Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is currently the most prevalent chronic liver disease in Western countries, affecting approximately 25% of the adult population. This condition encompasses a spectrum of liver diseases characterized by abnormal accumulation of fat in liver tissue (non-alcoholic fatty liver, NAFL) that can progress to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), characterized by the presence of liver inflammation and damage. The latter form often coexists with liver fibrosis which, in turn, may progress to a state of cirrhosis and, potentially, hepatocarcinoma, both irreversible processes that often lead to the patient’s death and/or the need for liver transplantation. Along with the high associated economic burden, the high mortality rate among NAFLD patients raises interest, not only in the search for novel therapeutic approaches, but also in early diagnosis and prevention to reduce the incidence of NAFLD-related complications. In this line, an exhaustive characterization of the immune status of patients with NAFLD is mandatory. Herein, we attempted to gather and compare the current and relevant scientific evidence on this matter, mainly on human reports. We addressed the current knowledge related to circulating cellular and soluble mediators, particularly platelets, different leukocyte subsets and relevant inflammatory soluble mediators.

Background and Aims: Metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) seems unavoidable and gradual. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy in the post‐LT setting of patients transplanted for metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatohepatitis (MASH) of recurrent hepatic steatosis and fibrosis identified with FibroScan, compared to biopsy findings.Methods: This prospective cohort study included adults transplanted for MASH between 2010 and 2022 in three LT centres in Spain who underwent FibroScan and biopsy at least 1‐year after LT.Results: In total, 44 patients transplanted for MASH after LT were included. The median time from LT to biopsy and FibroScan was 24.5 (interquartile range [IQR]:16–46) and 26.0 (IQR: 16.8–41.5) months, respectively. The median time between biopsy and FibroScan was 2.0 (IQR: 0–5) months. On FibroScan, significant steatosis was diagnosed in about half of the patients (n = 21, 47.7%), yet advanced fibrosis in only two cases (4.6%). On biopsy, a quarter of biopsied patients (n = 11, 25%) had a MASH diagnosis, two (4.6%) with significant fibrosis and one (2.3%) with cirrhosis. All patients with liver stiffness measurement (LSM) values <8 kPa (n = 35, 79.5%) had a fibrosis stage ≤F1 (negative predictive value = 100%). The combination of post‐LT hypertension (odds ratio [OR]: 12.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8–80.4, p = .010) and post‐LT dyslipidaemia (OR: 7.9, 95% CI: 1.3–47.1, p = .024) with LSM (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.8, p = .030) was independently associated with MASLD.Conclusions: Although biopsy remains the gold standard for detecting fibrosis, our results suggest that LSM values <8 kPa after LT for MASH are strongly correlated with absence of significant/advanced fibrosis.

Background & Aims: Several hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk‐models have been developed to individualise patient surveillance following sustained viral response (SVR) in Hepatitis C Virus patients. Validation of these models in different cohorts is an important step to incorporate a more personalised risk assessment in clinical practice. We aimed at applying these models to stratify the risk in our patients and potentially determine cost‐saving associated with individualised HCC risk‐stratification screening strategy. Methods: Patients with baseline F3‐4 fibrosis treated with new oral direct‐acting antivirals who had reached a SVR were regularly followed as part of the HCC surveillance strategy. Six models were applied: Pons, aMAP, Ioannou, HCC risk, Alonso and Semmler. Validation of the models was performed based on sensitivity and the proportion of patients labelled as “high risk”. Results: After excluding 557 with less than 3 fibrosis, 12 without SVR, 18 with a follow up (FU) <1 year, 17 transplant recipients, 16 lost to FU and 31 with HCC at time of antiviral therapy, our cohort consisted of 349 F3‐4 SVR patients. Twenty‐three patients (6.6%) developed HCC after a median FU of 5.12 years. The sensitivity of the different models varied between 0.17 (Semmler7noalcohol) and 1 (Alonso A and aMAP). The lowest proportion of high‐risk patients corresponded to the Semmler‐noalcohol model (5%). Sixty‐three and 90% of the Alonso A and aMAP patients, respectively were labelled as high risk. The most reliable HCC risk‐model applied to our cohort to predict HCC development is the Alonso model (based on fibrosis stage assessed by liver stiffness measurements or Fibrosis‐4 index (FIB‐4) at baseline and after 1 year, and albumin levels at 1 year) with a‐100% sensitivity in detecting HCC among those at high risk and 63% labelled as high risk. The application of the model would have saved the cost of 1290 ultrasound no longer being performed in the 37% low‐risk group. Conclusion: In our cohort, the Alonso A model allows the most reliable reduction in HCC screening resulting in safely stopping life‐long monitoring in about a third of F3‐F4 patients achieving SVR with DAAs.