Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 May 9.
Published in final edited form as: Hepatology. 2018 Jul;68(1):361–371. doi: 10.1002/hep.29724

Current and Future Therapeutic Regimens for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis

Zobair M Younossi 1, Rohit Loomba 2, Mary E Rinella 3, Elisabetta Bugianesi 4, Giulio Marchesini 5, Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri 6, Lawrence Serfaty 7, Francesco Negro 8, Stephen H Caldwell 9, Vlad Ratziu 10, Kathleen E Corey 11, Scott L Friedman 12, Manal F Abdelmalek 13, Stephen A Harrison 14, Arun J Sanyal 15, Joel E Lavine 16, Philippe Mathurin 17, Michael R Charlton 18, Naga P Chalasani 19, Quentin M Anstee 20, Kris V Kowdley 21, Jacob George 22, Zachary D Goodman 1, Keith Lindor 23
PMCID: PMC6508084  NIHMSID: NIHMS1027524  PMID: 29222911

Abstract

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and its progressive form non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), are rapidly becoming among the top causes of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and indications for liver transplantation. Other than lifestyle modification through diet and exercise, there are currently no other approved treatments for NASH/ NAFLD. Although weight loss can be effective, it is difficult to achieve and sustain. In contrast, bariatric surgery can improve metabolic conditions associated with NAFLD, and has been shown to improve liver histology. To have approved regimens for the treatment of NASH/NAFLD, several issues must be addressed. First, all stakeholders must agree on the most appropriate clinical trial endpoints for NASH. Currently, resolution of NASH (without worsening fibrosis) or reduction of fibrosis stage (without worsening NASH) are the accepted endpoints by the regulatory authorities. It is important to recognize the prognostic implication of histologic features of NASH. In this context, although histologic NASH has been associated with advanced fibrosis, it is not an independent predictor of long-term mortality. In contrast, there are significant data to suggest that fibrosis stage is the only robust and independent predictor of liver-related mortality. In addition to the primary endpoints, several important secondary endpoints, including noninvasive biomarkers, long-term outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes must be considered. In 2018, a few phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of NASH have been initiated. Additionally, a number of phase 2a and 2b clinical trials targeting different pathogenic pathways in NASH are in the pipeline of emerging therapies.

Conclusion:

Over the next 5 years, some of these regimens are expected to provide potential new treatment options for patients with NASH/NAFLD.


Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is rapidly being recognized as the leading cause of chronic liver disease worldwide.(13) Over the past two decades, there is substantial evidence to suggest that NAFLD is highly prevalent throughout the world and represents a spectrum of diseases, some of which can progress to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.(25) The majority of subjects with NAFLD are asymptomatic and are diagnosed incidentally. Although all subtypes of NAFLD increase the risk for cardiovascular events and mortality, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is the main diagnostic subtype of NAFLD that predisposes patients to cirrhosis and liver-related complications.(13)

As of 2018 there are no approved drug treatments for NAFLD or NASH.(6) Nevertheless, a large number of emerging therapies are being evaluated in clinical trials. As our understanding of the basic pathogenesis of the progressive form of NAFLD (NASH) increases, it is almost certain that new treatment targets will be considered and new treatment regimens will be developed for NASH patients at risk of progressive hepatic fibrosis and its associated clinical outcomes.(18)

In the quest to find an effective and safe treatment for the progressive form of NAFLD or NASH, several priorities and challenges must be recognized. First, since NASH is the potentially progressive form of NAFLD, it should be the target of new therapeutic regimens. Furthermore, the severity of hepatic fibrosis (i.e., fibrosis stage) predicts liver-related mortality in NAFLD and therefore, the development of treatment regimens for patients with significant hepatic fibrosis must be prioritized.(710) In addition to the appropriate endpoints, it is important to consider the placebo effect on the histology of NASH patients who are treated in randomized controlled trials. In fact, this placebo effect has been shown to be substantial.(11) Additionally, spontaneous regression of NASH and even NASH-related fibrosis has been observed, potentially related to the lifestyle modifications and behavioral changes of these subjects during the clinical trial.(11) An example of this phenomenon was observed in the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases sponsored Pioglitazone versus Vitamin E versus Placebo for the Treatment of Nondiabetic Patients with Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis (PIVENS) trial, in which placebo-treated subjects experienced significant weight loss.(11) In fact, the interaction with weight loss during a clinical trial can be an important confounder when evaluating the histologic response of patients with NASH.(12)

In this context, an important challenge in the field of NASH therapeutics is to develop a consensus on how to accurately assess treatment response. There is an ongoing debate as to which endpoint truly represents the best surrogate for the “hard” outcomes (liver-related morbidity and mortality) in NAFLD/ NASH. Although still debated, improvement of stage of fibrosis may be the best endpoint to use in clinical trials of NASH. Although resolution of histologic NASH does correlate with the improvement of fibrosis, it may be flawed by the variability inherent in its histologic assessment. In addition to the clinical endpoints, inclusion of validated patient-reported out-comes in therapeutic trials of NASH will be important.(9,13)

In this review, we summarize the current and future treatment modalities that were presented in a recent trend conference on NASH sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD).

Selection of Endpoints in Clinical Trials of NASH

Until recently, therapeutic trials of NASH have primarily focused on improvement in steatohepatitis as defined by the NAFLD Activity Score (NAS).(14) In addition to the improvement of NAS, resolution of histologic evidence for steatohepatitis is also considered an important primary endpoint in most clinical trials for patients with NASH.(15) Although NAS scoring does provide valuable quantifiable scores to assess the individual histologic components of NASH, the grading is still subjective.(16) The interobserver variability of histologic components of NAS such as ballooning degeneration (a key pathologic feature of NASH) has been problematic.(14,17) Additionally, ballooning degeneration as an individual pathologic feature is not an independent predictor of liver-related mortality.(14,17) In this context, the endpoint should be a surrogate of the hard outcome of liver-related mortality. As noted previously, there is now increasing evidence that stage of fibrosis is the best predictor of mortality and may serve as the best surrogate for clinically relevant outcomes in NASH.(8,18)

In addition to histology, other important endpoints in NASH subjects with cirrhosis include measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient. The selection of this endpoint is based on the data suggesting that hepatic venous pressure gradient values above a certain threshold are associated with reduced survival in patients with cirrhosis.(19) Although improvement in survival is always desirable, given the long natural history of NASH and presence of comorbidities in this population, studies designed to capture this endpoint will be difficult to design and will not be feasible to perform.

Although there is little doubt about the value of histologic assessments in NASH, liver biopsy is invasive and not easily accepted by patients. Furthermore, repeat biopsies to assess worsening or improvement of liver injury and histologic fibrosis in clinical practice is not feasible. Therefore, a flurry of efforts to develop and validate noninvasive modalities to assess the stage of fibrosis in NASH and to document its progression and regression has ensued. Challenges surrounding the ability to noninvasively define these therapeutic endpoints must be overcome to truly advance the therapeutic field of NAFLD and NASH.

Finally, it is important not only to include clinical endpoints that best predict mortality but also to include patient-reported outcomes that are the best surrogates of patient experience. In this context, the use of a disease-specific validated instrument such as the chronic liver disease questionnaire (CLDQ)-NAFLD-NASH in the clinical trials of NASH will be important.(13)

Data Regarding Weight Loss and Exercise in NAFLD

Lifestyle modification that includes weight loss and structured exercise remains the cornerstone of treatment for patients with NAFLD and NASH.(20) In this context, weight loss has been associated with a reduction in liver fat and improvement in aminotransferase levels.(6) The amount of weight loss is a determinant of histologic improvements in liver injury and fibrosis. Although small reductions (3%−5% body weight loss) can reduce hepatic steatosis and the associated metabolic parameters, greater weight reduction (at least 7%) is required to improve or resolve steatohepatitis.(21,22)

In the context of mild to moderate obesity, weight loss can be achieved by dietary interventions that restrict calorie intake.(21) However, it should be noted that long-term sustained weight loss can only be experienced by 3%−6% of subjects.(6,21) Although the benefit of different diets may vary according to the underlying metabolic abnormalities, the Mediterranean diet has been demonstrated to have a beneficial role in reducing all-cause mortality, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, obesity, and type 2 diabetes.(22) However, the efficacy of these different diets in patients with NASH has not been formally assessed. Nevertheless, dietary macronutrient composition generally seems to have a lesser role than caloric restriction in reducing liver fat in patients with NAFLD.(21,22)

In addition to diet, physical activity plays an important role in the development of NAFLD.(23,24) In this context, about half of NAFLD patients are inactive, and one third of these patients do not engage in any physical exercise.(23) Based on the recent data, there has been increasing recognition of the efficacy of exercise per se in reducing hepatic fat. Therefore, exercise is now routinely recommended for the management of NAFLD.(25,26) In addition to improvement in hepatic steatosis, exercise has also been shown to improve liver enzymes and ameliorate insulin resistance.(27) In this context, exercise may improve liver inflammation and liver cell injury in patients with NAFLD. In fact, a recent study of 169,347 men and women with repeat measures of liver fat (quantified with ultrasound) and physical activity demonstrated a strong association between exercise and changes in NAFLD over a mean 5 years of follow-up.(28)

Although exercise is generally beneficial, the optimal dose of exercise may have relevance for subjects with NAFLD and NASH. Several recent studies have attempted to address the issues of optimal exercise dose (type, intensity, and amount) for subjects with NAFLD. Some reports have suggested that there are no differences in the amount of liver fat reduction by aerobic exercise dose or intensity. In this context, only the act of exercising seems to be important.(2429) Additionally, another study has suggested that the reduction of liver fat by aerobic exercise occurred without clinically significant weight loss, suggesting that exercise alone is an independent factor of reducing liver fat.(29) In this context, the current recommendations suggest that resistance training should complement aerobic exercise. In fact, this recommendation is also consistent with the exercise guidance for cardiovascular disease risk modification.(24,29)

In summary, diet and exercise should remain the first line recommendations for patients with NASH. However, more clinical research is needed to better understand the magnitude of improvement in clinical and histologic outcomes and to determine the interaction between weight loss and exercise in subjects with NASH/NAFLD.

Current Medical Treatment for Patients With NASH

The AASLD guidelines recommend that only biopsy-proven NASH should be considered for medical treatment.(25,26) Several drugs have been tested but none have been approved to treat NASH.(3037)

In this context, glitazones are a class of drugs that have been used to treat NASH. Glitazones up-regulate adiponectin, an adipokine with anti-steatogenic and insulin-sensitizing properties, which increase the synthesis and uptake of fatty acids by adipocytes, rather than their uptake by organs such as the liver and muscle.(33,34) One such drug, pioglitazone, has been shown to improve histological NASH in terms of steatosis, inflammation, and hepatocyte ballooning as well as NAS activity score, resolution of NASH and improving fibrosis.(37,38) However, these beneficial effects are not sustained, with an increase in serum alanine aminotransferase values and reappearance of NASH after the medication is discontinued. Also, there are additional concerns related to the weight gain that accompanies the use of pioglitazone.(37)

The most recent version of AASLD Guidance document for NAFLD suggests that since it appears that pioglitazone improves liver histology for patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus, it may be a viable option for treatment, but only after the risks and benefits for patients have been reviewed. In addition, before starting treatment of a diabetic patient, a liver biopsy should be considered to document histologically proven NASH.(26)

Vitamin E is an antioxidant that prevents liver injury by blocking intrinsic apoptotic pathways and protecting against oxidative stress.(33) Data from the PIVENS trial show that vitamin E can improve histological NASH in terms of steatosis, inflammation, ballooning, NAS, and resolution of NASH at a dose of 800 IU/day.(11) How-ever, there are some concerns that long-term use of vitamin E may be associated with increased incidence of hemorrhagic stroke and an increased risk of prostate cancer.(33) Nevertheless, the AASLD Guidance document suggest that vitamin E may be used daily at a dose of 800 IU/day in nondiabetic adults with biopsy-proven NASH. However, at this time the AASLD Guidance document does not recommend the use of vitamin E as a treatment for NASH in diabetic patients, NAFLD without liver biopsy, NASH cirrhosis, or cryptogenic cirrhosis.(26) The beneficial impact of vitamin E or pioglitazome on all-cause mortality and liver-related mortality has not been established.

Liraglutide, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist, is secreted after eating. GLP-1 is secreted by the L cells of the small bowel and proximal colon, and stimulates insulin secretion by the pancreatic beta cells, decreases hepatic glucose production, increases satiety by delaying gastric emptying, and has cardioprotective effects.(12) GLP-1 has a half-life of less than 2 minutes, whereas liraglutide, the synthetic analogue, has a half-life that allows a single daily administration.(39) In a phase 2 trial, liraglutide 1.8 mg subcutaneous injection administered once daily resulted in resolution of NASH while improving key metabolic risk factors (weight, body mass index, glucose level, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) with minimal side effects (mainly gastrointestinal, such as diarrhea).(12) Phase 3 trials are awaited to confirm these preliminary data.

A large proportion of patients with NAFLD have underlying metabolic risk factors which will require medical treatment. In fact, preliminary data suggest that there may be an added liver-related benefit when the associated comorbidities are treated.(3741) For instance, statins are safe to use in the NAFLD population and can provide the beneficial effects of treating dyslipidemia, improving insulin resistance, and reducing the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma.(4042) Additionally, ezetimibe also appears to be safe and potentially beneficial in patients with NAFLD.(39,43)

In summary, despite the initial assessment of a large number of agents, no single agent or combination has proven efficacy for subjects with NASH. Until the results of the ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials become available, lifestyle modifications and optimizing metabolic risk factors are the best medical treatment option for patients with NASH.

Current Surgical Options for Treatment of Obesity in Subjects With NASH

As noted previously, sustained weight loss can be beneficial for NAFLD. In this context, bariatric surgery can induce long-term weight loss and decrease long-term mortality related to diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.(44,45) In a study with more than 10 years of follow-up, weight loss of 25%, 16%, and 14% was noted in patients who underwent gastric bypass, vertical-banded gastroplasty, and gastric banding, respectively.(45) In addition, bariatric surgery can prevent cardiovascular events(46) and improve type 2 diabetes.(47,48)

Regardless of the type of bariatric surgical procedure performed, a decrease in adiposity is seen after bariatric surgery. This is an important factor to consider because increased adiposity is associated with increased insulin resistance, which is independently associated with hepatic steatosis. In fact, persistence of insulin resistance is an independent predictor of presence of NAFLD, one year after surgery and significantly increases the probability of having severe steatosis compared with those patients whose insulin resistance improved after their surgery.(49,50)

Preliminary studies have also reported a resolution of NASH in approximately 85%−90% of patients who undergo bariatric surgery.(51) A recent prospective study analyzing sequential liver biopsies from a final cohort of 82 patients with biopsy-proven NASH showed the disappearance of NASH in approximately 85% of the patients 1 year later, though NASH resolved in a greater proportion of patients with baseline mild disease (94%) than in those with baseline moderate or severe disease (70%).(52) Specifically, bariatric surgery significantly reduced all the histological components of NASH, including hepatic fibrosis.(52)

Despite these data, NASH is currently not an indication for bariatric surgery. In fact, patients with NASH must have other qualifying conditions as delineated by the National Institutes of Health consensus conference to be able to undergo weight loss surgery.(53) It is possible that this recommendation will be changed in the future, because weight reduction surgery appears to effectively address metabolic conditions, which can lead to a reversal of NASH.

Liver Transplantation in Subjects With NASH

Liver transplantation (LT) is the standard treatment option for NASH and advanced liver disease. Currently, cirrhosis due to NASH is now the second most common indication for liver transplantation in the United States, and patients who undergo transplantation for NASH have similar survival as those who receive transplants for other etiologies.(5457) In fact, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates after LT for patients with NASH are 87.6%, 82.2%, and 76.7%, respectively, which are comparable to rates for other indications.(57) However, NASH after LT can either recur or can develop de novo in patients who have undergone transplantation.(58) Although the risk of steatosis is time-dependent and approaches 100% at 5 years after LT in NASH patients, the risk of developing histologic NASH is approximately 10%−30%, whereas the risk of developing advanced fibrosis is low (5% at 5 years and 10% at 10 years).(2,5,7) In multivariate analyses, the post-LT recurrence of NAFLD has been found to be associated with hypertriglyceridemia and high body mass index post-LT.(59)

Post-LT care for patients with NASH can present several challenges. There is a strong rationale for adopting a minimalist approach to maintenance of immunosuppression for patients with a history of NASH. The lowest effective doses of calcineurin inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, and antimetabolites are recommended. Corticosteroids can cause and exacerbate features of the metabolic syndrome and should be avoided beyond the early (i.e., first 6 months) postoperative period.(57,60)

In addition, there are no definitive data regarding the optimal time to biopsy recipients who were transplanted for NASH or cryptogenic cirrhosis. A significant portion of patients with NASH can have normal liver enzymes. The emergence and availability of transient elastography (TE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) may reduce the need for liver biopsy.(61) Weight gain is nearly ubiquitous after LT. Because obesity and the components of the metabolic syndrome are important predictors of posttransplantation outcomes, weight management is a cornerstone of optimizing outcomes and a deterrent to post-LT metabolic syndrome.(62,63)

In summary, NASH patients who undergo LT do very well. Nevertheless, these patients do present pre-and posttransplantation challenges. Optimal approaches to pre-and perioperative management (including bar-iatric surgery) and immunosuppression are evolving rap-idly, and effective nutritional, psychological, and pharmacotherapeutic agents are being developed, but none have been fully accepted.

Emerging Therapy for NASH: Nonantifibrotic and Antifibrotic Regimens

As new information about the pathogenesis of NAFLD/NASH continues to unfold, multiple pathogenic pathways (insulin resistance, lipotoxicity, oxidative stress, altered immune/cytokine/mitochondrial functioning, and apoptosis) are being implicated in the development of NASH and its progression.(64) Therefore, new therapeutic modalities are being developed to target many of these pathways. These treatment regimens are currently in various stages of development, with most of the current studies conducted with a single treatment modality. However, it is expected that combination therapy of multiple drugs to treat NASH will soon follow. The following will highlight the current treatment regimens in clinical trials directed toward improving hepatic steatosis, inflammation, liver cell injury, and fibrosis.

One of the drugs that has progressed to phase 3 development for NASH is obeticholic acid (OCA), which is a farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonist whose potential actions include decreasing hepatic steatosis, inflammation, and fibrosis while increasing insulin sensitivity. In the Farnesoid X Receptor Ligand Obeticholic Acid in NASH Treatment (FLINT) phase 2 trial, in which OCA was compared with a placebo, there was no worsening of fibrosis, and the NAS decreased by ≥2 points in patients who were receiving OCA. Although there was some evidence of worsening dyslipidemia, coadministration of statins led to improvement of participants’ low-density lipoprotein profiles to at or below baseline levels.(65)

A phase 3 clinical trial of OCA in patients who had NASH without cirrhosis (stage 2 and 3) is ongoing (Randomized Global Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Impact on NASH with Fibrosis of Obeticholic Acid Treatment [REGENERATE; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02548351]). The primary endpoint of the study is either improvement of fibrosis without worsening NASH or resolution of NASH without worsening fibrosis. A number of secondary endpoints and long-term outcomes are being monitored for assessment of both efficacy and safety.

Another agent in phase 3 clinical trials is elafibranor, a dual receptor peroxisome proliferator activated alpha/ delta (PPARα/δ) agonist. Elafibranor was studied in the GOLDEN Study 2b Trial, and its effects were compared to that of a placebo.(35) Despite some methodological limitations of the GOLDEN trial, elafibranor, 120 mg/day for a year, seemed to induce resolution of NASH without fibrosis worsening. Elafibranor was also well tolerated and improved patients’ cardiometabolic risk profile. However, patients did experience an increase in their creatinine level that resolved when the medication was stopped.(35) The ongoing phase 3 clinical trial of elafibranor (RESOLVE-IT) has identified the primary endpoint for the study as resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis. The study is also following long-term outcomes such as all-cause mortality, cirrhosis, and liver-related clinical outcomes.

Another drug that has been advanced to phase 3 clinical trial is selonsertib (SEL). SEL is an inhibitor of apoptosis signal-regulating kinase-1 (ASK-1), the use of which leads to improvement of inflammation and fibrosis in animal models of NASH. A recent phase 2 clinical trial assessed the safety and efficacy of selonsertib with or without simtuzumab in subjects with NASH stage 2 or 3 fibrosis.(66) The primary endpoint of the study was improvement of fibrosis without worsening of NASH. A number of other secondary endpoints were assessed. The study suggested significant histologic improvement as well as improvements in a number of secondary endpoints.(66) However, based on recent data documenting its lack of efficacy, simtuzumab was considered to have a placebo effect. Based on these data, a phase 3 clinical trial has been initiated and is currently enrolling subjects with NASH and advanced fibrosis (STELLAR-3 and −4). The trial consists of a 48-week trial of selonsertib in subjects with stage 3 and 4 NASH; the primary endpoint is a ≥1-point decrease in fibrosis stage without worsening of NASH ballooning or inflammation. The study’s 5-year outcome is the reduction in progression to cirrhosis (STELLAR-3) and hepatic decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma, transplantation, or death (STELLAR-3 and 24).(67)

In addition to these phase 3 clinical trials, a number of early phase trials are underway (Table 1). These include a phase 2 clinical trial using the GLP-1 analogue semaglutide which has shown promising results.(12) Additionally, another trial for treatment of NASH focuses on an inhibitor of acyl co-A carboxylase (ACC), a rate-limiting step in de novo lipogenesis. In a very small open label study, an ACC inhibitor showed reduction in alanine aminotransferase, elastometry and MRI PDFF quantification of liver fat.(68)

TABLE 1.

Non-antifibrotic Drugs in Early Development and Their Potential Site of Action

Drug Potential Action Site
NGM282 Recombinant FGF-19 agonist
BMS-986036 Pegylated FGF-21 analogue
JKB-121 (nalmefene hydrochloride) TLR-4 antagonist
Aramchol Synthetic fatty acid/bile acid conjugate
Volixibat ASBT inhibitor
MGL-3196 Thyroid hormone receptor-β agonist
GS-0976 ACC inhibitor
LMB763 FXR agonist
LJN45 FXR agonist
Emricasan Oral caspase inhibitor
Saroglitazar PPAR α/ɣ agonist
IVA337 Pan PPAR agonist
MSDC 0602K mTOR modulating insulin sensitizer
Semaglutide GLP-1 analogue
Liraglutide GLP-1 analogue
Combination GS-0976 and GS-9674 ACC inhibitor/FXR agonist
IMM-124E- Hyperimmune bovine colostrum Induction of regulatory T cells
Bl-1467335 VAP-1/AOC3 inhibitor

ASBT: apical sodiumbile acid transporter, mTOR: mechanistic/mammalian target of rapamycin, VAP-1/AOC3: vascular adhesion protein 1/amine oxidase, copper containing 3, FGF: Fibroblast growth factor

Despite the great enthusiasm and activity in the field of NASH therapeutics, there is no treatment for NASH that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Nevertheless, it is almost certain that our armamentarium of therapeutic options for NASH is likely to expand in the near future.

There are also drugs in development designed to disrupt fibrosis development in patients with NASH. This is an area of significant therapeutic need, because fibrosis is the strongest predictor of mortality in patients with NASH.(18,69)

Currently, all ongoing phase 2B or phase 3 clinical trials of antifibrotic drugs require liver biopsy to quantify fibrosis before and after treatment. As noted previously, this requirement imposes limitations on the clinical trial design, including the invasive nature of biopsy, which limits access to tissues at intermediate time points during a trial. Moreover, although biopsy is highly informative, the NASH fibrosis staging system may not universally and precisely predict outcomes, although the use of quantitative assessment of fibrosis by morphometry may improve its predictive performance in NASH.(70)

Moreover, even when cirrhosis is established, collagen continues to accumulate, yet standard pathologic scoring systems are not able to detect this increase, whereas morphometric assessment of collagen may be more accurate.(71) Whereas determinants of fibrosis progression have been well validated for hepatitis C virus, a similar predictive model for NASH has not been validated.(7274) This is probably due to the multifactorial nature of NASH and lack of identical contributions from different pathogenic drivers in all patients who present with histologic and clinical NASH phenotype.(7274)

As a result of the complexity and multifactorial nature for underlying NASH, there is an unusually broad effort to focus on many targets, alone or in combination. Antifibrotic therapies, in addition to those discussed previously (FXR agonists, PPAR agonists, and inhibitor of ASK1), include combinations of antagonists such as CCR2/CCR5 chemokine receptors, galectin antagonists, and a small interfering RNA target in stellate cells that reduces expression of heat shock protein.(76) The use of cenicriviroc, a CCR2/CCR5 chemokine receptor blocker, aims to mediate interactions driving inflammation and fibrosis. In a 2-year phase 2b multinational, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study for the treatment of NASH in 289 adults using cenicriviroc, year 1 results have demonstrated improvement in fibrosis without worsening of NASH for subjects who received cenicriviroc. The safety profile was also encouraging; the only drug-related treatment emergent adverse events with a grade of >2 and a frequency of >2% were fatigue (2.8%) and diarrhea (2.1%).(77) A Phase 3, A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of cenicriviroc for the treatment of fibrosis in NASH (AURORA) is currently underway. The primary outcome is improvement of fibrosis without worsening NASH. There are a number of other secondary outcomes.(77)

There are many more compounds undergoing evaluation in animal models to reverse existing fibrosis. Should any one of these prove effective in a clinical trial, it will likely have a catalyzing effect on the field. An exciting observation from antiviral trials has been the recognition that cure of hepatitis C virus or suppression of hepatitis B virus can often reverse cirrhosis, which was unimaginable decades ago.(76) Uncovering and exploiting mechanisms by which the liver innately degrades scar tissue in these diseases could yield new therapeutic approaches that could transform the outlook for patients with chronic fibrosing liver disease, including NASH.

Conclusions

Despite many advances in understanding the epidemiology of NAFLD and NASH, currently, the only available treatment for NAFLD/NASH is weight loss. One of the important challenges in the field of NASH is the lack of a reliable and noninvasive endpoint for NASH that can accurately serve as a surrogate for the hard outcome of mortality. In this context, there is still much debate about the appropriate endpoints for clinical trials of NASH. Although histologic assessment is currently the most widely used modality, it is a suboptimal and invasive approach. Nevertheless, resolution of NASH and/or improvement of fibrosis have been the currently accepted endpoints.

In this context, there are emerging therapies for NASH that include non-antifibrotic as well as antifibrotic regimens. Most recent clinical trials have focused on NASH and fibrosis as the most appropriate candidates for these regimens. Although most clinical trials have focused on monotherapy, the combination of different drugs targeting different pathogenic pathways in NASH may be more appropriate. There is much enthusiasm and interest in this area of liver disease, and a potential effective treatment is on the horizon.

Acknowledgment:

We thank Linda Henry for assistance with manuscript editing.

Potential conflicts of interest: Zobair M. Younossi consults for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Intercept, Gilead, Allergan, NovoNordisk, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline. He advises Vertex and Janssen. Mary E. Rinella consults for Intercept, Gilead, Immuron, NGM, Nusirt, Enanta, and Novartis. Elisabetta Bugianesi consults for Gilead and Genfit. Giulio Marchesini advises for and has received grants from Gilead and Eli Lilly. He has received grants from Novo Nordisk, Genfit, and Janssen. Brent A. Neuschwander-Tetri consults and advises for Nimbus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Enanta, Novartis, Galmed, Zafgen, Receptos, Pfizer, Allergan, MedImmue/AstraZeneca, ConSynance, Tobira, Karos, Afimmune, NuSirt, Arrowhead, Reset, Intercept, Gilead, Abide, and Cymabay. Francesco Negro consults for and has received grants from Gilead and AbbVie. He consults for Merck. Stephen H. Caldwell consults for Shionogi and Gencia. He has received grants from Gilead, Genfit, Galmed, NGM, Immuron, Conatus, Vital Therapy, Target, and TaiwanJ. Vlad Ratziu consults for and has received grants from Intercept. He consults for Galmed, Genfit, Boehringer-Ingelhim, Pfizer, and Allergan. He has received grants from Gilead. Scott L. Friedman consults for, has research contracts with, and owns stock in Scholar Rock. He consults for and has research contracts with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Enanta, and Zafgen. He consults and owns stock in Exalenz, Blade, DeuteRx, Galectin, Genfit, Glympse, Jecure, Lifemax, and Northern Biologics. He consults for Abide, Affimune, Allegan, Angion, Arubutus, Arrowheard, Avaliv, Axcella, Boehringer Ingelheim, Can-Fite, ChemomAb, Contravir, CymaBay, Five Prime, Fortress, Gemphire, Glycotest, Inception, Lexicon, Metacrine, Metagenix, Morphic Rock, Nitto, Novartis, Ocera, Perspectum, Pfizer, Revive, RiverVest, Roche/Genentech, Sandhill, Second Genome, Surrozen, Takeda, Teva, Third Rock, Tokai, Viking, Vivace, VL-45, X-Tuit, and Zydus. He has research contracts with AbbVie and 3V Bio. He owns stock in Akarna, BirdRock, Conatus, Intercept, Nimbus, and Tobira. Manal F. Abdelmalek advises for and has received grants from NGM, Bristol-Myers Squibb, TaiwanJ, and Allergan. She has received grants from Gilead, Galmed, Conatus, Intercept, Immuron, Excelenz, Madrigal, Shire, Galactin, Genfit, Boehringher Ingelheim, Metabolon, and Prometheus. Stephen A. Harrison consults for and owns stock in Cirius and Madrigal. He consults for Cymetrix, Novartis, Perspectum, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, Capulus, CiVi, NGM, CLDF, Genfit, Echosens, High Index, and Prometheus. He advises for Gilead. He is on the speakers’ bureau for Alexion. Arun J. Sanyal consults for and has received grants from Gilead, Malinckrodt, and Salix. He consults for and is employed by Sanyal Bio. He consults for Pfizer, Nimbus, Nitto Denko, Hemoshear, and Lilly. He has received grants from Conatus, Novartis, Galectin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Sequana. He has received royalties from Elsevier and Uptodate. He owns stock in Akarna, GenFit, and NewCo. Philippe Mathurin consults for and is on the speakers’ bureau for Gilead. He consults for Sanofi and Verlyx. Michael R. Charlton consults for and has received grants from Gilead, Intercept, NGM, Genfit, and Novartis. He has received grants from Conatus. Naga P. Chalasani consults for Lilly, AbbVie, Tobira (Allergan), Shire, Madrigal, Axovant, Afimmune, Nusirt, and Imuran. He has received grants from Gilead, Galectin, Intercept, and Cumberland. Quentin M. Anstee consults for, is on the speakers’ bureau for, and has received grants from Allergan/Tobira and Genfit. He consults and is on the speakers’ bureau for Abbott. He consults for and has received grants from Eli Lilly, Intercept, Novartis, and Pfizer. He consults for Acuitas, E3Bio, Galmed, Gilead, Grunthal, Imperial Innoations, Inventiva, Janssen, Kenes, MedImmune, NewGene, and Raptor. He is on the speakers’ bureau for Clinical Care Options. He has received grants from AbbVie, Antaros, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellegaard Gottigen, Exalenz, GlaxoSmithKline, Vertex, iXscient, Nordic Bioscience, Novo Nordisk, One Way Liver Genomics, Perspectum, Sanofi-Aventis, SomaLogic, and Takeda. Kris V. Kowdley consults for, advises for, is on the speakers’ bureau for, and has received grants from Gilead and Intercept. He advises for and has received grants from Allergan. He consults for Verlyx. He advises for Conatus. He has received grants from Galectin and Immuron. Zachary D. Goodman consults for and has received grants from Allergan. He consults for Pfizer. He received grants from Gilead, Galectin, Conatus, Exalenz, Intercept, Sanofi, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Abbreviations:

AASLD

American Association for the Study of Liver Disease

ACC

acyl co-A carboxylase

ASK-1

apoptosis signal-regulating kinase-1

FLINT

Farnesoid X Receptor Ligand Obeticholic Acid in NASH Treatment

FXR

farnesoid X receptor

GLP-1

glucagon-like peptide 1

LT

liver transplantation

MRE

Magnetic Resonance Elastography

NAFLD

nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

NAS

NAFLD Activity Score

NASH

nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

OCA

obeticholic acid

PIVENS

Pioglitazone versus Vitamin E versus Placebo for the Treatment of Nondiabetic Patients with Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis

PPARα/δ

peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha/delta

REGENERATE

Randomized Global Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Impact on NASH With Fibrosis of Obeticholic Acid Treatment

TE

transient elastography

REFERENCES

  • 1).Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, Fazel Y, Henry L, Wymer M. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease—meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. HEPATOLOGY 2016,64:73–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2).Argo CK, Caldwell SH. Epidemiology and natural history of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin Liver Dis 2009;13:511–531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3).Rinella M, Charlton M. The globalization of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: prevalence and impact on world health. HEPATOLOGY 2016;64:19–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4).Younossi ZM, Otgonsuren M, Henry L, Venkatesan C, Mishra A, Erario M, et al. Association of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the United States from 2004 to 2009. HEPATOLOGY 2015;62:1723–1730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5).Lonardo A, Ballestri S, Guaraldi G, Nascimbeni F, Romagnoli D, Zona S, et al. Fatty liver is associated with an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease—evidence from three different disease models: NAFLD, HCV and HIV. World J Gastroenterol 2016,22:9674–9693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6).Kleiner DE, Makhlouf HR. Histology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in adults and children. Clin Liver Dis 2016;20:293–312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7).Vilar-Gomez E, Martinez-Perez Y, Calzadilla-Bertot L, Torres-Gonzalez A, Gra-Oramas B, Gonzalez-Fabian L, et al. Weight loss through lifestyle modification significantly reduces features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology 2015;149:367–378.e5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8).Dulai PS, Singh S, Patel J, Soni M, Prokop LJ, Younossi Z, et al. Increased risk of mortality by fibrosis stage in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. HEPATOLOGY 2017;65: 1557–1565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9).Sanyal AJ, Friedman SL, McCullough AJ, Dimick-Santos L; American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; United States Food and Drug Administration. Challenges and opportunities in drug and biomarker development for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: findings and recommendations from an American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases–U.S. Food and Drug Administration Joint Workshop. HEPATOLOGY 2015;61:1392–1405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10).Golabi P, Sayiner M, Fazel Y, Koenig A, Henry L, Younossi ZM. Current complications and challenges in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis screening and diagnosis. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;10:63–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11).Chalasani NP, Sanyal AJ, Kowdley KV, Robuck PR, Hoofnagle J, Kleiner DE, et al. Pioglitazone vs vitamin E vs placebo for treatment of non-diabetic patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (PIVENS). N Engl J Med 2010;362:1675–1685.20427778 [Google Scholar]
  • 12).Armstrong MJ, Gaunt P, Aithal GP, Barton D, Hull D, Parker R, et al. Liraglutide safety and efficacy in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (LEAN): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Lancet 2016;387: 679–690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13).Younossi ZM, Stepanova M, Henry L, Racila A, Lam B, Pham HT, et al. A disease-specific quality of life instrument for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: CLDQ-NAFLD. Liver Int 2017;37:1209–1218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14).Kleiner DE, Brunt EM, Van Natta M, Behling C, Contos MJ, Cummings OW, et al. Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. HEPATOLOGY 2005;41:1313–1321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15).Hagström H, Nasr P, Ekstedt M, Hammar U, Stål P, Hultcrantz R, et al. Fibrosis stage but not NASH predicts mortality and time to development of severe liver disease in biopsy-proven NAFLD. J Hepatol 2017;67:1265–1273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16).Younossi Z, Stepanova M, Rafiq N, Makhlouf H, Younoszai Z, Agrawal R, et al. Pathologic criteria for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: interprotocol agreement and ability to predict liver-related mortality. HEPATOLOGY 2011;53:1874–1882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17).Stumptner C, Fuchsbichler A, Heid H, Zatloukal K, Denk H. Mallory body—a disease-associated type of sequestrosome. HEPATOLOGY 2002;35:1053–1062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18).Angulo P, Kleiner DE, Dam-Larsen S, Adams LA, Bjornsson ES, Charatcharoenwitthaya P, et al. Liver fibrosis, but no other histologic features, is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2015;149:389–397.e10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19).Ripoll C, Bañares R, Rincón D, Catalina MV, Lo Iacono O, Salcedo M, et al. Influence of hepatic venous pressure gradient on the prediction of survival of patients with cirrhosis in the MELD era. HEPATOLOGY 2005;42:793–801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20).Thoma C, Day CP, Trenell MI. Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adults: a systematic review. J Hepatol 2012;56:255–266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21).Glass LM, Dickson RC, Anderson JC, Suriawinata AA, Putra J, Berk BS, et al. Total body weight loss of ≥10% is associated with improved hepatic fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Dig Dis Sci 2015;60:1024–1030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22).Hannah WN Jr, Harrison SA. Lifestyle and dietary interventions in the management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Dig Dis Sci 2016;61:1365–1374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23).Wen CP, Wai JP, Tsai MK, Yang YC, Cheng TY, Lee MC, et al. Minimum amount of physical activity for reduced mortality and extended life expectancy: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 2011;378:1244–1253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24).Williams MA, Haskell WL, Ades PA, Amsterdam EA, Bittner V, Franklin BA, et al. Resistance exercise in individuals with and without cardiovascular disease: 2007 update—a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology and Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism. Circulation 2007;116:572–584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25).Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, Diehl AM, Brunt EM, Cusi K, et al. The 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. HEPATOLOGY 2012;55:2005–2023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26).Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, Charlton M, Cusi K, Rinella M, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. HEPATOLOGY 2017; doi: 10.1002/hep.29367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27).Keating SE, Hackett DA, Parker HM, O’Connor HT, Gerofi JA, Sainsbury A, et al. Effect of aerobic exercise training dose on liver fat and visceral adiposity. J Hepatol 2015;63:174–182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28).Sung KC, Ryu S, Lee JY, Kim JY, Wild SH, Byrne CD. Effect of exercise on the development of new fatty liver and the resolution of existing fatty liver. J Hepatol 2016;65:791–797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29).Hashida R, Kawaguchi T, Bekki M, Omoto M, Matsuse H, Nago T, et al. Aerobic vs. resistance exercise in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review. J Hepatol 2017;66:142–152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30).Ratziu V, Goodman Z, Sanyal A. Current efforts and trends in the treatment of NASH. J Hepatol 2015;62:S65–S75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31).Dyson JK, Anstee QM, McPherson S. Republished: non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a practical approach to treatment. Postgrad Med J 2015;91:92–101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32).Yu JG, Javorschi S, Hevener AL, Kruszynska YT, Norman RA, Sinha M, et al. The effect of thiazolidinediones on plasma adiponectin levels in normal, obese, and type 2 diabetic subjects. Diabetes 2002;51:2968–2974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33).Sanyal AJ, Chalasani N, Kowdley KV, McCullough A, Diehl AM, Bass NM, et al. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1675–1685. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34).Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Bernhardt C, Giral P, Halbron M, Lenaour G, et al. 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. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35).Ratziu V, Harrison SA, Francque S, Bedossa P, Lehert P, Serfaty L, et al. ; GOLDEN-505 Investigator Study Group. Elafibranor, an agonist of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α and -δ, induces resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without fibrosis worsening. Gastroenterology 2016;150:1147–1159.e5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36).Lutchman G, Modi A, Kleiner DE, Promrat K, Heller T, Ghany M, et al. The effects of discontinuing pioglitazone in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. HEPATOLOGY 2007;46: 424–429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37).Boettcher E, Csako G, Pucino F, Wesley R, Loomba R. Meta-analysis: pioglitazone improves liver histology and fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012;35:66–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38).Musso G, Cassader M, Paschetta E, Gambino R. Thiazolidinediones and advanced liver fibrosis in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:633–640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39).Kargiotis K, Athyros VG, Giouleme O, Katsiki N, Katsiki E, Anagnostis P, et al. Resolution of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis by rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with metabolic syndrome. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:7860–7868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40).Athyros VG, Tziomalos K, Gossios TD, Griva T, Anagnostis P, Kargiotis K, et al. Safety and efficacy of long-term statin treatment for cardiovascular events in patients with coronary heart disease and abnormal liver tests in the Greek Atorvastatin and Coronary Heart Disease Evaluation (GREACE) study: a posthoc analysis. Lancet 2010;376:1916–1922. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41).Singh S, Singh PP, Singh AG, Murad MH, Sanchez W. Statins are associated with a reduced risk of hepatocellular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2013;144: 323–332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42).Kim RG, Loomba R, Prokop LJ, Singh S. Statin use and risk of cirrhosis and related complications in patients with chronic liver diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15:1521–1530.e8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43).Loomba R, Sirlin CB, Ang B, Bettencourt R, Jain R, Salotti J, et al. ; San Diego Integrated NAFLD Research Consortium (SINC). Ezetimibe for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: assessment by novel magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance elastography in a randomized trial (MOZART trial). HEPATOLOGY 2015;61:1239–1250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44).Adams TD, Gress RE, Smith SC, Halverson RC, Simper SC, Rosamond WD, Lamonte MJ, Stroup AM, Hunt SC. Long-term mortality after gastric bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:753–761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45).Sjostrom L, Narbro K, Sjostrom CD, Karason K, Larsson B, Wedel H, et al. Effects of bariatric surgery on mortality in Swedish obese subjects. N Engl J Med 2007;357:741–752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46).Sjostrom L Peltonen M, Jacobson P, Sjostrom CD, Karason K, Wedel H, Ahlin S, et al. Bariatric surgery and long-term cardiovascular events. JAMA 2012;307:56–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47).Mingrone G, Panunzi S, De Gaetano A, Guidone C, Iaconelli A, Leccesi L, et al. Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1577–1585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48).Schauer PR, Kashyap SR, Wolski K, Brethauer SA, Kirwan JP, Pothier CE, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy in obese patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012;366: 1567–1576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49).Mathurin P, Hollebecque A, Arnalsteen L, Buob D, Leteurtre E, Caiazzo R, et al. Prospective study of the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on liver injury in patients without advanced disease. Gastroenterology 2009;137:532–540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50).Mathurin P, Gonzalez F, Kerdraon O, Leteurtre E, Arnalsteen L, Hollebecque A, et al. The evolution of severe steatosis after bariatric surgery is related to insulin resistance. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1617–1624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51).Dixon JB, Bhathal PS, Hughes NR, O’Brien PE. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: improvement in liver histological analysis with weight loss. HEPATOLOGY 2004;39:1647–1654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52).Lassailly G, Caiazzo R, Buob D, Pigeyre M, Verkindt H, Labreuche J, et al. Bariatric surgery reduces features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in morbidly obese patients. Gastroenterology 2015;149:379–388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53).NIH conference. Gastrointestinal surgery for severe obesity. Consensus Development Conference Panel. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115:956–961. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54).Wong RJ, Aguilar M, Cheung R, Perumpail RB, Harrison SA, Younossi ZM, et al. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is the second leading etiology of liver disease among adults awaiting liver transplantation in the United States. Gastroenterology 2015;148:547–555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55).Goldberg D, Ditah IC, Saeian K, Lalehzari M, Aronsohn A, Gorospe EC, et al. Changes in the prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, and alcoholic liver disease among patients with cirrhosis or liver failure on the waitlist for liver transplantation. Gastroenterology 2017; doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.01.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56).Charlton MR, Burns JM, Pedersen RA, Watt KD, Heimbach JK, Dierkhising RA. Frequency and outcomes of liver transplantation for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in the United States. Gastroenterology 2011;141:1249–1253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57).Wang X, Li J, Riaz DR, Shi G, Liu C, Dai Y. Outcomes of liver transplantation for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12: 394–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58).Abdelmalek MF, Diehl AM. De novo nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2007;13:788–790. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Dare AJ, Plank LD, Phillips AR, Gane EJ, Harrison B, Orr D, et al. Additive effect of pretransplant obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular risk factors on outcomes after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2014;20:281–290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60).Stepanova M, Henry L, Garg R, Kalwaney S, Saab S, Younossi Z. Risk of de novo post-transplant type 2 diabetes in patients undergoing liver transplant for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. BMC Gastroenterol 2015;15:175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61).Loomba R, Wolfson T, Ang B, Hooker J, Behling C, Peterson M, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography predicts advanced fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective study. HEPATOLOGY 2014;60:1920–1928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62).Everhart JE, Lombardero M, Lake JR, Wiesner RH, Zetterman RK, Hoofnagle JH. Weight change and obesity after liver transplantation: incidence and risk factors. Liver Transpl Surg 1900;4: 285–296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63).Satapathy SK, Charlton MR. Posttransplant metabolic syndrome: new evidence of an epidemic and recommendations for management. Liver Transpl 2011;17:1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64).Lee YA, Wallace MC, Friedman SL. Pathobiology of liver fibrosis: a translational success story. Gut 2015;64:830–841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65).Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Loomba R, Sanyal AJ, Lavine JE, Van Natta ML, Abdelmalek MF, et al. ; NASH Clinical Research Network. Farnesoid X nuclear receptor ligand obeticholic acid for non-cirrhotic, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (FLINT): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385: 956–965. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66).Loomba R, Lawitz E, Mantry PS, Jayakumar S, Caldwell SH, Arnold H, et al. GS-4997, an inhibitor of apoptosis signal-regulating kinase (ASK1), alone or in combination with simtuzumab for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH): a randomized, phase 2 trial [Abstract LB3]. Presented at the AASLD Liver Meeting 2016; November 11–15, 2016; Boston, MA. [Google Scholar]
  • 67).Gilead Sciences. Safety and efficacy of selonsertib in adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and bridging (F3) fibrosis (STELLAR 3). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03053050 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03053050. Published February 14, 2017. Accessed July 24, 2017.
  • 68).Lawitz E, Poordad F, Coste A, Loo N, Djedjos S, McColgan, et al. Acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitor GS-0976 leads to suppression of hepatic de novo lipogenesis and significant improvements in MRI-PDFF, MRE and markers of fibrosis after 12 weeks of therapy in patients with NASH [Abstract]. Presented at: The International Liver Congress 2017; April 19–23, 2017; Amsterdam, Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  • 69).Ekstedt M, Hagstrom H, Nasr P, Fredrikson M, Stal P, Kechagias S, et al. Fibrosis stage is the strongest predictor for disease-specific mortality in NAFLD after up to 33 years of follow-up. HEPATOLOGY 2015;61:1547–1554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70).Trepo, E, Potthoff A, Pradat P, Bakshi R, Young B, Lagier R, et al. Role of a cirrhosis risk score for the early prediction of fibrosis progression in hepatitis C patients with minimal liver disease. J Hepatol 2011;55:38–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71).Tsochatzis E, Bruno S, Isgro G, Hall A, Theocharidou E, Manousou P, et al. Collagen proportionate area is superior to other histological methods for sub-classifying cirrhosis and determining prognosis. J Hepatol 2014;60:948–954. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72).Goodman ZD, Stoddard AM, Bonkovsky HL, Fontana RJ, Ghany MG, Morgan TR, et al. Fibrosis progression in chronic hepatitis C: morphometric image analysis in the HALT-C trial. HEPATOLOGY 2009;50:1738–1749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73).Huang H, Shiffman ML, Friedman S, Venkatesh R, Bzowej N, Abar OT, et al. A 7 gene signature identifies the risk of developing cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. HEPATOLOGY 2007;46:297–306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74).D’Ambrosio R, Aghemo A, Rumi MG, Ronchi G, Donato MF, Paradis V, et al. A morphometric and immunohistochemical study to assess the benefit of a sustained virological response in hepatitis C virus patients with cirrhosis. HEPATOLOGY 2012;56: 532–543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75).Yoon YJ, Friedman SL, Lee YA. Antifibrotic therapies: where are we now? Semin Liver Dis 2016;36:87–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76).Marcellin P, Gane E, Buti M, Afdhal N, Sievert W, Jacobson IM, et al. Regression of cirrhosis during treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for chronic hepatitis B: a 5-year open-label follow-up study. Lancet 2013;381:468–475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77).PR Newswire Press Release. New data from CENTAUR phase 2b clinical study supports continued development of Cenicriviroc (CVC) in ongoing phase 3 AURORA trial http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/New-Data-from-CENTAUR-Phase-2b-Clinical-Study-Supports-Continued-Development-of-Cenicriviroc-CVC-in-Ongoing-Phase-3-AURORA-Trial-1002422450. Published September 22, 2017. Accessed October 17, 2017.

RESOURCES