Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a major cause of chronic liver disease globally and in India. The already high burden of NAFLD in India is expected to further increase in the future in parallel with the ongoing epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Given the high prevalence of NAFLD in the community, it is crucial to identify those at risk of progressive liver disease to streamline referral and guide proper management. Existing guidelines on NAFLD by various international societies fail to capture the entire landscape of NAFLD in India and are often difficult to incorporate in clinical practice due to fundamental differences in sociocultural aspects and health infrastructure available in India. A lot of progress has been made in the field of NAFLD in the 7 years since the initial position paper by the Indian National Association for the Study of Liver on NAFLD in 2015. Further, the ongoing debate on the nomenclature of NAFLD is creating undue confusion among clinical practitioners. The ensuing comprehensive review provides consensus-based, guidance statements on the nomenclature, diagnosis, and treatment of NAFLD that are practically implementable in the Indian setting.

The diagnostic assessment of liver injury is an important step in the management of patients with chronic liver disease (CLD). Although liver biopsy is the reference standard for the assessment of necroinflammation and fibrosis, the inherent limitations of an invasive procedure, and need for repeat sampling, have led to the development of several non-invasive tests (NITs) as alternatives to liver biopsy. Such non-invasive approaches mostly include biological (serum biomarker algorithms) or physical (imaging assessment of tissue stiffness) assessments. However, currently available NITs have several limitations, such as variability, inadequate accuracy and risk factors for error, while the development of a newer generation of biomarkers for fibrosis may be limited by the sampling error inherent to the reference standard. Many of the current NITs were initially developed to diagnose significant fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C, subsequently refined for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and further adapted for prognostication in CLD. An important consideration is that despite their increased use in clinical practice, these NITs were not designed to reflect the dynamic process of fibrogenesis, differentiate between adjacent disease stages, diagnose non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, or follow longitudinal changes in fibrosis or disease activity caused by natural history or therapeutic intervention. Understanding the strengths and limitations of these NITs will allow for more judicious interpretation in the clinical context, where NITs should be viewed as complementary to, rather than as a replacement for, liver biopsy.