APPROACH & RESULTS: NAFLD knowledge surveys containing 54 and 59 questions covering three domains (Epidemiology/Pathogenesis, Diagnostics, and Treatment) were completed electronically by hepatologists, gastroenterologists (GEs), endocrinologists (ENDOs) and primary care physicians (PCPs) from 40 countries comprising 5 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) super-regions. Over 24 months, 2202 surveys were completed (488 hepatologists, 758 GEs, 148 ENDOs, and 808 PCPs; 50% High-Income GBD super-region, 27% from North Africa and Middle East, 12% Southeast Asia, and 5% South Asian and Latin America). Hepatologists saw the greatest number of NAFLD patients annually: median (IQR) 150 (60-300) vs. 100 (35-200) for GEs, 100 (30-200) for ENDOs, and 10 (4-50) for PCPs (all p<0.0001). The primary sources of NAFLD knowledge acquisition for hepatologists were international conferences (33% vs. 8-26%) and practice guidelines for others (39-44%). Internet was the second most common source of NAFLD knowledge for PCPs (28%). NAFLD knowledge scores were higher for hepatologists than GEs: Epidemiology 62% vs. 53%, Diagnostics 80% vs. 73%, Treatment 61% vs. 58% (p<0.0001) and ENDOs scores were higher than PCPs: Epidemiology 70% vs. 60%, Diagnostics 71% vs. 64%, Treatment 79% vs. 68% (p<0.0001). Being a hepatologist or ENDO was associated with higher knowledge scores than GE or PCP, respectively (p<0.05). Higher NAFLD knowledge scores were independently associated with greater number of NAFLD patients seen (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Despite the growing burden of NAFLD, significant knowledge gap remains for identification, diagnosis and management of NAFLD.
METHODS: Clinical, laboratory, and PRO data (Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire-nonalcoholic steatohepatitis [NASH], Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, and the Work Productivity and Activity Index) were collected from NAFLD patients seen in real-world practices and enrolled in the Global NAFLD/NASH Registry encompassing 18 countries in 6 global burden of disease super-regions.
RESULTS: Across the global burden of disease super-regions, NAFLD patients (n = 5691) were oldest in Latin America and Eastern Europe and youngest in South Asia. Most men were enrolled at the Southeast and South Asia sites. Latin America and South Asia had the highest employment rates (>60%). Rates of cirrhosis varied (12%-21%), and were highest in North Africa/Middle East and Eastern Europe. Rates of metabolic syndrome components varied: 20% to 25% in South Asia and 60% to 80% in Eastern Europe. Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire-NASH and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue PRO scores were lower in NAFLD patients than general population norms (all P < .001). Across the super-regions, the lowest PRO scores were seen in Eastern Europe and North Africa/Middle East. In multivariate analysis adjusted for enrollment region, independent predictors of lower PRO scores included younger age, women, and nonhepatic comorbidities including fatigue (P < .01). Patients whose fatigue scores improved over time experienced a substantial PRO improvement. Nearly 8% of Global NAFLD/NASH Registry patients had a lean body mass index, with fewer metabolic syndrome components, fewer comorbidities, less cirrhosis, and significantly better PRO scores (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: NAFLD patients seen in real-world practices in different countries experience a high comorbidity burden and impaired quality of life. Future research using global data will enable more precise management and treatment strategies for these patients.
METHODS: Members of the Global NASH Council created two surveys about experiences/attitudes toward NAFLD and related diagnostic terms: a 68-item patient and a 41-item provider survey.
RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 1,976 patients with NAFLD across 23 countries (51% Middle East/North Africa [MENA], 19% Europe, 17% USA, 8% Southeast Asia, 5% South Asia) and 825 healthcare providers (67% gastroenterologists/hepatologists) across 25 countries (39% MENA, 28% Southeast Asia, 22% USA, 6% South Asia, 3% Europe). Of all patients, 48% ever disclosed having NAFLD/NASH to family/friends; the most commonly used term was "fatty liver" (88% at least sometimes); "metabolic disease" or "MAFLD" were rarely used (never by >84%). Regarding various perceptions of diagnostic terms by patients, there were no substantial differences between "NAFLD", "fatty liver disease (FLD)", "NASH", or "MAFLD". The most popular response was being neither comfortable nor uncomfortable with either term (56%-71%), with slightly greater discomfort with "FLD" among the US and South Asian patients (47-52% uncomfortable). Although 26% of patients reported stigma related to overweight/obesity, only 8% reported a history of stigmatization or discrimination due to NAFLD. Among providers, 38% believed that the term "fatty" was stigmatizing, while 34% believed that "nonalcoholic" was stigmatizing, more commonly in MENA (43%); 42% providers (gastroenterologists/hepatologists 45% vs. 37% other specialties, p = 0.03) believed that the name change to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (or MASLD) might reduce stigma. Regarding the new nomenclature, the percentage of providers reporting "steatotic liver disease" as stigmatizing was low (14%).
CONCLUSIONS: The perception of NAFLD stigma varies among patients, providers, geographic locations and sub-specialties.
IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Over the past decades, efforts have been made to change the nomenclature of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to better align with its underlying pathogenetic pathways and remove any potential stigma associated with the name. Given the paucity of data related to stigma in NAFLD, we undertook this global comprehensive survey to assess stigma in NAFLD among patients and providers from around the world. We found there is a disconnect between physicians and patients related to stigma and related nomenclature. With this knowledge, educational programs can be developed to better target stigma in NAFLD among all stakeholders and to provide a better opportunity for the new nomenclature to address the issues of stigma.