User login
WASHINGTON – Patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis (AAH) have similar early post–liver transplant outcomes to those listed with fulminant hepatic failure, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Patients with severe AAH have high mortality, but many are unable to survive the 6 months of sobriety required to be accepted as liver transplant candidates, said George Cholankeril, MD, of the gastroenterology and hepatology department at Stanford (Calif.) University.
He and his associates studied wait-list mortality and post–liver transplant survival among 1,912 patients listed for either AAH or fulminant hepatic failure on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry between 2011 and 2016.
A total of 193 patients were listed with AAH, 314 were listed with drug-induced liver injury including acetaminophen (DILI-APAP), and 1,405 were listed as non-DILI patients.
One-year post–liver transplant survival among AAH patients was 93.3%, compared with 87.75% for DILI-APAP patients and 88.4% among non-DILI patients (P less than .001). Survival remained the same among AAH patients 3 years following transplantation, but rates dropped for both the DILI-APAP group (80.8%) and the non-DILI group (81.4%), Dr. Cholankeril reported.
Patients were a median age of 45, 33, and 46 years among the AAH, DILI-APAP, and non-DILI, groups respectively. Patients were majority white among all three groups, with a significantly larger female population among the DILI-APAP group (80.6%) than the AAH (34.7%) or non-DILI (59.4%) groups. Patients in the AAH group had a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 32, compared with 34 for DILI-APAP and 21 for non-DILI.
AAH patients could potentially see significant improvement with a liver transplant, according to investigators; however, the current standards for candidacy have created treatment barriers.
“Patients with AAH have comparable early post-transplant outcomes to those with hepatic liver failure,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “However, there is no consensus or national guidelines for liver transplantation within this patient population.”
Wait-list trends have already started to shift toward more AAH patient acceptance. The number of AAH patients added to the transplant wait lists increased from 14 in 2011 to 58 in 2016. Investigators also found that the number of liver transplant centers accepting AAH patients to their transplant lists increased from 3 to 26.
Investigators were limited by the variations in protocols for each transplant center, as well as by the inconsistency of pre–liver transplant psychosocial metrics. The diagnostic criteria of AAH through UNOS was also a limitation for investigators, according to Dr. Cholankeril.
Although liver transplantation may be able to help some patients, it is only a small fix for a much larger problem. “This is only a solution for a minority of patients with the rising epidemic of alcoholic intoxication in the U.S.,” he said. “As the increasing mortality trends show alcohol-related mortality, and alcoholic liver disease is a contributor to it, we must recognize alcoholic liver disease remains an orphan disease and there is still an unmet need.”
Dr. Cholankeril reported no relevant financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
Transplanting patients with alcohol induced liver disease has been controversial since the earliest days of liver transplantation. Initially some programs were reluctant to transplant patients with a disease that was “self-inflicted” based on an ethical concern about using a scarce resource to save the lives of those whose disease was their own fault, while other patients may die waiting. There was also a concern that transplanting alcoholics would be bad publicity for organ donation and reduce the public’s willingness to donate organs. The highly publicized transplantation of baseball legend and known alcoholic Mickey Mantle in 1995 intensified this debate.
Over time it became clear that the concerns regarding transplanting alcoholics were unfounded. The outcomes were equal or better than for other diseases. Liver transplantation was termed “the ultimate eye opening experience” as serious recidivism turned out to be very uncommon. It was realized that a large percentage of all reasons for seeking medical care can be attributed to self-inflicted harm when one considers cigarette induced malignancy and cardiovascular disease and dietary indiscretion leading to obesity and diabetes. It also became clear that from a practical standpoint prohibiting transplantation of alcoholics simply drove patients to programs that would accept such patients, or caused them and their family to withhold disclosure of alcohol use.
While transplantation of patients with chronic liver disease due to alcohol use has become standard of care, transplanting patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis remains controversial and relatively uncommon. Many programs require a period of abstinence, which is impossible in the setting of acute alcoholic hepatitis. The concern is that it is impossible to discern among actively drinking candidates which ones will be able to achieve sobriety after the transplant. The report by Cholankeril and colleagues documents that the tide is changing. There are increasing numbers of patients being transplanted for acute alcoholic hepatitis, and outcomes are acceptable. However, as the authors point out, the numbers are small and represent a highly selected group of patients. Nevertheless, the pressure on programs to modify rigid abstinence criteria is likely to grow as the evidence accumulates showing selected patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis can do well.
Jeffrey Punch, MD, FACS, is transplant specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and on the Editorial Advisory Board of ACS Surgery News.
Transplanting patients with alcohol induced liver disease has been controversial since the earliest days of liver transplantation. Initially some programs were reluctant to transplant patients with a disease that was “self-inflicted” based on an ethical concern about using a scarce resource to save the lives of those whose disease was their own fault, while other patients may die waiting. There was also a concern that transplanting alcoholics would be bad publicity for organ donation and reduce the public’s willingness to donate organs. The highly publicized transplantation of baseball legend and known alcoholic Mickey Mantle in 1995 intensified this debate.
Over time it became clear that the concerns regarding transplanting alcoholics were unfounded. The outcomes were equal or better than for other diseases. Liver transplantation was termed “the ultimate eye opening experience” as serious recidivism turned out to be very uncommon. It was realized that a large percentage of all reasons for seeking medical care can be attributed to self-inflicted harm when one considers cigarette induced malignancy and cardiovascular disease and dietary indiscretion leading to obesity and diabetes. It also became clear that from a practical standpoint prohibiting transplantation of alcoholics simply drove patients to programs that would accept such patients, or caused them and their family to withhold disclosure of alcohol use.
While transplantation of patients with chronic liver disease due to alcohol use has become standard of care, transplanting patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis remains controversial and relatively uncommon. Many programs require a period of abstinence, which is impossible in the setting of acute alcoholic hepatitis. The concern is that it is impossible to discern among actively drinking candidates which ones will be able to achieve sobriety after the transplant. The report by Cholankeril and colleagues documents that the tide is changing. There are increasing numbers of patients being transplanted for acute alcoholic hepatitis, and outcomes are acceptable. However, as the authors point out, the numbers are small and represent a highly selected group of patients. Nevertheless, the pressure on programs to modify rigid abstinence criteria is likely to grow as the evidence accumulates showing selected patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis can do well.
Jeffrey Punch, MD, FACS, is transplant specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and on the Editorial Advisory Board of ACS Surgery News.
Transplanting patients with alcohol induced liver disease has been controversial since the earliest days of liver transplantation. Initially some programs were reluctant to transplant patients with a disease that was “self-inflicted” based on an ethical concern about using a scarce resource to save the lives of those whose disease was their own fault, while other patients may die waiting. There was also a concern that transplanting alcoholics would be bad publicity for organ donation and reduce the public’s willingness to donate organs. The highly publicized transplantation of baseball legend and known alcoholic Mickey Mantle in 1995 intensified this debate.
Over time it became clear that the concerns regarding transplanting alcoholics were unfounded. The outcomes were equal or better than for other diseases. Liver transplantation was termed “the ultimate eye opening experience” as serious recidivism turned out to be very uncommon. It was realized that a large percentage of all reasons for seeking medical care can be attributed to self-inflicted harm when one considers cigarette induced malignancy and cardiovascular disease and dietary indiscretion leading to obesity and diabetes. It also became clear that from a practical standpoint prohibiting transplantation of alcoholics simply drove patients to programs that would accept such patients, or caused them and their family to withhold disclosure of alcohol use.
While transplantation of patients with chronic liver disease due to alcohol use has become standard of care, transplanting patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis remains controversial and relatively uncommon. Many programs require a period of abstinence, which is impossible in the setting of acute alcoholic hepatitis. The concern is that it is impossible to discern among actively drinking candidates which ones will be able to achieve sobriety after the transplant. The report by Cholankeril and colleagues documents that the tide is changing. There are increasing numbers of patients being transplanted for acute alcoholic hepatitis, and outcomes are acceptable. However, as the authors point out, the numbers are small and represent a highly selected group of patients. Nevertheless, the pressure on programs to modify rigid abstinence criteria is likely to grow as the evidence accumulates showing selected patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis can do well.
Jeffrey Punch, MD, FACS, is transplant specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and on the Editorial Advisory Board of ACS Surgery News.
WASHINGTON – Patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis (AAH) have similar early post–liver transplant outcomes to those listed with fulminant hepatic failure, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Patients with severe AAH have high mortality, but many are unable to survive the 6 months of sobriety required to be accepted as liver transplant candidates, said George Cholankeril, MD, of the gastroenterology and hepatology department at Stanford (Calif.) University.
He and his associates studied wait-list mortality and post–liver transplant survival among 1,912 patients listed for either AAH or fulminant hepatic failure on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry between 2011 and 2016.
A total of 193 patients were listed with AAH, 314 were listed with drug-induced liver injury including acetaminophen (DILI-APAP), and 1,405 were listed as non-DILI patients.
One-year post–liver transplant survival among AAH patients was 93.3%, compared with 87.75% for DILI-APAP patients and 88.4% among non-DILI patients (P less than .001). Survival remained the same among AAH patients 3 years following transplantation, but rates dropped for both the DILI-APAP group (80.8%) and the non-DILI group (81.4%), Dr. Cholankeril reported.
Patients were a median age of 45, 33, and 46 years among the AAH, DILI-APAP, and non-DILI, groups respectively. Patients were majority white among all three groups, with a significantly larger female population among the DILI-APAP group (80.6%) than the AAH (34.7%) or non-DILI (59.4%) groups. Patients in the AAH group had a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 32, compared with 34 for DILI-APAP and 21 for non-DILI.
AAH patients could potentially see significant improvement with a liver transplant, according to investigators; however, the current standards for candidacy have created treatment barriers.
“Patients with AAH have comparable early post-transplant outcomes to those with hepatic liver failure,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “However, there is no consensus or national guidelines for liver transplantation within this patient population.”
Wait-list trends have already started to shift toward more AAH patient acceptance. The number of AAH patients added to the transplant wait lists increased from 14 in 2011 to 58 in 2016. Investigators also found that the number of liver transplant centers accepting AAH patients to their transplant lists increased from 3 to 26.
Investigators were limited by the variations in protocols for each transplant center, as well as by the inconsistency of pre–liver transplant psychosocial metrics. The diagnostic criteria of AAH through UNOS was also a limitation for investigators, according to Dr. Cholankeril.
Although liver transplantation may be able to help some patients, it is only a small fix for a much larger problem. “This is only a solution for a minority of patients with the rising epidemic of alcoholic intoxication in the U.S.,” he said. “As the increasing mortality trends show alcohol-related mortality, and alcoholic liver disease is a contributor to it, we must recognize alcoholic liver disease remains an orphan disease and there is still an unmet need.”
Dr. Cholankeril reported no relevant financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
WASHINGTON – Patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis (AAH) have similar early post–liver transplant outcomes to those listed with fulminant hepatic failure, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Patients with severe AAH have high mortality, but many are unable to survive the 6 months of sobriety required to be accepted as liver transplant candidates, said George Cholankeril, MD, of the gastroenterology and hepatology department at Stanford (Calif.) University.
He and his associates studied wait-list mortality and post–liver transplant survival among 1,912 patients listed for either AAH or fulminant hepatic failure on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry between 2011 and 2016.
A total of 193 patients were listed with AAH, 314 were listed with drug-induced liver injury including acetaminophen (DILI-APAP), and 1,405 were listed as non-DILI patients.
One-year post–liver transplant survival among AAH patients was 93.3%, compared with 87.75% for DILI-APAP patients and 88.4% among non-DILI patients (P less than .001). Survival remained the same among AAH patients 3 years following transplantation, but rates dropped for both the DILI-APAP group (80.8%) and the non-DILI group (81.4%), Dr. Cholankeril reported.
Patients were a median age of 45, 33, and 46 years among the AAH, DILI-APAP, and non-DILI, groups respectively. Patients were majority white among all three groups, with a significantly larger female population among the DILI-APAP group (80.6%) than the AAH (34.7%) or non-DILI (59.4%) groups. Patients in the AAH group had a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 32, compared with 34 for DILI-APAP and 21 for non-DILI.
AAH patients could potentially see significant improvement with a liver transplant, according to investigators; however, the current standards for candidacy have created treatment barriers.
“Patients with AAH have comparable early post-transplant outcomes to those with hepatic liver failure,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “However, there is no consensus or national guidelines for liver transplantation within this patient population.”
Wait-list trends have already started to shift toward more AAH patient acceptance. The number of AAH patients added to the transplant wait lists increased from 14 in 2011 to 58 in 2016. Investigators also found that the number of liver transplant centers accepting AAH patients to their transplant lists increased from 3 to 26.
Investigators were limited by the variations in protocols for each transplant center, as well as by the inconsistency of pre–liver transplant psychosocial metrics. The diagnostic criteria of AAH through UNOS was also a limitation for investigators, according to Dr. Cholankeril.
Although liver transplantation may be able to help some patients, it is only a small fix for a much larger problem. “This is only a solution for a minority of patients with the rising epidemic of alcoholic intoxication in the U.S.,” he said. “As the increasing mortality trends show alcohol-related mortality, and alcoholic liver disease is a contributor to it, we must recognize alcoholic liver disease remains an orphan disease and there is still an unmet need.”
Dr. Cholankeril reported no relevant financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
AT THE LIVER MEETING 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Survival 1 and 3 years after liver transplant was comparable in patients with drug-induced liver injury including acetaminophen (P = .10) and significantly higher than other chronic alcoholic liver disease patients (P less that .001).
Data source: Retrospective study of 1,912 liver transplant patients listed for either AAH or status 1A registered on the UNOS registry between 2011 and 2016.
Disclosures: Presenter reported no relevant financial disclosures.