1 Department of Medicine, Beatty Center for Liver and Obesity Research, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA 22042, United States. firstname.lastname@example.org.
2 Center for the Study of Chronic Illness and Disability, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States.
3 Beatty Center for Liver and Obesity Research, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA 22042, United States.
4 Department of Medicine, Beatty Center for Liver and Obesity Research, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA 22042, United States.
The mechanisms of fatigue in the group of people with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis are protean. The liver is central in the pathogenesis of fatigue because it uniquely regulates much of the storage, release and production of substrate for energy generation. It is exquisitely sensitive to the feedback controlling the uptake and release of these energy generation substrates. Metabolic contributors to fatigue, beginning with the uptake of substrate from the gut, the passage through the portal system to hepatic storage and release of energy to target organs (muscle and brain) are central to understanding fatigue in patients with chronic liver disease. Inflammation either causing or resulting from chronic liver diseasecontributes to fatigue, although inflammation has not been demonstrated to be causal. It is this unique combination of factors, the nexus of metabolic abnormality and the inflammatory burden of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis that creates pathways to different types of fatigue. Many use the terms central and peripheral fatigue. Central fatigue is characterized by a lack of self-motivation and can manifest both in physical and mental activities. Peripheral fatigue is classically manifested by neuromuscular dysfunction and muscle weakness. Therefore, the distinction is often seen as a difference between intention (central fatigue) versus ability (peripheral fatigue). New approaches to measuring fatigue include the use of objective measures as well as patient reported outcomes. These measures have improved the precision with which we are able to describe fatigue. The measures of fatigue severity and its impact on usual daily routines in this population have also been improved, and they are more generally accepted as reliable and sensitive. Several approaches to evaluating fatigue and developing endpoints for treatment have relied of biosignatures associated with fatigue. These have been used singly or in combination and include: physical performance measures, cognitive performance measures, mood/behavioral measures, brain imaging and serological measures. Treatment with non-pharmacological agents have been shown to be effective in symptom reduction, whereas pharmacological agents have not been shown effective.