DESIGN: We prospectively recruited 496 patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease who underwent VCTE by both M and XL probes within 1 week before liver biopsy.

RESULTS: 391 (78.8%) and 433 (87.3%) patients had reliable liver stiffness measurement (LSM) (10 successful acquisitions and IQR:median ratio ≤0.30) by M and XL probes, respectively (p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves was similar between the two probes (0.75-0.88 for F2-4, 0.83-0.91 for F4). When used in the same patient, LSM by XL probe was lower than that by M probe (mean difference 2.3 kPa). In contrast, patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 had higher LSM regardless of the probe used. When M and XL probes were used in patients with BMI <30 and ≥30 kg/m2, respectively, they yielded nearly identical median LSM at each fibrosis stage and similar diagnostic performance. Severe steatosis did not increase LSM or the rate of false-positive diagnosis by XL probe.

METHODS: This was a multicenter study of 489 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD and 69 patients with NAFLD-related or cryptogenic HCC. Antihepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) was used to detect the previous HBV infection.

RESULTS: In the biopsy cohort, positive anti-HBc was associated with lower steatosis grade but higher fibrosis stage. 18.8% and 7.5% of patients with positive and negative anti-HBc had cirrhosis, respectively (P < 0.001). The association between anti-HBc and cirrhosis remained significant after adjusting for age and metabolic factors (adjusted odds ratio 2.232; 95% confidence interval, 1.202-4.147). At a mean follow-up of 6.2 years, patients with positive anti-HBc had a higher incidence of HCC or cirrhotic complications (6.5% vs 2.2%; P = 0.039). Among patients with NAFLD-related or cryptogenic HCC, 73.9% had positive anti-HBc. None of the patients had positive serum HBV DNA. By contrast, antihepatitis B surface antibody did not correlate with histological severity.

METHODS: A Group Model Building (GMB) exercise was conducted with researchers and clinicians from academic units and public healthcare institutes in Singapore. The aim of the exercise was to produce a shared visual representation of the causal structure for falls and engage in discussions on how current and future falls intervention programmes can address falls in the older adults, especially in the Asian context. It was conducted in four steps: 1) Outlining and prioritising desirable patient outcomes, 2) Conceptual model building, 3) Identifying key intervention elements of effective falls intervention programmes, 4) Mapping of interventions to outcomes. This causal loop diagram (CLD) was then used to generate insights into the current understanding of falls causal relationships, current efforts in falls intervention in Singapore, and used to identify gaps in falls research that could be further advanced in future intervention studies.

RESULTS: Four patient outcomes were identified by the group as key in falls intervention: 1) Falls, 2) Injurious falls, 3) Fear of falling, and 4) Restricted mobility and life space. A CLD of the reciprocal relationships between risk factors and these outcomes are represented in four sub-models: 1) Fear of falling, 2) Injuries associated with falls, 3) Caregiver overprotectiveness, 4) Post-traumatic stress disorder and psychological resilience. Through this GMB exercise, the group gained the following insights: (1) Psychological sequelae of falls is an important falls intervention outcome. (2) The effects of family overprotectiveness, psychological resilience, and PTSD in exacerbating the consequences of falls are not well understood. (3) There is a need to develop multi-component falls interventions to address the multitude of falls and falls related sequelae.