An Australian Community-Based Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease Care Pathway for People with Type 2 Diabetes: Barriers and Considerations

Abstract

Lucy Gracen,1 Melanie Aikebuse,2,3 Babak Sarraf,2– 4 Steven M McPhail,5 Anthony W Russell,6 James O’Beirne,7 Katharine M Irvine,8 Suzanne Williams,9 Patricia C Valery,4,* Elizabeth E Powell2– 4,* 1Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia; 2Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia; 3Centre for Liver Disease Research, Faculty of Medicine, Translational Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia; 4QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 5Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation School of Public Health, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 6Endocrinology and Diabetes, the Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 7Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sunshine Coast University Hospital, Birtinya, QLD, Australia; 8Mater Research, Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 9Inala Primary Care General Practice, Inala, QLD, Australia*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Elizabeth E Powell, Centre for Liver Disease Research, Faculty of Medicine, Translational, Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Level 5, West Wing, 37, Kent Street, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia, Tel [phone], Email [email protected]: Although clinical guidelines endorse screening for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) with advanced fibrosis in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the feasibility of and barriers and considerations relevant to implementing this approach in the community remain unclear.Methods: Sequential adults with T2D attending selected community clinics during 2021– 2023 were invited to receive a “liver health check” (n=543). A further 95 participants were referred directly from their general practitioner (GP) or self-referred to the study. A total of 302 participants underwent a point of care assessment of hepatic steatosis and stiffness (FibroScan) and were advised to see their GP to discuss the results. “Template” letters containing key results, their interpretation and advice about management of cardiometabolic risk, patient follow-up and referral criteria, were sent to participants’ GPs.Results: Referral to a tertiary liver clinic was advised in GP letters for 45 (15%) participants with an increased risk of clinically significant fibrosis (liver stiffness measurement ≥ 8), 15 participants with ‘red flags’ (eg splenomegaly, thrombocytopenia) and 2 with unsuccessful FibroScan examinations. A referral from GPs to the liver clinic was received for 27 (44%) of these 62 participants. Approximately 90% of GPs rated the “template” letters favourably on a Likert rating scale.Conclusion: The low rate of participation in the “liver health check” and liver clinic referral reflects a real-world scenario and may stem from societal under-recognition and engagement with MASLD, competing health priorities or under-appreciation of the link between liver fibrosis severity and mortality risk. Further studies need to address strategies to enhance participation in liver health assessments and determine their impact on liver-related morbidity/mortality and overall survival.Keywords: NAFLD, primary care, chronic liver disease, FibroScan

Keywords

• nafld
• primary care
• chronic liver disease
• fibroscan