Assessing the outcome of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis? It's ... : Hepatology (original) (raw)

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) was discovered in the late 1980s, and a decade later, drugs became available which could eradicate the virus in almost half of infected patients. Quantitation of the hepatitis B virus (HBV) through sensitive commercial assays became possible only a few years ago; today, a wide range of powerful antiviral drugs is available. In sharp contrast, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which was first described a quarter of a century ago,1 became a subject of intense scrutiny and publication in the following decades2, 3 and although its disease spectrum keeps expanding,2, 4, 5 the overall perception in the majority of cases is still that of a benign disease. The prognosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has recently been rated from remarkably benign,6 unimpressive,7 very unimpressive8 to the use of the “I” word (incidentaloma).9 Of particular concern is that most patients at risk for NAFLD are not primarily referred to hepatologists but to specialists in the endocrine or nutrition fields who seem to endorse an optimistic view of hepatic steatosis and its consequences. Intriguingly (and sadly enough), no single drug development program in NASH is currently underway, while drugs designed for weight control or diabetes treatment are, by and large, available and in fierce competition among pharmaceutical companies.

Abbreviations

HCV, hepatitis C virus; HBV, hepatitis B virus; NASH, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

When contemplating this paradox, one might first consider that, even in liver diseases already established as leading causes of liver failure (such as chronic hepatitis B or C, alcoholic liver disease or hemochromatosis), the assessment of prognosis has all been controversial.10, 11 Different views and seemingly contradictory observations stem from the fact that most liver diseases have considerable inter‐individual variability in presentation and natural course. HCV infection is a good example: depending on the age of infection, sex, mode of transmission and comorbid associations,12 the disease could take more than a lifetime before evolving to cirrhosis13 or it could undergo accelerated fibrogenesis14 with a heavy impact on short‐term liver‐related mortality.15 HBV infection, although a leading cause of mortality and liver cancer in certain parts of the world, has been shown under certain circumstances to evolve as a benign disease with no mortality or disease decompensation in large cohorts of patients followed for more than 30 years.16 Overall, 20% or less of patients with an alcohol intake considerably above the one associated with risk of liver damage will ever go on to develop liver cirrhosis. To add to this short list, it becomes increasingly unclear whether in genetic hemochromatosis, iron overload alone could even result in liver cirrhosis in the absence of other cofactors such as alcohol, obesity, or HCV infection.

In NAFLD, this potential for individual heterogeneity is also present, only exacerbated to a higher degree. Fat accumulation in the liver seems to be a very early event in the course of insulin resistance. As a result, different profiles of patients with this disease are encountered in clinical practice. These range from lean individuals with minimal excess truncal fat to those with morbid obesity, or from patients with normal glycemic control to those with full blown, type 2 diabetes with metabolic complications. Unfortunately, this also makes it almost impossible to perform adequate clinical and prognostic studies over the entire spectrum of liver injury, for several important reasons which are specific to NAFLD. First, most patients with NAFLD, and probably almost all of those with normal aminotransferases are not referred to hepatologists (the opposite being true for patients diagnosed with viral hepatitis infection) due to the perceived benignity of steatosis and its silent presentation. Second, there is a regrettable lack of a simple and specific diagnostic marker for this disease, and therefore screening of large populations through the current gold standard, liver biopsy, is impossible, let alone that non‐hepatologists are not at ease with the procedure. Hence, observations from different populations will always suffer from ascertainment bias and underreporting silent NAFLD on a population‐based level is inevitable and is expected to keep feeding controversy. A study with perfect methodology addressing the prognostic impact of NAFLD in the general population would certainly be very welcome, but realistically would be too complex to perform in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, we should not overlook the accumulated knowledge which points towards a more severe disease than was originally thought.

What is the current knowledge of the clinical outcome of NAFLD? Bland steatosis or steatosis with minimal inflammation insufficient to qualify as NASH is most likely a nonprogressive disease when occurring alone.17, 18 It is uncertain whether the marginal proportion of cirrhosis occasionally reported19, 20 reflects a real, albeit rare, propensity to fibrogenesis or simply missed lesions of NASH at the initial liver biopsy.21 When steatosis occurs in association with another liver disease, however, the situation might be different as this seems to favor progression of fibrosis22; in this case, the distinction between bland steatosis and steatohepatitis is even harder to make with confidence. A wealth of experimental data demonstrate a particular vulnerability of fatty liver to numerous superimposed noxious agents.23, 24 Caution is in order before concluding that bland steatosis is benign.

Steatohepatitis on the other hand, can result in advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis25, 26 in a significant proportion of cases. From the hepatologist's perspective, NASH is an important cause of advanced liver fibrosis in clinical practice.27 In a recent multicentric survey of 272 French patients with chronic unexplained hypertransaminasemia,28 90% of cases of cirrhosis were found in patients with steatohepatitis. In fact, the importance of NASH as a cause of cirrhosis is underestimated, as the diagnosis of NASH at this stage relies more on exposure to cardiometabolic risk factors (overweight, diabetes)29 than on histological features. Findings from the large UNOS database show a step‐wise increase between the proportion of cryptogenic cirrhosis and increasing BMI, with cryptogenic cirrhosis being more frequent in diabetics than in non‐diabetics.30

The hepatologist's perspective on the importance of NASH can be challenged due to considerable selection bias. However, an important body of evidence from large unselected cohort studies with long follow‐up remind us that obesity and diabetes, two strong prosteatogenic conditions, can induce end‐stage liver disease and its complications. After a mean follow‐up of 13 years, obese, nondrinking individuals from the general population had a 4‐fold increased risk of dying from cirrhosis or of developing its complications when compared to lean patients.31 Diabetic patients have at least a 2.5‐fold higher risk of dying from cirrhosis than the general population32 (again, a conservative figure considering that some complications of cirrhosis such as infections can easily be classified as unrelated). Long‐term follow‐up data from a case‐control study of diabetic males with a huge sample size have shown a time‐dependent increase in the risk of developing NAFLD compared to non‐diabetics: a 36% increase in those followed less than 5 years and a 2‐fold increase in those followed more than 10 years.33 Granted, most of these studies did not exclude other liver diseases, such as viral hepatitis, with state of the art molecular diagnostic methods. But it is highly improbable that the bulk of liver disease in these patients is explained by causes other than NASH, given the strong epidemiological association between NAFLD and insulin resistance. Moreover, numerous studies have now shown that in countries with both low34–38 and high39, 40 prevalence of viral hepatitis, diabetes increases by 2‐ to 5‐fold the risk of another complication of cirrhosis, namely hepatocellular carcinoma. Indeed, there is a consistent, dose‐response correlation between fasting and 2h serum insulin with the risk of death from primary liver cancer in nondiabetic French men41 as well as a stepwise increase between fasting glucose levels and the incidence and risk of death by liver cancer in Korean men.40

A frequent liver disease that results in cirrhosis and liver cancer should be sufficient as a cause of great concern. However, arguably, only the demonstration of increased overall and liver‐related death could remove any reasonable doubt. Data on this aspect are slowly emerging in the field of NAFLD. NASH‐induced cirrhosis reduces survival and predisposes to decompensation of cirrhosis just as any other etiology.42 An important distinction, however, is that decompensation occurs slowly in Child A cirrhosis, while in Child B or C, once complications have occurred, the prognosis is particularly grim.42 This has been recently confirmed by Sanyal et al., who further demonstrated that causes of death are liver‐related and predictors of survival are basically the same in NASH‐induced cirrhosis as in any other cirrhosis (MELD score and renal function).43 In the end, whether the outcome of NASH‐induced cirrhosis is better or worse than that of HCV‐induced cirrhosis42–44 does not really matter and will be confounded anyway by lead‐time bias due to current limitations in the diagnosis of NASH, as outlined above. Rather, we should be concerned about how to diagnose NASH‐induced advanced fibrosis in high‐risk patients and prevent its progression to cirrhosis, as once decompensation occurs, little can be done to avoid a fatal outcome in these patients who, for the most part, are weaker candidates for liver transplantation.42, 43 A more systematic attempt at reducing selection bias evaluated the impact of NAFLD‐related mortality at a population‐based level.18 The results of this important study by Adams et al. are, again, an eye‐opener: patients with NAFLD are reported to have an excess mortality risk of 34% over the general age and sex‐matched population after a mean follow‐up of only 7.6 years which, coherently, increased to 55% with a longer follow‐up (10 years). True, this excess mortality is not entirely attributable to liver failure. But cirrhosis was the third leading cause of death in the NAFLD cohort versus the 13th in the control population (which confirms previous findings19) with a median survival shorter than 7 years.18

These data have nonetheless fallen short from settling any controversy and fuel further debate. It has been argued that since mortality occurs with cirrhosis, excluding these patients from the survival analysis will show that NAFLD is in fact much more benign than previously thought.7 However, all chronic liver diseases share one common feature, which is that mortality occurs at the cirrhotic stage and not before. Excluding such patients from the survival analysis will make chronic HBV and HCV hepatitis look just as “benign” as NAFLD. And there is no reason to exclude such patients when assessing the severity of a disease that can induce cirrhosis: Adams et al. noted that cirrhosis occurred during follow‐up in 13 of their 21 cases.18 Failure to demonstrate impaired survival in noncirrhotic NAFLD does not mean NAFLD is benign. It simply means that follow‐up was too short to capture the development of cirrhosis and the occurrence of its complications; this comes as no surprise as this typically takes 20 to 30 years in chronic hepatitis C.13

In line with these arguments, an important addition to the field is made by Ekstedt et al. in this issue of HEPATOLOGY.45 The authors report on the long term clinical and histological follow‐up of a consecutive cohort of NAFLD patients initially referred for investigation of abnormal liver function tests. Information on clinical status was available in all 129 patients and repeat liver biopsy in 68, after a mean follow‐up of 13.7 years. Importantly, the authors were able to identify the pathological form of NAFLD, NASH or simple steatosis, at inclusion and hence study the natural course based on this distinction. Patients with NASH had significantly reduced survival compared to the age and sex‐matched general population and a significantly higher risk of liver‐related (2.8% vs. 0.2%, respectively) and cardiovascular‐related death (15.5% vs. 7.5%, respectively). End‐stage liver disease (ESLD) occurred in 10% during follow‐up, including three cases of hepatocellular carcinoma. Remarkably, and possibly because of the longer follow‐up, the authors were able to show that even patients without cirrhosis developed ESLD (18%, 6/34 F2 and F3 patients) during follow‐up, thus refuting the claim that noncirrhotic NASH is “benign”. In contrast, patients with steatosis but no NASH had similar survival and similar causes of death as the general population and displayed no ESLD. These findings confirm and extend previous results20, 46 as well as acknowledge the considerable potential for heterogeneity of the clinical course in NAFLD and the need to incorporate the distinction between its different pathological forms in future studies. Another strength of the study by Ekstedt et al.45 is the long follow‐up period, which extended well beyond the first decade after diagnosis. This allowed the authors to document a significant proportion of progression of fibrosis on repeat liver biopsy: 15 out of the 66 (23%) patients with F0 to F2 fibrosis on initial biopsy progressed by 2 or more stages and 6 developed cirrhosis during follow‐up.

Last but not least, the study by Ekstedt et al., together with previously published data43 point to an intriguing finding that might be critical for future research: the possibility of increased cardiovascular mortality in patients with NASH. Several studies have shown increased risk scores for cardiovascular events (such as the Framingham score) in patients with NASH,47 even after adjustment for BMI, age and other known risk factors.48, 49 Others have demonstrated a higher prevalence of carotid plaques,50, 51 endothelial dysfunction47 or higher carotid media thickness in patients with NAFLD.51, 52 A great challenge will be to specifically evaluate the additional risk conferred by NASH, independent of the underlying metabolic abnormalities.

Areas of uncertainty regarding the impact of NAFLD on a population‐based level exist, and legitimate questions are still unanswered. However, it has become clear that for patients we see in liver clinics, NASH is a disease with serious fibrogenic potential which can result in liver‐related morbidity and mortality. As such, it should be regarded as a major unmet medical need. Strategies for screening patients with cardiometabolic risk factors for liver injury should be implemented and large therapeutic trials should no longer be delayed. As far as NASH goes the “I” word should neither be “incidentaloma” nor “inaction”.

References

1. Ludwig J, Viggiano Tr, McGill DB, Ott BJ. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Mayo Clinic experiences with a hitherto unnamed disease. Mayo Clin Proc 1980; 55: 434–438.

2. Bacon BR, Farahvash MJ, Janney CG, Neuschwander‐Tetri BA. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: an expanded clinical entity. Gastroenterology 1994; 107: 1103–1109.

3. Powell EE, Cooksley WGE, Hanson R, Searle J, Halliday JW, Powell LW. The natural history of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a follow‐up study of forty‐two patients for up to 21 years. HEPATOLOGY 1990; 11: 74–80.

4. Bugianesi E, Leone N, Vanni E, Marchesini G, Brunello F, Carucci P, et al. Expanding the natural history of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: From cryptogenic cirrhosis to hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2002; 123: 134–140.

5. 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.

6. Day CP. Natural history of NAFLD: remarkably benign in the absence of cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 375–378.

7. Thomas V, Harish K. Are we overestimating the risks of NASH? Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 1015–1016; author reply 1016–1017.

8. Ioannou GN. The natural history of NAFLD: impressively unimpressive. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 1805.

9. Tarantino G. Is NAFLD an incidentaloma? Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 1014–1015.

10. Hirsch KR, Wright TL. “Silent killer” or benign disease? The dilemma of hepatitis C virus outcomes. HEPATOLOGY 2000; 31: 536–537.

11. Seeff LB. The natural history of hepatitis C‐A quandary. HEPATOLOGY 1998; 28: 1710–1712.

12. Poynard T, Bedossa P, Opolon P, for the OBSVIRC M, CLINIVIR, and DOSVIRC groups . Natural history of liver fibrosis progression in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Lancet 1997; 349: 825–832.

13. Seeff LB. Natural history of chronic hepatitis C. HEPATOLOGY 2002; 36(Suppl): S35–S46.

14. Benhamou Y, Bochet M, Di Martino V, Charlotte F, Azria F, Coutellier A, et al. Liver fibrosis progression in human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus coinfected patients. The Multivirc Group . HEPATOLOGY 1999; 30: 1054–1058.

15. Vallet‐Pichard A, Pol S. Natural history and predictors of severity of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co‐infection. J Hepatol 2006; 44(Suppl): S28–S34.

16. Manno M, Camma C, Schepis F, Bassi F, Gelmini R, Giannini F, et al. Natural history of chronic HBV carriers in northern Italy: morbidity and mortality after 30 years. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 756–763.

17. Teli MR, James OFW, Burt D, Bennett MK, Day CP. The natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver: a follow‐up study. HEPATOLOGY 1995; 22: 1714–1719.

18. Adams LA, Lymp JF, St Sauver J, Sanderson SO, Lindor KD, Feldstein A, Angulo P. The natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a population‐based cohort study. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 113–121.

19. Matteoni CA, Younossi ZM, Gramlich T, Boparai N, Liu YC, McCullough AJ. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a spectrum of clinical and pathological severity. Gastroenterology 1999; 116: 1413–1419.

20. Dam‐Larsen S, Franzmann M, Andersen IB, Christoffersen P, Jensen LB, Sorensen TI, Becker U, Bendtsen F. Long term prognosis of fatty liver: risk of chronic liver disease and death. Gut 2004; 53: 750–755.

21. Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Heurtier A, Gombert S, Giral P, Bruckert E, et al. Sampling variability of liver biopsy in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2005; 128: 1898–1906.

22. Powell EE, Jonsson JR, Clouston AD. Steatosis: co‐factor in other liver diseases. HEPATOLOGY 2005; 42: 5–13.

23. Diehl AM. Nonalcoholic steatosis and steatohepatitis IV. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease abnormalities in macrophage function and cytokines. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2002; 282: G1–G5.

24. Day CP. Pathogenesis of steatohepatitis. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2002; 16: 663–678.

25. Ratziu V, Giral P, Charlotte F, Bruckert E, Thibault V, Theodorou I, et al. Liver fibrosis in overweight patients. Gastroenterology 2000; 118: 1117–1123.

26. Angulo P, Keach JC, Batts KP, Lindor KD. Independent predictors of liver fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. HEPATOLOGY 1999; 30: 1356–1362.

27. Ratziu V, Poynard T. NASH: a hidden and silent fibroser finally revealed? J Hepatol 2005; 42: 12–14.

28. de Ledinghen V, Ratziu V, Causse X, Bail BL, Capron D, Renou C, et al. Diagnostic and predictive factors of significant liver fibrosis and minimal lesions in patients with persistent unexplained elevated transaminases. A prospective multicenter study. J Hepatol 2006; 45: 592–599.

29. Caldwell SH, Oelsner DH, Iezzoni JC, Hespenheide EE, Battle EH, Driscoll CJ. Cryptogenic cirrhosis: clinical characterization and risk factors for underlying disease. HEPATOLOGY 1999; 29: 664–669.

30. Nair S, Verma S, Thuluvath PJ. Obesity and its effect on survival in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation in the United States. HEPATOLOGY 2002; 35: 105–109.

31. Ioannou GN, Weiss NS, Kowdley KV, Dominitz JA. Is obesity a risk factor for cirrhosis‐related death or hospitalization? A population‐based cohort study. Gastroenterology 2003; 125: 1053–1059.

32. de Marco R, Locatelli F, Zoppini G, Verlato G, Bonora E, Muggeo M. Cause‐specific mortality in type 2 diabetes. The Verona Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 756–761.

33. El‐Serag HB, Tran T, Everhart JE. Diabetes increases the risk of chronic liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 460–468.

34. Adami HO, Chow WH, Nyren O, Berne C, Linet MS, Ekbom A, et al. Excess risk of primary liver cancer in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88: 1472–1477.

35. Lawson DH, Gray JM, McKillop C, Clarke J, Lee FD, Patrick RS. Diabetes mellitus and primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Q J Med 1986; 61: 945–955.

36. Davila JA, Morgan RO, Shaib Y, McGlynn KA, El‐Serag HB. Diabetes increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: a population based case control study. Gut 2005; 54: 533–539.

37. Rousseau MC, Parent ME, Pollak MN, Siemiatycki J. Diabetes mellitus and cancer risk in a population‐based case‐control study among men from Montreal, Canada. Int J Cancer 2006; 118: 2105–9210.

38. Khan M, Mori M, Fujino Y, Shibata A, Sakauchi F, Washio M, Tamakoshi A. Site‐specific cancer risk due to diabetes mellitus history: evidence from the Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC) Study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2006; 7: 253–259.

39. Lai MS, Hsieh MS, Chiu YH, Chen TH. Type 2 diabetes and hepatocellular carcinoma: A cohort study in high prevalence area of hepatitis virus infection. HEPATOLOGY 2006; 43: 1295–1302.

40. Jee SH, Ohrr H, Sull JW, Yun JE, Ji M, Samet JM. Fasting serum glucose level and cancer risk in Korean men and women. Jama 2005; 293: 194–202.

41. Balkau B, Kahn HS, Courbon D, Eschwege E, Ducimetiere P. Hyperinsulinemia predicts fatal liver cancer but is inversely associated with fatal cancer at some other sites: the Paris Prospective Study. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 843–849.

42. Ratziu V, Bonyhay L, Di Martino V, Charlotte F, Cavallaro L, Sayegh‐Tainturier MH, et al. Survival, liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma in obesity‐related cryptogenic cirrhosis. HEPATOLOGY 2002; 35: 1485–1493.

43. Sanyal AJ, Banas C, Sargeant C, Luketic VA, Sterling RK, Stravitz RT, et al. Similarities and differences in outcomes of cirrhosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and hepatitis C. HEPATOLOGY 2006; 43: 682–9.

44. Hui JM, Kench JG, Chitturi S, Sud A, Farrell GC, Byth K, et al. Long‐term outcomes of cirrhosis in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis compared with hepatitis C. HEPATOLOGY 2003; 38: 420–427.

45. Ekstedt M, Franzén LE, Mathiesen UL, Thorelius L, Holmqvist M, Bodemar G, Kechagias S. Long‐term follow‐up of patients with NAFLD and elevated liver enzymes. HEPATOLOGY 2006; 44: 865–873.

46. Jepsen P, Vilstrup H, Mellemkjaer L, Thulstrup AM, Olsen JH, Baron JA, Sorensen HT. Prognosis of patients with a diagnosis of fatty liver–a registry‐based cohort study. Hepatogastroenterology 2003; 50: 2101–2104.

47. Ioannou GN, Weiss NS, Boyko EJ, Mozaffarian D, Lee SP. Elevated serum alanine aminotransferase activity and calculated risk of coronary heart disease in the United States. HEPATOLOGY 2006; 43: 1145–1151.

48. Villanova N, Moscatiello S, Ramilli S, Bugianesi E, Magalotti D, Vanni E, et al. Endothelial dysfunction and cardiovascular risk profile in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. HEPATOLOGY 2005; 42: 473–480.

49. Targher G, Bertolini L, Poli F, Rodella S, Scala L, Tessari R, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and risk of future cardiovascular events among type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes 2005; 54: 3541–3546.

50. Volzke H, Robinson DM, Kleine V, Deutscher R, Hoffmann W, Ludemann J, et al. Hepatic steatosis is associated with an increased risk of carotid atherosclerosis. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11: 1848–1853.

51. Brea A, Mosquera D, Martin E, Arizti A, Cordero JL, Ros E. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with carotid atherosclerosis: a case‐control study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2005; 25: 1045–1050.

52. Targher G, Bertolini L, Padovani R, Zenari L, Zoppini G, Falezza G. Relation of nonalcoholic hepatic steatosis to early carotid atherosclerosis in healthy men: role of visceral fat accumulation. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 2498–2500.