investments to support countries with greatest burden of viral hepatitis All heavily burdened countries to have fully funded elimination plans by 2019 Recognition of need to focus on high burden countries and support for national policy development (All) Funding for national elimination plans Creation of fiscal space for new programmes with costed investment programmes Adopt domestic innovative finance tools where appropriate Support national policy makers in their activity (WHO, UNITAID, NGOs) Provide international support for financing measures (UNITAID, GFATM, bilaterial donors) Prevention Ensure all WHO elimination targets addressed in plans Address operational challenges in delivery of birth dose HBV vaccine Ensure provision of harm reduction services and engage with marginalised group (e.g. prisoners, PWIDs). Ensure clear public health messages to encourage testing and treatment Support countries to decriminalise injecting drug use and ensure equitable access to services for all (NGOs, WHO, civil society) Ensure appropriate funding for HBV vaccine, including birth dose (GAVI, WHO) Support R&D into HCV vaccine development (Research funders and pharma) Testing and Models of Care Focus on substantially scaling up testing for HBV and HCV Create and evaluate simplified care pathways relevant to local setting, integrating with existing services. Promote task sharing and decentralisation of care through capacity building, training and removal of Support operational research into simplified pathways (Research funders, UNITAID) requirements for specialised prescribing Diagnostics Ensure testing is integrated into the wider healthcare system, rather than centralised facilties Ensure access to quality diagnostics through Essential Diagnostic List and prequalification (WHO, funders) Support implementation science for models of care and R&D into novel diagnostics suitable for decentralised settings. (Research funders, FIND, industry) Access to treatment Ensure all Essential Medicines for viral hepatitis are included in national programmes, with an emphasis on pan-genotypic regimens Apply comprehensive policy approach to promoting access, including compulsory licensing Ensure all essential medicines are pre-qualified and either available through voluntary licensing or Medicines Patent Pool (WHO, NGOs, civil society, funders) Support shared procurement mechanisms for treatment (PAHO) Monitor Progress National plans need clearly defined, measurable objectives Develop new indices of national progress Progress of individual countries needs to be closely monitored towards elimination goals (Polaris, WHO, Creation of Elimination Index) Develop greater capacity for advocacy in high burden regions (all) Viral hepatitis is one of the leading causes of death in the world. 96% of those deaths are due to hepatitis B and C, which are the focus of this commission. Unlike many other major diseases, the tools exist to eliminate viral hepatitis. A highly effective vaccine is available to prevent hepatitis B, and a revolution in HCV treat...

No abstract

The principal limitations of the terms NAFLD and NASH are the reliance on exclusionary confounder terms and the use of potentially stigmatising language. This study set out to determine if content experts and patient advocates were in favor of a change in nomenclature and/or definition. A modified Delphi process was led by three large pan-national liver associations. The consensus was defined a priori as a supermajority (67%) vote. An independent committee of experts external to the nomenclature process made the final recommendation on the acronym and its diagnostic criteria. A total of 236 panelists from 56 countries participated in 4 online surveys and 2 hybrid meetings. Response rates across the 4 survey rounds were 87%, 83%, 83%, and 78%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change. The terms “nonalcoholic” and “fatty” were felt to be stigmatising by 61% and 66% of respondents, respectively. Steatotic liver disease was chosen as an overarching term to encompass the various aetiologies of steatosis. The term steatohepatitis was felt to be an important pathophysiological concept that should be retained. The name chosen to replace NAFLD was metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. There was consensus to change the definition to include the presence of at least 1 of 5 cardiometabolic risk factors. Those with no metabolic parameters and no known cause were deemed to have cryptogenic steatotic liver disease. A new category, outside pure metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, termed metabolic and alcohol related/associated liver disease (MetALD), was selected to describe those with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140–350 g/wk and 210–420 g/wk for females and males, respectively). The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported and nonstigmatising, and can improve awareness and patient identification.

No abstract

No abstract

HighlightsAbout a third of countries (n = 32/102) scored zero on the preparedness index.No country had a national or sub-national strategy for NAFLD.NAFLD was rarely mentioned in the strategies of related conditions such as diabetes.Only 32 countries had national NAFLD clinical guidelines.A comprehensive NAFLD public health response is lacking in all 102 countries.

No abstract

No abstract