This conversation ties up several issues related to MASH and the new MASLD nomenclature that the panel did not touch on earlier in the episode. These range from the impact the nomenclature might have on other elements of treatment to the impact of this effort over time. Finally, the panelists grade the process to date (they admit, their views might be a bit biased) and signs of success. 

Roger Green starts this conversation by asking what impact panelists believe the new MASLD nomenclature might have on NITs. From one perspective, Meena Bansal notes that it should have no impact given that NAFLD/NASH and MASLD/MASH map so similarly on top of one another. From a different perspective, Jeff Lazarus asks whether the nomenclature and accompanying guidelines from professional societies will result in more testing. The group aligns around the idea that patients living with Type 2 diabetes are an excellent target for increased testing with NITs given the high overlap of the two groups. Maru Rinella comments specifically that all efforts to tie T2DM to MASLD as frequently common metabolic diseases will be helpful and that discussing the proper use of NITs might be one way to make this connection. Louise Campbell agrees that increased focus on "Healthy Livers, Healthy Lives" will drive exactly these kinds of discussions. The rest of the episode consists of Roger asking panelists three questions, to which they respond: 

1. What might change over the next year or two? Meena believese that approval of a drug will drive significant growth in the learning curve and, with that, enhanced disease awareness and understanding. Jeff suggests that this will not take the form of a transition from NAFLD to MASLD, but instead that people first learning about the disease will use the new nomenclature properly. Mike Betel notes that on the Fatty Liver Alliance website, ~98% of searches are simply for "fatty liver disease." Over time, he anticipates this will change and also that websites like FLA will address "fatty liver" queries in terms of new nomenclature. 
2. Impact on ICD codes. Meena, who is doing significant work in this area, answers that the goal is to have no impact but simply a smooth cutover. 
3. How the group would grade its work on this activity to date. As Jeff notes, answers from the people who led the process are likely to be quite biased, but all gave fairly high grades.