Topic: The Evolving Nomenclature of the Metabolic Fatty Liver Syndromes: NAFLD/NASH and MAFLD/MASLD

 Related Webinar: https://www.oaepublish.com/webinars/mtod.249

Over time, the nomenclature concerning "metabolic fatty liver syndromes" (MFLS), i.e., nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease/ metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (NAFLD/NASH and MAFLD/MASLD) has undergone multiple iterations, ranging from "fatty liver" to "fatty infiltration of the liver",  "hepatic steatosis",  "diabetic hepatitis",  "alcohol-like liver disease in the nonalcoholic", "bright liver syndrome", "metabolic fatty liver disorders", and  "metabolic fatty liver disease", among others.

Key milestones include the introduction of  "NASH" by Ludwig et al. in 1980,  "NAFLD" by Schaffner and Thaler in 1986,  "MAFLD" by Eslam et al. in 2020, and the recent addition of  "MASLD" by Rinella et al. in 2023.

Various factors, both medical and non-medical, have prompted these changes. Medical drivers seek to establish positive diagnostic criteria (metabolic dysfunction-associated) as opposed to negative ones (nonalcoholic). Non-medical factors aim to mitigate stigmatization linked with terms like  "nonalcoholic" and  "fatty", which can vary dramatically across cultures, geographical areas, and populations, partly leading to confusion among hepatologists.

Determining an optimal nomenclature for MFLS presents challenges. It should be easily intelligible by most people, support precision medicine approaches by categorizing homogenous subsets of patients with similar disease trajectories. Importantly, it should gain consensus among stakeholders such as patients, physicians, nurses, healthcare providers, policymakers, investigators, clinicians, and industries involved in the research of new drugs and the manufacturing of diagnostic tools and devices.

Advancement of science relies on the generation and analysis of new data, and defining nomenclature for MFLS is no exception. The capacity of each nomenclature to pinpoint specific patient populations and delineate diverse disease trajectories warrants empirical evaluation to weigh their merits and drawbacks.

Within this rapidly evolving scenario, the present Special Issue focuses on all types of contributions, including Letters to the Editor, Editorials, Comments, Perspectives, Original and Review articles pertaining to the various nomenclatures of MFLS: NAFLD/NASH, and MAFLD/MASLD. Additionally, investigations on stigma associated with the MFLS are also welcomed.

The author list from the Special Issue:

1. Christopher D. Byrne from National Institute for Health and Care Research, Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton and University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.

2. Giovanni Targher from Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona 37126, Italy.

3. Stefano Ciardullo from Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.

4. Andrea Dalbeni from Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.

5. David Sacerdoti from Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.

6. Amedeo Lonardo from Department of Internal Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Modena 41126, Italy.

7. Bruno Ramos-Molina from Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain.

8. Mohammed Eslam from The University of Sydne, Sydney, Australia.

9. Madhusudana Girija Sanal, from Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences New Delhi, Delhi India. 

10. Mohamed El-Kassas, from Helwan University, Helwan, Egypt.
11. Mohamad Jamalinia from Gastroenterohepatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

31 Jul 2024