Cargando…

Editorial: The Metabolic (Dysfunction)-Associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD) and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) Debate: Why the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Consensus Process is Not Representative

A debate has recently arisen in hepatology on the redefinition of fatty liver disease associated with metabolic dysfunction. The definition of metabolic (dysfunction)-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) has been widely endorsed by multiple stakeholders and societies. More importantly, although ro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fouad, Yasser Mahrous, Gomaa, Ahmed, El Etreby, Rasha Mohammed, AbdAllah, Mohamed, Attia, Dina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9462522/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35993179
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.938066
Descripción
Sumario:A debate has recently arisen in hepatology on the redefinition of fatty liver disease associated with metabolic dysfunction. The definition of metabolic (dysfunction)-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) has been widely endorsed by multiple stakeholders and societies. More importantly, although robust evidence supports the utility of the definition of MAFLD in clinical practice and research, and for increasing awareness of liver disease, controversy still abounds. Recently, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) have undertaken similar consensus approaches for MAFLD. However, there are serious concerns with these regional consensus approaches. The views of hepatologists from the Middle East, North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa are not represented. Also, the selection of experts raises concerns regarding the validity of the outcomes of the expert consensus process. We conclude that unless the process has global involvement, there will be no incentive for global adherence to these regional recommendations. This Editorial aims to highlight these concerns and to call for those involved in leading the AASLD and EASL consensus process to be more inclusive, which may facilitate the adoption of more unified recommendations that have global clinical importance.