin E is not recommended to treat NASH in diabetic patients, NAFLD without liver biopsy, NASH cirrhosis, or cryptogenic cirrhosis. (Strength -1, Quality – C)

Ursodeoxycholic acid, Omega-3 fatty acids, and miscellaneous agents

Several studies (126,137,138,139,140) investigated UDCA (ursodeoxycholic acid) (conventional and high doses) to improve aminotransferases and steatosis in patients with NAFLD and liver histology in patients with NASH. All but one study (139) have been proof-of-concept studies with small number of participants and/or surrogate end points. Notably, a single large multicenter RCT convincingly showed that UDCA offers no histological benefit over placebo in patients with NASH (139). Omega-3 fatty acids, currently approved in the United States to treat hypertriglyceridemia, have been investigated to treat NAFLD both in animal models and in humans (141). A recent review by Masterton et al. (142), of published literature related to omega-3 fatty acids in NAFLD, found experimental evidence to support their use but the interpretation of human studies was limited by small sample size and methodological flaws. A large multicenter study of one omega-3 fatty acid (eicosapentanoic acid) to treat NASH is ongoing in the United States. More than a dozen other miscellaneous agents have been investigated in small, proof-of-concept studies and their detailed evaluation is beyond the scope of this guideline.

Recommendation

  1. UDCA is not recommended for the treatment of NAFLD or NASH. (Strength – 1, Quality – B)
  2. It is premature to recommend omega-3 fatty acids for the specific treatment of NAFLD or NASH but they may be considered as the first-line agents to treat hypertriglyceridemia in patients with NAFLD. (Strength – 1, Quality – B)

Bariatric surgery

As the majority of patients undergoing bariatric surgery have associated fatty liver disease, there has been an interest in foregut bariatric surgery as a potential treatment option for NASH. There are no RCTs that evaluated any type of foregut bariatric surgical procedure to specifically treat NAFLD or NASH. However, there are several retrospective and prospective cohort studies that compared liver histology in the severely obese individuals before and after bariatric surgery. Unfortunately, in the majority of these studies, post-bypass liver biopsies were performed at varying intervals and only in selected patients undergoing surgical procedures such as hernia repair or adhesiolysis. One exception is the study by Mathurin et al. (143) that prospectively correlated clinical and metabolic data with liver histology before and 1 and 5 years after bariatric surgery in 381 adult patients with severe obesity. Gastric band, bilio-intestinal bypass, and gastric bypass were done in 56%, 23%, and 21%, respectively. Compared with baseline, there was a significant improvement in the prevalence and severity of steatosis and ballooning at 1 and 5 years following bariatric surgery. In patients with probable or definite NASH at baseline (n=99), there was a significant improvement in steatosis, ballooning, and NAS and resolution of probable or definite NASH at 1 and 5 years following bariatric surgery. Most histological benefits were evident at 1 year, with no differences in liver histology between 1 and 5 years following bariatric surgery. Intriguingly, a minor but statistically significant increase in mean fibrosis score was noted at 5 years after the bariatric surgery (from 0.27±0.55 at baseline to 0.36±0.59, P=0.001). Despite this increase, at 5 years 96% of patients exhibited fibrosis score ≤F1 and 0.5% had F3, indicating that there is no clinically significant worsening in fibrosis that can be attributed directly to the procedure. In the important subgroup of patients with probable or definite NASH at baseline, there was no worsening of fibrosis at 1 and 5 years, compared with baseline liver biopsy. As no patient in the study had F3 or F4 at baseline, the effect of bariatric surgery in those with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis could not be evaluated.

Two meta-analyses (144,145) evaluated the effect of bariatric surgery on the liver histology in patients with NAFLD. The meta-analysis by Mummadi et al. (144) showed that steatosis, steatohepatitis, and fibrosis appear to improve or completely resolve after bariatric surgery. However, a recently published Cochrane review (145) concluded that lack of randomized clinical trials or quasi-randomized clinical studies prevents definitive assessment of benefits and harms of bariatric surgery as a therapeutic approach for patients with NASH.

Recommendation

  1. Foregut bariatric surgery is not contraindicated in otherwise eligible obese individuals with NAFLD or NASH (but without established cirrhosis). (Strength – 1, Quality – A)
  2. The type, safety, and efficacy of foregut bariatric surgery in otherwise eligible obese individuals with established cirrhosis due to NAFLD are not established. (Strength – 1, Quality – B)
  3. It is premature to consider foregut bariatric surgery as an established option to specifically treat NASH. (1B)

Alcohol use in patients with NAFLD and NASH

Heavy alcohol consumption is a risk factor for chronic liver disease and should be avoided by patients with NAFLD and NASH. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism defines heavy or at-risk drinking as more than four drinks on any day or >14 drinks per week in men or more than three drinks on any day or seven drinks per week in women (146). Several recent cross-sectional studies (147,148,149,150,151,152,153) suggest a beneficial effect of light alcohol consumption (on average less than one drink per day) on the presence (defined either biochemically or by imaging) and severity of NAFLD. There are no studies reporting the effect of ongoing alcohol consumption on disease severity or natural history of NAFLD or NASH. The effects of light drinking on the cardiovascular system and cancer risks, if any, have not been investigated in individuals with NAFLD.

Recommendation

  1. Patients with NAFLD should not consume heavy amounts of alcohol. (Strength – 1, Quality – B)
  2. No recommendation can be made with regards to nonheavy consumption of alcohol by individuals with NAFLD. (Strength – 1, Quality – B)

Statin use in patients with NAFLD and NASH

Patients with NAFLD and NASH are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease and several studies have established cardiovascular disease as their most common cause of death (6). Patients with NAFLD should be risk stratified for cardiovascular disease, and their cardiovascular risk factors should be managed accordingly (154). The treatment of dyslipidemia should be considered in the overall framework of cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with NAFLD (154).

Statins are an important class of agents to treat dyslipidemia, and yet there is continued reluctance to use statins in patients with suspected or established chronic liver disease, including NAFLD and NASH. Although elevated aminotransferases are not uncommon in patients receiving statins, serious liver injury from statins is rarely seen in clinical practice. Over the last decade, one RCT and several retrospective and prospective studies (155,156,157,158,159) have established that (i) statins are safe in patients with liver disease and (ii) there is no evidence that patients with chronic liver disease including at NAFLD and NASH are at higher risk for serious liver injury from statins than those without liver disease.

Several studies have suggested that statins may improve liver biochemistries and histology in patients with NASH (159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167). These studies consisted of small number of patients and have not been rigorously designed. A recent post hoc analysis of the cardiovascular outcomes study, GREACE (165), observed that statins significantly improve liver biochemistries and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with elevated liver enzymes likely due to NAFLD. There are no RCTs with histological end points, which investigated statins to treat NASH.

Recommendation

  1. Given the lack of evidence to show that patients with NAFLD and NASH are at increased risk for serious drug-induced liver injury from statins, statins can be used to treat dyslipidemia in patients with NAFLD and NASH. (Strength – 1, Quality – B)
  2. Until RCTs with histological end points prove their efficacy, statins should not be used to specifically treat NASH. (Strength – 1, Quality – B)

NAFLD in patients with other chronic liver diseases

Because of the high prevalence of risk factors for NAFLD and NASH, it is not uncommon for patients with other chronic liver diseases to exhibit coexisting histological features of NAFLD (168). Coexistent hepatic steatosis is common in chronic hepatitis C (HCV) infection and is strongly associated with more advanced liver disease (169,170,171). Another large study showed high prevalence of steatosis (40.5%) and steatohepatitis (15%) in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis (172), although at least some of the steatosis and steatohepatitis in that study was suspected to be due to alcohol consumption. In clinical practice, it is not uncommon for obese and/or diabetic patients with autoimmune liver disease to exhibit steatosis and steatohepatitis in their liver biopsies.

Previous studies have shown that obesity, insulin resistance, and hepatic steatosis are associated with a lower response to pegylated interferon and ribavirin for the treatment of HCV (173,174,175). Obesity does not have a similar negative impact on the response to newer protease-inhibitor-based antiviral regimens (176,177,178,179,180), but the impact of insulin resistance and hepatic steatosis has not yet been investigated sufficiently. It is not known if the treatment of steatosis and steatohepatitis alters the natural history of other chronic liver diseases such as HCV and primary biliary cirrhosis. Furthermore, it is not known if agents such as vitamin E and pioglitazone are effective to treat steatosis and steatohepatitis when present in patients with other chronic liver diseases.

Recommendation

  1. When steatosis and steatohepatitis are evident in patients with other types of chronic liver disease, it is important to assess for metabolic risk factors and alternate etiologies for hepatic steatosis. (Strength – 1, Quality – B)
  2. In patients with other types of chronic liver diseases who have coexisting NAFLD and NASH, there are no data to support the use of vitamin E or pioglitazone to improve the liver disease. (Strength – 1, Quality – B)
  3. Miscellaneous recommendations pertinent to clinical practice

  4. Patients with NASH cirrhosis should be screened for gastroesophageal varices according to the AASLD / ACG practice guidelines ( 181). (Strength – 1, Quality – B)
  5. Patients with NASH cirrhosis should be considered for HCC screening according to the AASLD / ACG practice guidelines ( 182 ). ( Strength – 1, Quality – B)
  6. Current evidence does not support routinely repeating a liver biopsy in patients with NAFL or NASH. (Strength – 2, Quality – C)

ASPECTS OF NAFLD SPECIFIC TO CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS

Recognition of NAFLD in children is essential to understanding the origin of disease in those likely to be most genetically or environmentally susceptible. Adults with onset of NAFLD in childhood may be most at risk for early or severe complications. Definition of NAFLD in childhood is the same as in adults. Children are reported with NAFLD as early as 2 years and with NASH-related cirrhosis as early as age 8 (183,184).

Prevalence and risk factors

Estimation of population prevalence in children presents difficulties for the same reasons detailed above in adults. Estimates vary based upon the type of test or imaging, the cut points for detection, and the age, sex, race, and ethnicity of the geographic region sampled. A school-based study of obese children in Minnesota, California, Texas, and Louisiana, using abnormal serum ALT as a surrogate marker (>40 U/l), found that 23% of 17- to 18-year olds had elevated unexplained ALT (183). An autopsy study using the “gold standard” of liver histology examined 742 children between the ages of 2–19 years who died from unnatural causes. The estimated NAFLD prevalence was 9.6% when adjusted for age, gender, race, and ethnicity (184). Multivariate analyses showed that obesity, older age (in adolescence), male gender, and Hispanic ethnicity are independent predictors of fatty liver prevalence.

Natural History of NAFLD in Children

A single retrospective single-center report has been published on the natural history of NAFLD in 66 children (185). Only five had serial biopsies, obtained for unspecified reasons over varying intervals, averaging 41 months between biopsies. Of these five children, four had progression of fibrosis. Four of the five underwent liver transplantation and two died of cirrhosis. Clearly, more robust prospective data are needed on larger number of children to better understand the natural history of NAFLD in children.

Screening for NAFLD in children

NAFLD is underdiagnosed in children due to lack of recognition, screening or appreciation of associated complications by health-care providers. One study showed that less than a third of obese children were screened for NAFLD at clinic visits (186). Children may not be recognized as obese at visits and age-appropriate norms for BMI may go unacknowledged. Abdominal adiposity may mask detection of hepatomegaly by palpation during physician examination. As in adults, children with features of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, hypertension, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia (63) are at higher risk for NAFLD and particular histopathological features of NAFLD correlate with components of metabolic syndrome (187). Thus, identification of children at risk for NAFLD could occur in general health provider settings as well as in specialty clinics for nutrition, gastroenterology, hepatology, endocrinology, and bariatric surgery. Children may also exhibit NAFLD incidentally discovered while undergoing imaging, but there are no studies evaluating how to proceed with children identified in this fashion. Recently, the summary report of an expert committee suggested biannual screening for liver disease with serum ALT and AST starting at age 10 years in obese children and those with BMI of 85th to 94th percentile with other risk factors (188).

Penetrance of NAFLD has been demonstrated in family members of children with NAFLD (63). The likelihood of first-, second-, and third-degree relatives exhibiting abnormally high-fat fractions (by MR imaging estimation) relative to BMI is much more highly correlated in those related to a child with NAFLD than to those who are related to an age, gender, and BMI-matched child without NAFLD.

Diagnosis in children

Given the relatively early onset, caregivers must give additional consideration to the possibility of monogenic disorders that present as fatty liver disease in very young children. Considerations include inborn errors of fatty acid or carnitine metabolism, peroxisomal disorders, lysosomal storage disorders, Wilson’s disease, and cystic fibrosis (189). However, as in adults, positive serum autoantibodies are present in a significant population of children with biopsy-proven NAFLD and on some occasion liver biopsy is required to discriminate between autoimmune hepatitis and NAFLD (63). Obviously, the confounding factor of alcoholism is much less common in children and standard questionnaires for quantifying alcohol intake are usually unnecessary.

Recommendation

  1. Children with fatty liver who are very young or not overweight should be tested for monogenic causes of chronic liver disease such as fatty acid oxidation defects, lysosomal storage diseases, and peroxisomal disorders, in addition to those causes considered for adults. (Strength – 2, Quality – C)
  2. Low serum titers of autoantibodies are often present in children with NAFLD, but higher titers, particularly in association with higher serum aminotransferases and high globulin should prompt a liver biopsy to evaluate for possible autoimmune hepatitis. (Strength – 2, Quality – B)
  3. Due to a paucity of evidence, a formal recommendation cannot be made with regards to screening for NAFLD in overweight and obese children despite a recent expert committee recommendation for biannual screening for liver disease with liver enzyme measurements in this population. (Strength – 1, Quality – B).

When to obtain a liver biopsy for suspected pediatric NAFLD?

The decision to perform a liver biopsy in a child to confirm the diagnosis of NAFLD must be weighed against the risks associated with biopsy and the likelihood that the result will impact management. In children with an uncertain diagnosis, biopsy may rule out potential drug hepatotoxicity or lack of clarity due to the presence of serum autoantibodies. When there is an interest in grading or staging NAFLD, instead of submitting all children with NAFLD to a liver biopsy, it would be optimal to identify those children who are more likely to have NASH. The paucity of natural history data confounds the decision to biopsy since alteration of long-term outcomes with treatment based on severity of histology at baseline is unknown.

As in adults, development of non-invasive biomarkers or imaging to identify those at risk for more rapid progression or severe disease onset is desirable. Particularly, accurate markers of cellular injury and fibrosis are needed. Two studies suggested that ELF score can be used to accurately predict fibrosis in children with NAFLD, but both studies consisted of relatively small number of children and fewer with advanced fibrosis (190,191). There is reported benefit in predicting fibrosis stage in pediatric patients, with an AUROC of 0.92, although only 9 of the 76 subjects studied had fibrosis stage 3 or more (190). Validation of the serum CK18 levels to evaluate NASH needs to be undertaken in children with NAFLD.

Recommendation

  1. Liver biopsy in children with suspected NAFLD should be performed in those where the diagnosis is unclear, where there is possibility of multiple diagnoses, or before starting therapy with potentially hepatotoxic medications.(Strength – 1, Quality – B)
  2. A liver biopsy to establish a diagnosis of NASH should be obtained before starting children on pharmacologic therapy for NASH. ( Strength – 2, Quality – C)

NAFLD histology in children

Histopathology of children with NAFLD can differ from that found in adults (192). As in adults, children can present with pronounced features of hepatocellular injury, lobular inflammation, and peri-sinusoidal fibrosis, but there is a unique pattern of unclear significance also recognized in children. This pattern is typified by marked macrovesicular hepatocellular steatosis, portal inflammation, and portal fibrosis in the absence of ballooning (192,193,194).

Recommendation

  1. Pathologists interpreting pediatric NAFLD biopsies should recognize the unique pattern frequently found in children to not misidentify pediatric NAFLD. (Strength – 1, Quality – B)

Treatment in children

Recommendations for pediatric treatment options are limited by a small number of randomized clinical trials and insufficient information on natural history to assess risk benefit. The overall goal is to improve a child’s quality of life and reduce longer-term cardiovascular and liver morbidity and mortality. Given that early onset likely indicates higher likelihood of later complications, attempts should be made to identify children who will benefit from intervention.

Lifestyle modification

Since most pediatric NAFLD patients are obese, addressing their obesity is the first step. An open-label study (195) in 84 Italian children with biopsy-proven NAFLD showed that >20% body weight reduction over 12 months resulted in improvement in serum ALT and steatosis by ultrasonography in most children with NAFLD. Reportedly, 94% of the 70 enrolled subjects were able to achieve this weight loss goal using caloric restriction and exercise advice. Since liver biopsies were not performed at the end of the study, the effect of lifestyle intervention on liver histology could not be determined. In another study, Nobili et al. (196) randomized 53 children with biopsy-proven NAFLD to lifestyle modification plus antioxidant therapy or lifestyle modification and placebo. Antioxidant therapy did not improve liver histology, but children in both groups showed significant improvement in steatosis, inflammation, ballooning, and the NAS. Although there are no randomized controlled trials of intensive lifestyle modification compared with standard-of-care advice, these two studies indicate that lifestyle modification is beneficial in children with NAFLD.

No information exists on recommending any particular type of diet or exercise. Further studies are needed to assess the efficacy of specific diets. Recommendations for overweight pediatric NAFLD patients should include consultation with a registered dietitian to assess quality of diet and measurement of caloric intake, adoption of American Heart Association dietary strategies, and regular aerobic exercise progressing in difficulty as fitness allows (197). Enlisting other willing family members to adopt diet and exercise goals may aid compliance.

Pharmacotherapy

As in adults, clinical trials for pediatric NAFLD generally targeted insulin resistance or oxidative stress. Open-label proof-of-concept studies have utilized changes in serum ALT or liver brightness on US as end points (189). Agents evaluated thus far include metformin, vitamin E, UDCA, and delayed-release cysteamine (189). Recently, a large multicenter RCT using change in histology as a secondary end point was published (130). This study, called TONIC, compared the efficacy of vitamin E or metformin to placebo in 8- to 17-year olds with NAFLD (130). Although the primary outcome of sustained reduction of ALT was not different among the three groups, there were statistically significant improvements in NAS and resolution of NASH (P<0.006) with vitamin E treatment compared with placebo over 96 weeks (130). In this study, metformin administered at 500 mg twice daily dose had no effect on liver biochemistries or liver histology.

Recommendation

  1. Intensive lifestyle modification improves aminotransferases and liver histology in children with NAFLD and thus should be the first line of treatment. (Strength – 2, Quality – B)
  2. Metformin at 500 mg twice daily offers no benefit to children with NAFLD and thus should not be prescribed. The effect of metformin administered at a higher dose is not known. (Strength – 1, Quality – B)
  3. Vitamin E 800 I U / day (RRR α — tocopherol) offers histological benefits to children with biopsy-proven NASH or borderline NASH but confirmatory studies are needed before its use can be recommended in clinical practice. (Strength – 1,Quality – B)

Acknowledgements

Th is practice guideline was developed in collaboration with the AASLD Practice Guidelines Committee, and was approved by the ACG Practice Parameters Committee, and the AGA Institute Clinical Practice and Quality Management Committee. Raphael B. Merriman, MD, MRCPI, and Benjamin L. Shneider, MD, served as primary reviewers for the AASLD Practice Guidelines Committee. Dr Shneider serves as a scientific consultant with Bristol-Myers Squibb and the advisory board for Ikaria. External review was provided by Jean P. Molleston, MD, and Stephen A. Harrison, MD. Dr Molleston received research support from Schering-Plough and Roche. Dr Harrison serves as a consultant to Amylin Pharmaceuticals and has received research support from Rottapharm and Mochida.

Conflict of Interest

Potential competing interests: Naga Chalasani has received compensation for providing consulting related to NAFLD and NASH from Amylin, Gilead, Genentech, and Mochida and he has received research support from Amylin, Eli Lilly, Intercept, and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals in the last 3 years. Over the last 3 years, he has received compensation for providing consultation related to drug hepatotoxicity from J & J, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Karo Bio, Salix, Advanced Life Sciences, BMS, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Abbott, Biolex, Sanofi-Aventis, and Vertex. Zobair Younossi has received consulting fees from Salix, Tibotec, and Vertex. Anna Mae Diehl has received compensation for providing consulting related to NAFLD from Vertex, Norgine, and Celgene. Elizabeth M. Brunt has received compensation from Amylin, Pfizer, and Geneva Foundation for NASH consulting. Kenneth Cusi has received compensation from Merck, Daichi-Sankyo, and Roche for providing consulting. Michael Charlton has received compensation from Gilead and Genentech for providing consulting related to NAFLD and NASH. Joel E. Lavine has received compensation for providing consultations related to NAFLD from Quark Pharmaceuticals and SynagevaBioPharma, and received research support from Raptor Pharmaceuticals, all in the last 3 years. Arun J. Sanyal has served as an ad hoc advisor to Roche, Takeda, Merck, Astella, Sanofi, Exhalenz, and Immuron. He serves as the global PI for trials for Exhalenz and Immuron.

References

  1. Eddy DM. A Manual for Assessing Health Practices and Designing Practice Guidelines. American College of Physicians: Philadelphia, 1996, 1–126.
  2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924–926.
  3. Vuppalanchi R, Chalasani N. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: selected practical issues in their management. Hepatology 2009;49:306–317.
  4. Vernon G, Baranova A, Younossi ZM. Systematic review: the epidemio-logy and natural history of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in adults. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;34:274–285.
  5. Neuschwander-Tetri BA. Hepatic lipotoxicity and the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: the central role of nontriglyceride fatty acid metabolites. Hepatology 2010;52:774–788.
  6. Targher G, Day CP, Bonora E. Risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1341–1350.
  7. Gambino R, Cassader M, Pagano G. Meta-analysis: natural history of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for liver disease severity. Ann Med 2011;43:617–649.
  8. Musso G, Gambino R, Cassader M et al. A meta-analysis of randomized trials for the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2010;52:79–104.
  9. Suzuki A, Angulo P, Lymp J et al. Chronological development of elevated aminotransferases in a nonalcoholic population. Hepatology 2005;41:64–71.
  10. Hamaguchi M, Kojima T, Takeda N et al. The metabolic syndrome as a predictor of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:722–728.
  11. Whalley S, Puvanachandra P, Desai A et al. Hepatology outpatient service provision in secondary care: a study of liver disease incidence and resource costs. Clin Med 2007;7:119–124.
  12. Lee JY, Kim KM, Lee SG et al. Prevalence and risk factors of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in potential living liver donors in Korea: a review of 589 consecutive liver biopsies in a single center. J Hepatol 2007;47:239–244.
  13. Marcos A, Fischer RA, Ham JM et al. Selection and out come of living donors for adult to adult right lobe transplantation. Transplantation 2000;69:2410–2415.
  14. Williams CD, Stenger J, Asike MI et al. Prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis among a largely middle-aged population utilizing ultrasound and liver biopsy: a prospective study. Gastroenterology 2011;140:124–131.
  15. Browning JD, Szczepaniak LS, Dobbins R et al. Prevalence of hepatic steatosis in an urban population in the United States: impact of ethnicity. Hepatology 2004;40:1387–1395.
  16. Boza C, Riquelme A, Ibañez L et al. Predictors of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in obese patients undergoing gastric bypass. Obes Surg 2005;15:1148–1153.
  17. Haentjens P, Massaad D, Reynaert H et al. Identifying non-alcoholic fatty liver disease among asymptomatic overweight and obese individuals by clinical and biochemical characteristics. Acta Clin Belg 2009;64:483–493.
  18. Machado M, Marques-Vidal P, Cortez-Pinto H. Hepatic histology in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. J Hepatol 2006;45:600–606.
  19. Colicchio P, Tarantino G, del Genio F et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in young adult severely obese non-diabetic patients in South Italy. Ann Nutr Metab 2005;49:289–295.
  20. Beymer C, Kowdley KV, Larson A et al. and predictors of asymptomatic liver disease in patients undergoing gastric bypass surgery. Arch Surg 2003;138:1240–1244.
  21. Leite NC, Salles GF, Araujo AL et al. Prevalence and associated factors of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus. Liver Int 2009;29:113–119.
  22. Prashanth M, Ganesh HK, Vima MV et al. Prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Assoc Physicians India 2009;57:205–210.
  23. Assy N, Kaita K, Mymin D et al. Fatty infiltration of liver in hyperlipidemic patients. Dig Dis Sci 2000;45:1929–1934.
  24. Li H, Wang YJ, Tan K et al. Prevalence and risk factors of fatty liver disease in Chengdu, Southwest China. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2009;8:377–382.
  25. Amarapurkar D, Kamani P, Patel N et al. Prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: population based study. Ann Hepatol 2007;6:161–3.
  26. Park SH, Jeon WK, Kim SH et al. Prevalence and risk factors of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease among Korean adults. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;21 (1 Part 1): 138–143.
  27. Frith J, Day CP, Henderson E et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in older people. Gerontology 2009;55:607–613.
  28. Chen CH, Huang MH, Yang JC et al. Prevalence and etiology of elevated serum alanine aminotransferase level in an adult population in Taiwan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;22:1482–1489.
  29. Ong JP, Pitts A, Younossi ZM. Increased overall mortality and liver-related mortality in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol 2008;49:608–612.
  30. Hashimoto E, Yatsuji S, Kaneda H et al. The characteristics and natural history of Japanese patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatol Res 2005;33:72–76.
  31. Adams LA, Lymp JF, St Sauver J et al. The natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology 2005;l:129:113–129:121.
  32. Chen ZW, Chen LY, Dai HL et al. Relationship between alanine aminotransferase levels and metabolic syndrome in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2008;9:616–622.
  33. Clark JM, Brancati FL, Diehl AM. The prevalence and etiology of elevated aminotransferase levels in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:960–967.
  34. Kallwitz ER, Kumar M, Aggarwal R et al. Ethnicity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in an obesity clinic: the impact of triglycerides. Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:1358–1363.
  35. Wagenknecht LE, Scherzinger AL, Stamm ER et al. Correlates and heritability of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a minority cohort. Obesity 2009;17:1240–1246.
  36. Fischer GE, Bialek SP, Homan CE et al. Chronic liver disease among Alaska-Native people, 2003-2004. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:363–370.
  37. Bialek SR, Redd JT, Lynch A et al. Chronic liver disease among two American Indian patient populations in the southwestern United States, 2000-2003. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008;42:949–954.
  38. Matteoni CA, Younossi ZM, Gramlich T et al. fatty liver disease: a spectrum of clinical and pathological severity. Gastroenterology 1999;116:1413–1419.
  39. Dam-Larsen S, Franzmann M, Andersen IB et al. Long term prognosis of fatty liver: risk of chronic liver disease and death. Gut 2004;53:750–755.
  40. Ekstedt M, Franzén LE, Mathiesen UL et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with NAFLD and elevated liver enzymes. Hepatology 2006;44:865–873.
  41. Dunn W, Xu R, Wingard D et al. Suspected nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and mortality risk in a population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:2263–2271.
  42. Rafiq N, Bai CH, Fang Y et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver. Clin Gastro Hepatol 2009;7:234–238.
  43. Dam-Larsen S, Becker U, Franzmann MB et al. Final results of a long-term, clinical follow-up in fatty liver patients. Scand J Gastroenterol 2009;44:1236–1243.
  44. Stepanova M, Rafiq N, Younossi ZM. Components of metabolic syndrome as independent predictors of mortality in chronic liver disease: a population-based study. Gut 2010;59:1410–1415.
  45. Söderberg C, Stål P, Askling J et al. Survival of subjects with elevated liver function tests during a 28-year follow-up. Hepatology 2010;51:595–602.
  46. Caldwell SH, Crespo DM. The spectrum expanded: cryptogenic cirrhosis and the natural history of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol 2004;40:578–584.
  47. Browning JD, Kumar KS, Saboorian MH et al. Ethnic differences in the prevalence of cryptogenic cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:292–298.
  48. Bugianesi E, Leone N, Vanni E et al. Expanding the natural history of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: from cryptogenic cirrhosis to hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2002;123:134–140.
  49. Hashimoto E, Yatsuji S, Tobari M et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. J Gastroenterol 2009;44:89–95.
  50. Smedile A, Bugianesi E. Steatosis and hepatocellular carcinoma risk. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2005;9:291–293.
  51. Takuma Y, Nouso K. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis-associated hepatocellular carcinoma: our case series and literature review. World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:1436–1441.
  52. Ascha MS, Hanouneh IA, Lopez R et al. The incidence and risk factor of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology 2010;51:1972–1978.
  53. Yasui K, Hashimoto E, Komorizono Y et al. Characteristics of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis who develop hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:428–433.
  54. Hui JM, Kench JG, Chitturi S et al. Long-term outcomes of cirrhosis in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis compared with hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003;38:420–427.
  55. Sanyal AJ, Banas C, Sargeant C et al. Similarities and differences in outcomes of cirrhosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and hepatitis C. Hepatology 2006;42:132–138.
  56. Y

  57. atsuji S, Hashimoto E, Tobari M et al. Clinical features and outcomes of cirrhosis due to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis compared with cirrhosis caused by chronic hepatitis C. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;24:248–254.
  58. Bhala N, Angulo P, van der Poorten D et al. The natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. An International Collaborative Study. Hepatology 2011;54:1208–1216.
  59. Sanyal AJ, Brunt EM, Kleiner DE et al. End points and clinical trial design for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology 2011;54:344–353.
  60. Liagnpunsakul S, Chalasani N. What do we recommend our patients with NAFLD about alcohol consumption? Am J Gastroenterol 2012 (in press).
  61. Struben VM, Hespenheide EE, Caldwell SH. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and cryptogenic cirrhosis within kindreds. Am J Med 2000;108:9–13.
  62. Willner IR, Walters B, Patil SR et al. Ninety patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: insulin resistance, familial tendency, and severity of disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2957–2961.
  63. Abdelmalek MF, Liu C, Shuster J et al. Familial aggregation of insulin resistance in first-degree relatives of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:1162–1169.
  64. Schwimmer JB, Celedon MA, Lavine JE et al. Heritability of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2009;136:1585–1592.
  65. Kowdley KV. The role of iron in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: the story continues. Gastroenterology 2010;138:817–819.
  66. Bacon BR, Adams PC, Kowdley KV et al. Diagnosis and management of hemochromatosis: 2011 Practice Guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2011;54:328–343.
  67. Vuppalanchi R, Gould RJ, Wilson LA et al. Clinical significance of serum autoantibodies in patients with NAFLD: results from the nonalcoholic steatohepatitis clinical research network. Hepatol Int 2011 (e-pub ahead of print).
  68. Marchesini G, Bugianesi E, Forlani G et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver, steatohepatitis, and the metabolic syndrome. Hepatology 2003;37:917–923.
  69. Kang H, Greenson JK, Omo JT et al. Metabolic syndrome is associated with greater histologic severity, higher carbohydrate, and lower fat diet in patients with NAFLD. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:2247–2253.
  70. Ryan MC, Wilson AM, Slavin J et al. Associations between liver histology and severity of the metabolic syndrome in subjects with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Diabetes Care 2005;28:1222–1224.
  71. Wieckowska A, Zein NN, Yerian LM et al. In vivo assessment of liver cell apoptosis as a novel biomarker of disease severity in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2006;44:27–33.
  72. Angulo P, Hui JM, Marchesini G et al. The NAFLD fibrosis score: a noninvasive system that identifies liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Hepatology 2007;45:846–854.
  73. Wieckowska A, McCullough AJ, Feldstein AE. Noninvasive diagnosis and monitoring of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: present and future. Hepatology 2007;46:582–589.
  74. Andersen T, Gluud C, Franzmann MB et al. Hepatic effects of dietary weight loss in morbidly obese subjects. J Hepatol 1991;12:224–229.
  75. Palmer M, Schaffner F. Effect of weight reduction on hepatic abnormalities in overweight patients. Gastroenterology 1990;99:1408–1413.
  76. Park HS, Kim MW, Shin ES. Effect of weight control on hepatic abnormalities in obese patients with fatty liver. J Korean Med Sci 1995;10:414–421.
  77. Ueno T, Sugawara H, Sujaku K et al. Therapeutic effects of restricted diet and exercise in obese patients with fatty liver. J Hepatol 1997;27:103–107.
  78. Kugelmas M, Hill DB, Vivian B et al. Cytokines and NASH: a pilot study of the effects of lifestyle modification and vitamin E. Hepatology 2003;38:413–419.
  79. Sreenivasa Baba CS, Alexander G, Kalyani B et al. Effect of exercise and dietary modification on serum aminotransferase levels in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;21:191–198.
  80. Hickman IJ, Jonsson JR, Prins JB et al. Modest weight loss and physical activity in overweight patients with chronic liver disease results in sustained improvements in alanine aminotransferase, fasting insulin, and quality of life. Gut 2004;53:413–419.
  81. Suzuki A, Lindor K, Saver J et al. Effect of changes on body weight and lifestyle in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatology 2005;43:1060–1066.
  82. Tiikkainen M, Bergholm R, Vehkavaara S et al. Effects of identical weight loss on body composition and features of insulin resistance in obese women with high and low liver fat content. Diabetes 2003;52:701–707.
  83. Tamura Y, Tanaka Y, Sato F et al. Effects of diet and exercise on muscle and Liver Intracellular lipid contents and insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetic patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005;90:3191–3196.
  84. Westerbacka J, Lammi K, Hakkinen AM et al. Dietary fat content modifies liver fat in overweight nondiabetic subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005;90:2804–2809.
  85. Petersen KF, Dufour S, Befroy D et al. Reversal of nonalcoholic hepatic steatosis, hepatic insulin resistance, and hyperglycemia by moderate weight reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2005;54:603–608.
  86. Larson-Meyer DE, Heilbronn LK, Redman LM et al. Effect of calorie restriction with or without exercise on insulin sensitivity, β-cell function, fat cell size, and ectopic lipid in overweight subjects. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1337–1344.
  87. Thomas EL, Brynes AE, Hamilton G et al. Effect of nutritional counselling on hepatic, muscle and adipose tissue fat content and distribution in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:5813–5819.
  88. Thamer C, Machann J, Stefan N et al. High visceral fat mass and high liver fat are associated with resistance to lifestyle intervention. Obesity 2007;15:531–538.
  89. Schafer S, Kantartzis K, Machann J et al. Lifestyle intervention in individuals with normal versus impaired glucose tolerance. Eur J Clin Invest 2007;37:535–543.
  90. Cowin GJ, Jonsson JR, Bauer JD et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for monitoring liver steatosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:937–945.
  91. Larson-Meyer DE, Newcomer BR, Heilbronn LK et al. Effect of 6-month calorie restriction and exercise on serum and liver lipids and markers of liver function. Obesity 2008;16:1355–1362.
  92. Viljanen AP, Iozzo P, Borra R et al. Effect of weight loss on liver free fatty acid uptake and hepatic insulin resistance. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009;94:50–55.
  93. Kantartzis K, Thamer C, Peter A et al. High cardiorespiratory fitness is an independent predictor of the reduction in liver fat during a lifestyle intervention in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Gut 2009;58:1281–1288.
  94. Kirk E, Reeds DN, Finck BN et al. Dietary fat and carbohydrates differentially alter insulin sensitivity during caloric restriction. Gastroenterology 2009;136:1552–1560.
  95. Lazo M, Solga SF, Horska A, et al., for the Fatty Liver Subgroup of the Look Ahead Research Group. Effect of a 12-month intensive lifestyle intervention on hepatic steatosis in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2156–2163.
  96. Wang R, Koretz R, Yee H. Is weight reduction an effective therapy for nonalcoholic fatty liver? A systematic review. Am J Med 2003;115:554–559.
  97. Hickman IJ, Clouston AD, Macdonald GA et al. Effect of weight reduction on liver histology and biochemistry in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Gut 2002;51:89–94.
  98. Huang MA, Greenson JK, Chao C et al. One-year intense nutritional counseling results in histological improvement in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: a pilot study. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:1072–1081.
  99. Tendler D, Lin S, Yancy WS Jr et al. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a pilot study. Dig Dis Sci 2007;52:589–593.
  100. Zelber-Sagi S, Kessler A, Brazowsky E et al. A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial of orlistat for the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:639–644.
  101. Harrison SA, Brunt EM, Fecht WJ et al. Orlistat for overweight subjects with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH): a randomized prospective trial. Hepatology 2009;49:80–86.
  102. Promrat K, Kleiner DE, Niemeier HM et al. Randomized controlled trial testing the effects of weight loss on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology 2010;51:121–129.
  103. Shojaee-Moradie F, Baynes KC, Pentecost C et al. Exercise training reduces fatty acid availability and improves the insulin sensitivity of glucose metabolism. Diabetologia 2007;50:404–413.
  104. Bonekamp S, Barone BB, Clark J et al. The effects of an exercise training intervention on hepatic steatosis [Abstract]. Hepatology 2008;48 (Suppl): 806A.
  105. Johnson NA, Sachinwalla T, Walton DW et al. Aerobic exercise training reduces hepatic and visceral lipids in obese individuals without weight loss. Hepatology 2009;50:1105–1112.
  106. van der Heijden GJ, Wang ZJ, Chu ZD et al. A 12-week aerobic exercise program reduces hepatic fat accumulation and insulin resistance in obese, Hispanic adolescents. Obesity 2010;18:384–390.
  107. Marchesini G, Brizi M, Bianchi G et al. Metformin in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Lancet 2001;358:893–894.
  108. Uygun A, Kadayifci A, Isik AT et al. Metformin in the treatment of patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;19:537–544.
  109. Nair S, Diehl AM, Wiseman M et al. Metformin in the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: a pilot open label trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;20:23–28.
  110. Bugianesi E, Gentilcore E, Manini R et al. A randomized controlled trial of metformin versus vitamin E or prescriptive diet in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:1082–1090.
  111. Loomba R, Lutchman G, Kleiner DE et al. Clinical trial: pilot study of metformin for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009;29:172–182.
  112. Shields WW, Thompson KE, Grice GA et al. The effect of metformin and standard therapy versus standard therapy alone in nondiabetic patients with insulin resistance and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH): a pilot study. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2009;2:157–163.
  113. Haukeland JW, Konopski Z, Eggesb HB et al. Metformin in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a randomized, controlled trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2009;44:853–860.
  114. Idilman R, Mizrak D, Corapcioglu D et al. Clinical trial: insulin-sensitizing agents may reduce consequences of insulin resistance in individuals with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;28:200–208.
  115. Duseja A, Das A, Dhiman RK et al. Metformin is effective in achieving biochemical response in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) not responding to lifestyle interventions. Ann Hepatol 2007;6:222–226.
  116. Nar A, Gedik O. The effect of metformin on leptin in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Acta Diabetol 2009;46:113–118.
  117. Omer Z, Cetinkalp S, Akyildiz M et al. Efficacy of insulin-sensitizing agents in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;22:18–23.
  118. Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Brunt EM, Wehmeier KR et al. Improved nonalcoholic steatohepatitis after 48 weeks of treatment with the PPAR-gamma ligand rosiglitazone. Hepatology 2003;38:1008–1017.
  119. Ratziu V, Giral P, Jacqueminet S et al. Rosiglitazone for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: one-year results of the randomized placebo-controlled Fatty Liver Improvement with Rosiglitazone Therapy (FLIRT) Trial. Gastroenterology 2008;135:100–110.
  120. Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Bernhardt C, et al., for the LIDO Study Group. Long-term efficacy of rosiglitazone in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: results of the fatty liver improvement by rosiglitazone therapy (FLIRT 2) extension trial. Hepatology 2010;51:445–453.
  121. Belfort R, Harrison SA, Brown K et al. A placebo-controlled trial of pioglitazone in subjects with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2297–2307.
  122. Aithal GP, Thomas JA, Kaye PV et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of pioglitazone in nondiabetic subjects with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology 2008;135:1176–1184.
  123. Sanyal AJ, Chalasani N, Kowdley KV et al. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1675–1685.
  124. Lincoff A, Wolski K, Nicholls S et al. Pioglitazone and risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA 2007;298:1180–1188.
  125. Hasegawa T, Yoneda M, Nakamura K et al. Plasma transforming growth factor-beta1 level and efficacy of alpha-tocopherol in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a pilot study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001;15:1667–1672.
  126. Harrison SA, Torgerson S, Hayashi P et al. Vitamin E and vitamin C treatment improves fibrosis is patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:2485–2490.
  127. Dufour JF, Oneta CM, Gonvers JJ et al. Swiss Association for the Study of the Liver. Randomized placebo-controlled trial of ursodeoxycholic acid with vitamin E in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:1537–1543.
  128. Sanyal AJ, Mofrad PS, Contos MJ et al. A pilot study of vitamin E versus vitamin E and pioglitazone for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;2:1107–1115.
  129. Yakaryilamz F, Guliter S, Savas B et al. Effects of vitamin E treatment on peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-alpha expression and insulin resistance in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, results of a pilot study. Intern Med J 2007;37:229–235.
  130. Bjelakovic G, Gluud LL, Nikolova D et al. Meta-analysis: antioxidant supplements for liver disease – the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010;32:356–367.
  131. Lavine JE, Schwimmer JB, Van Natta ML et al. for the Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network. Effect of vitamin E or metformin for treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in children and adolescents: the TONIC randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2011;305:1659–1668.
  132. Miller ER III, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D et al. Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:37–46.
  133. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL et al. Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements of primary and secondary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2007;297:842–857 Review.
  134. Erratum in: JAMA. 2008 Feb 20;299(7):765–6.
  135. Berry D, Wathen JK, Newell M. Bayesian model averaging in meta-analysis: vitamin E supplementation and mortality. Clin Trials 2009;6:28–41.
  136. Gerss J, Kopcke W. The questionable association of vitamin E supplementation and mortality – inconsistent results of different meta-analytic approaches. Cell Mol Biol 2009;55 (Suppl): OL1111–OL1120.
  137. Dietrich M, Jacques PF, Pencina MJ et al. Vitamin E supplement use and the incidence of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in the Framingham Heart Study: does the underlying health status play a role? Atherosclerosis 2009;205:549–553.
  138. Klein EA, Thompson IM, Tangen CM et al. Vitamin E and the risk of prostate cancer. The selenium and vitamin E cancer prevention trial (SELECT). JAMA 2011;306:1549–1556.
  139. Laurin J, Lindor KD, Crippin JS et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid or clofibrate in the treatment of non-alcoholic induced steatohepatitis: a pilot study. Hepatology 1996;23:1464–1467.
  140. Leushner U, Lindenthal B, Herrman G et al. High-dose Ursodeoxycholic acid therapy for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Hepatology 2010;52:472–479.
  141. Lindor KD, Kowldey KV, Heathcote EJ et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid for treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: results of a randomized trial. Hepatology 2004;39:770–778.
  142. Ratziu V, de Ledinghen V, Oberti F et al. A randomized controlled trial of high-dose ursogeoxycholic acid for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. J Hepatol 2011;54:1011–1019.
  143. Capanni M, Calella F, Biagini MR et al. Prolonged n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation ameliorates hepatic steatosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a pilot study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;23:1143–1151.
  144. Masterton GS, Plevris JN, Hayes PC. Review article: omega-3 fatty acids – a promising novel therapy for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010;31:679–692.
  145. Mathurin P, Hollebecque A, Arnalsteen L et al. Prospective study of the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on liver injury in patients without advanced liver disease. Gastroenterology 2009;137:532–540.
  146. Mummadi RR, Kasturi KS, Chennareddygair S et al. Effect of bariatric surgery on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:1396–1402.
  147. Chavez-Tapia NC, Tellez-Avila FI, Barrientose-Gutierrez T et al. Bariatric surgery for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in obese patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010 Issue 1. Art No: CD007340. DOI:10:1002/14641858.
  148. http://rethinkingdrinking.niaaa.nih.gov/IsYourDrinkingPatternRisky/WhatsAtRiskOrHeavyDrinking.asp (Accessed 18 January 2012).
  149. Dunn W, Xu R, Schwimmer JB. Modest wine drinking and decreased prevalence of suspected nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2008;47:1947–1954.
  150. Gunji T, Matsuhashi N, Sato H et al. Light and moderate alcohol consumption significantly reduces the prevalence of fatty liver in the Japanese male population. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:2189–2195.
  151. Suzuki A, Angulo P, St Sauver J et al. Light to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lower frequency of hypertransaminasemia. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1912–1919.
  152. Moriya A, Iwasaki Y, Ohguchi S et al. Alcohol consumption appears to protect against non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;33:378–388.
  153. Dixon JB, Bhathal PS, O’Brien PE. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: predictors of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis in the severely obese. Gastroenterology 2001;121:91–100.
  154. Cotrim HP, Freitas LA, Alves E et al. Effects of light-to-moderate alcohol consumption on steatosis and steatohepatitis in severely obese patients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;21:969–972.
  155. Dunn W, Brunt EM, Sanyal AJ et al. Modest alcohol consumption is associated with decreased prevalence of steatohepatitis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Hepatology 50;390A:2009.
  156. Chatrath H, Vuppalanchi R, Chalasani N. Dyslipidemia in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Semin Liver Dis 2012;32:22–29.
  157. Chalasani N, Aljadhey H, Kesterson J et al. Patients with elevated liver enzymes are not at higher risk for statin hepatotoxicity. Gastroenterology 2004;128:1287–1292.
  158. Vuppalanchi R, Teal E, Chalasani N. Patients with elevated baseline liver enzymes do not have higher frequency of hepatotoxicity from lovastatin than those with normal baseline liver enzymes. Am J Med Sci 2005;329:62–65.
  159. Chalasani N. Statin hepatotoxicity: focus on statin usage in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2005;41:690–695.
  160. Browning JD. Statins and hepatic steatosis: perspectives from the Dallas Heart Study. Hepatology 2006;44:466–471.
  161. Lewis JH, Mortensen ME, Zweig S, et al., Pravastatin in Chronic Liver Disease Study Investigators. Efficacy and safety of high-dose pravastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients with well-compensated chronic liver disease: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Hepatology 2007;46:1453–1463.
  162. Horlander JC, Kwo PY, Cummings OW et al. Atorvastatin for the treatment of NASH. Gastroenterology 2001;120 (Suppl): 2767.
  163. Gomer-Dominguez E, Gisbert JP, Moreno-Monteagudo A et al. A pilot study of atorvastatin treatment in dyslipid, non-alcoholic fatty liver patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;23:1643–1647.
  164. Antonopoulos S, Mikros S, Mylonopoulos M et al. Rosuvastatin as a novel treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in hyperlipidemic patients. Atherosclerosis 2006;184:233–234.
  165. Foster T, Budoff MJ, Saab S et al. Atorvastatin and antioxidants for the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: the St. Francis Heart Study Randomized Clinical Trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:71–77.
  166. Athyros VG, Mikhalidis DP, Didangelos TP et al. Effect of multifactorial treatment on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in metabolic syndrome: a randomized study. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:872–883.
  167. Athyros VG, Tziomalos K, Gossios TD et al. for the GREACE Study Collaborative Group. Lancet 2010;376:1916–1922.
  168. Ekstedt M, Franzen L, Mathiesen UL et al. Statins in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and chronically elevated liver enzymes: a histopathological follow-up study. J Hepatol 2007;47:135–141.
  169. Nelson A, Torres DM, Morgan AE et al. A pilot study using simvastatin in the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009;43:990–994.
  170. Brunt EM, Ramrakhiani S, Cordes BG et al. Concurrence of histological features of steatohepatitis with other forms of chronic liver disease. Mod Pathol 2003;16:49–56.
  171. Leandro G, Mangia A, Hui J et al. Relationship between steatosis, inflammation, and fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1636–1642.
  172. Petta S, Camma C, Di Marco V et al. Hepatic steatosis and insulin resistance are associated with severe fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis caused by HBV or HCV. Liver Int 2011;31:507–511.
  173. Eslam M, Aparcero R, Kawaguchi T et al. Meta-analysis: insulin resistance and sustained virological response in hepatitis C. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;34:297–305.
  174. Sorrentino P, Terracciano L, D’Angelo S et al. Oxidative stress and steatosis are cofactors of liver injury in primary biliary cirrhosis. J Gastroenterol 2010;45:1053–1062.
  175. Romero-Gomez M, Del Mar Viloria M, Andrade RJ et al. Insulin resistance impairs sustained response rate to peginterferon plus ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients. Gastroenterology 2005;128:636–641.
  176. Reddy KR, Govindarajan S, Marcellin P et al. Hepatic steatosis in chronic hepatitis C: baseline host and viral characteristics and influence on response to therapy with peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin. J Viral Hepat 2008;15:129–136.
  177. Negro F, Clements S. Impact of obesity, steatosis and insulin resistance on progression and response to therapy to hepatitis C. J Viral Hepat 2009;16:681–688.
  178. Jacobson IM, McHutchison JG, Dusheiko G et al. Telaprevir for previously untreated chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2405–2416.
  179. Zeuzam S, Andreone P, Pol S et al. Telaprevir for retreatment of HCV infection. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2417–2428.
  180. Bacon BR, Gordon SC, Lawtiz E et al. Boceprevir for previously treated chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1207–1217.
  181. Poordad F, McCone J, Bacon BR et al. Boceprevir for untreated chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2011;l:364–1195-1206.
  182. Sherman KE, Flamm SL, Afdhal NH et al. Response-guided telaprevir combination treatment for hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1014–1024.
  183. Garcia-Tsao G, Sanyal J, Grace ND, et al., for the Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease and the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices and variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2086–2102.
  184. Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 2011;53:1020–1022.
  185. Schwimmer J, Deutsch R, Kahen T et al. Prevalence of fatty liver in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 2006;118:1388–1393.
  186. Schwimmer JB, Behling C, Newbury R et al. Histopathology of pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2005;42:641–649.
  187. Feldstein AE, Charatcharoenwitthaya P, Treeprasertsuk S et al. The natural history of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in children: a follow-up study for up to 20 years. Gut 2009;58:1538–1544.
  188. Riley MR, Bass NM, Rosenthal P et al. Underdiagnosis of pediatric obesity and underscreening for fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome by pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists. J Pediatr 2005;147:839–842.
  189. Patton H, Lavine JE, Van Natta ML, et al., for the NASH-CRN. Clinical correlates of histopathology in pediatric nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Gastroenterology 2008;135:1961–1971.
  190. Barlow SE, and the Expert Committee. Expert Committee Recommendations Regarding the Preventions, Assessment, and Treatment of Child and Adolescent Overweight and Obesity: Summary Report. Pediatrics 120;2007:S164–S192.
  191. Loomba R, Sirlin CB, Schwimmer JB et al. Advances in pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2009;50:1282–1293.
  192. Alkhouri N, Carter-Kent C, Lopez R et al. A combination of the pediatric NAFLD fibrosis index and enhanced liver fibrosis test identifies children with fibrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:150–155.
  193. Nobili V, Parkes J, Bottazzo G et al. Performance of ELF serum markers in predicting serum fibrosis stage in pediatric non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2009;136:160–167.
  194. Kleiner DE, Brunt EM, Van Natta M, et al., Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network. Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2005;41:1313–1321.
  195. Carter-Kent C, Yerian LM, Brunt EM et al. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in children: a multicenter clinicopathological study. Hepatology 2009;50:1113–1120.
  196. Ko JS, Yoon JM, Yang HR et al. Clinical and histological features of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in children. Dig Dis Sci 2009;54:2225–2230.
  197. Nobili V, Marcellini M, Devito R et al. NAFLD in children: a prospective clinical-pathological study and effect of lifestyle advice. Hepatology 2006;44:458–465.
  198. Nobili V, Manco M, Devito R et al. Lifestyle intervention and antioxidant therapy in children with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a randomized, controlled trial. Hepatology 2008;48:119–128.
  199. Barlow SE, Dietz WH. Management of child and adolescent obesity: summary and recommendations based on reports from pediatricians, pediatric nurse practitioners, and registered dietitians. Pediatrics 2002;110:236–238.
  200. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Daniels SR et al. American heart association. National heart, lung, and blood institute. Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: an American heart association/national heart, lung, and blood institute scientific statement. Circulation 2005;112:2735–2752.