Hepatology

These days deciding when to stop targeted treatment for chronic hepatitis B is a bigger challenge than knowing when to start, Norah A. Terrault, MD, MPH, observed at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

Tetra Images/Getty Images

That’s because the treatment paradigm is in flux. The strategy is shifting from achieving hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA suppression through indefinite use of nucleoside analogues to striving for functional cure, which means eliminating hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and sustained inactive chronic hepatitis B off therapy. It’s a goal that recognizes that, while suppression is worthwhile because it reduces a patient’s risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, HBsAg clearance is better because it’s associated with an even lower risk of the malignancy, explained Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology and liver diseases at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The current strategy in patients who are hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive at the outset is to treat with a nucleoside analogue until seroconversion, followed by a further year or more of consolidation therapy then treatment withdrawal. It’s a rational approach whose primary benefit is it allows identification of the roughly 50% of patients who can remain off treatment with inactive chronic hepatitis B. The other 50% – those who experience clinical relapse – will need retreatment.

Factors predictive of increased likelihood of a sustained off-treatment response include age younger than 40 years at the time of seroconversion, more than 1 year of consolidation therapy, and undetectable HBV DNA at cessation of treatment.

“In my own practice now, I actually extend the consolidation period for 2 years before I consider stopping, and I really favor doing a trial of stopping treatment in those who are younger,” Dr. Terrault said.

The biggest change in thinking involves the duration of therapy in patients who are HBeAg negative. The strategy has been to treat indefinitely unless there is a compelling reason to stop, such as toxicity, cost, or patient preference. However, it has now been demonstrated in at least nine published studies that withdrawal of therapy has a favorable immunologic effect in noncirrhotic patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B who have been HBV DNA negative on nucleoside analogues for at least 3 years. This trial off therapy can bring major benefits because roughly 50% of patients will have sustained inactive chronic hepatitis B off-treatment and 20% of patients will become HbsAg negative with functional cure at 3-5 years of follow-up.

“This is what’s impressive: that 20% of patients have lost surface antigen, because if you continue HbeAg-negative patients on nucleoside analogue therapy, essentially none of them lose surface antigen. This is an impressive number, and you’re also able to identify about 50% of patients who didn’t need to be on treatment because they now have immune control and can remain inactive carriers off treatment,” the gastroenterologist commented.

Treatment withdrawal in HBeAg-negative patients usually is followed by disease flares 8-12 weeks later because of host immune clearance, and therein lies a problem.

“The challenge with the withdrawal strategy is these flares that appear to be necessary and important, can be good or bad, and we’re really not very good at predicting what the flare is going to look like and how severe it’s going to be,” according to Dr. Terrault, first author of the current American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B.

The good flares are accompanied by a reductions in HBV DNA and viral proteins, loss of HbsAg, and preserved liver function. The bad flares entail excessive host immune clearance leading to liver dysfunction or failure, with no reduction in viral proteins. The search is on for predictors of response to treatment withdrawal in HbeAg-negative patients. Potential differences in outcomes with the three available nucleoside analogues are being looked at, as are duration of viral suppression on treatment and differences in patient characteristics. A low quantitative HbsAg level at the time of drug withdrawal may also be important as a predictor of a higher likelihood of HBsAg loss over time off treatment.

“The studies that have been done are basically withdrawing everyone and then seeing what happens. I think we want to have a more refined approach,” she said.

This is an unfolding story. The encouraging news is that the drug development pipeline is rich with agents with a variety of mechanisms aimed at achieving HbsAg loss with finite therapy. Some of the studies are now in phase 2 and 3.

“We should be extremely excited,” Dr. Terrault said. “I think in the future we’re very likely to have curative therapies in a much greater proportion of our patients.”
 

When to start nucleoside analogues

Three antiviral oral nucleoside analogues are available as preferred therapies for chronic HBV: entecavir (Baraclude), tenofovir alafenamide (Vemlidy), and tenofovir disoproxil (Viread). All three provide high antiviral efficacy and low risk for resistance. The treatment goal is to prevent disease progression and HBV complications, including hepatocellular carcinoma, in individuals with active chronic hepatitis B.

The major liver disease medical societies differ only slightly on the criteria for starting treatment. Broadly, they recommend starting therapy in all patients with cirrhosis, as well as in patients without cirrhosis who have both a serum ALT level more than twice the upper limit of normal and elevated HBV DNA levels. The treatment threshold for HBV DNA levels is higher in patients who are HBeAg positive than it is for patients who are HBeAg negative; for example, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases recommends that an HbeAg-positive patient should have a HBV DNA titer greater than 20,000 IU/mL, which is a level 10 times higher than the group’s treatment threshold in HBeAg-negative patients. However, these thresholds are intended as guidance, not absolute rules, Dr. Terrault emphasized. Nearly 40% of patients don’t meet the dual ALT and HBV DNA thresholds, and serial monitoring of such patients for 6-12 months is recommended because they may be in transition.

The choice of nucleoside analogue is largely based on comorbidities. Any of the three preferred antivirals can be used when there are none. Tenofovir disoproxil is preferred in pregnancy because of its safety profile in that setting. In patients who are aged over 60 years or have bone disease or renal impairment, tenofovir alafenamide and entecavir are preferred. Entecavir should be avoided in favor of either form of tenofovir in patients who are HIV positive or have prior exposure to lamivudine.

Regarding treatment with these drugs, the recommendations target those whose liver disease is being driven by active HBV rather than fatty liver disease or some other cause. That’s the reason for the reserving treatment for patients with both high HBV DNA and high serum ALT.

“There’s definitely a camp that feels these are safe drugs, easy to use, and we should treat more people. I have to say I’m not hanging out in that camp. I still feel we should do targeted treatment, especially since there are many new drugs coming where we’re going to be able to offer cure to more people. So I feel like putting everybody on suppressive therapy isn’t the answer,” she said.

Dr. Terrault receives research grants from and/or serves as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

These days deciding when to stop targeted treatment for chronic hepatitis B is a bigger challenge than knowing when to start, Norah A. Terrault, MD, MPH, observed at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

Tetra Images/Getty Images

That’s because the treatment paradigm is in flux. The strategy is shifting from achieving hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA suppression through indefinite use of nucleoside analogues to striving for functional cure, which means eliminating hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and sustained inactive chronic hepatitis B off therapy. It’s a goal that recognizes that, while suppression is worthwhile because it reduces a patient’s risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, HBsAg clearance is better because it’s associated with an even lower risk of the malignancy, explained Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology and liver diseases at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The current strategy in patients who are hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive at the outset is to treat with a nucleoside analogue until seroconversion, followed by a further year or more of consolidation therapy then treatment withdrawal. It’s a rational approach whose primary benefit is it allows identification of the roughly 50% of patients who can remain off treatment with inactive chronic hepatitis B. The other 50% – those who experience clinical relapse – will need retreatment.

Factors predictive of increased likelihood of a sustained off-treatment response include age younger than 40 years at the time of seroconversion, more than 1 year of consolidation therapy, and undetectable HBV DNA at cessation of treatment.

“In my own practice now, I actually extend the consolidation period for 2 years before I consider stopping, and I really favor doing a trial of stopping treatment in those who are younger,” Dr. Terrault said.

The biggest change in thinking involves the duration of therapy in patients who are HBeAg negative. The strategy has been to treat indefinitely unless there is a compelling reason to stop, such as toxicity, cost, or patient preference. However, it has now been demonstrated in at least nine published studies that withdrawal of therapy has a favorable immunologic effect in noncirrhotic patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B who have been HBV DNA negative on nucleoside analogues for at least 3 years. This trial off therapy can bring major benefits because roughly 50% of patients will have sustained inactive chronic hepatitis B off-treatment and 20% of patients will become HbsAg negative with functional cure at 3-5 years of follow-up.

“This is what’s impressive: that 20% of patients have lost surface antigen, because if you continue HbeAg-negative patients on nucleoside analogue therapy, essentially none of them lose surface antigen. This is an impressive number, and you’re also able to identify about 50% of patients who didn’t need to be on treatment because they now have immune control and can remain inactive carriers off treatment,” the gastroenterologist commented.

Treatment withdrawal in HBeAg-negative patients usually is followed by disease flares 8-12 weeks later because of host immune clearance, and therein lies a problem.

“The challenge with the withdrawal strategy is these flares that appear to be necessary and important, can be good or bad, and we’re really not very good at predicting what the flare is going to look like and how severe it’s going to be,” according to Dr. Terrault, first author of the current American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B.

The good flares are accompanied by a reductions in HBV DNA and viral proteins, loss of HbsAg, and preserved liver function. The bad flares entail excessive host immune clearance leading to liver dysfunction or failure, with no reduction in viral proteins. The search is on for predictors of response to treatment withdrawal in HbeAg-negative patients. Potential differences in outcomes with the three available nucleoside analogues are being looked at, as are duration of viral suppression on treatment and differences in patient characteristics. A low quantitative HbsAg level at the time of drug withdrawal may also be important as a predictor of a higher likelihood of HBsAg loss over time off treatment.

“The studies that have been done are basically withdrawing everyone and then seeing what happens. I think we want to have a more refined approach,” she said.

This is an unfolding story. The encouraging news is that the drug development pipeline is rich with agents with a variety of mechanisms aimed at achieving HbsAg loss with finite therapy. Some of the studies are now in phase 2 and 3.

“We should be extremely excited,” Dr. Terrault said. “I think in the future we’re very likely to have curative therapies in a much greater proportion of our patients.”
 

When to start nucleoside analogues

Three antiviral oral nucleoside analogues are available as preferred therapies for chronic HBV: entecavir (Baraclude), tenofovir alafenamide (Vemlidy), and tenofovir disoproxil (Viread). All three provide high antiviral efficacy and low risk for resistance. The treatment goal is to prevent disease progression and HBV complications, including hepatocellular carcinoma, in individuals with active chronic hepatitis B.

The major liver disease medical societies differ only slightly on the criteria for starting treatment. Broadly, they recommend starting therapy in all patients with cirrhosis, as well as in patients without cirrhosis who have both a serum ALT level more than twice the upper limit of normal and elevated HBV DNA levels. The treatment threshold for HBV DNA levels is higher in patients who are HBeAg positive than it is for patients who are HBeAg negative; for example, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases recommends that an HbeAg-positive patient should have a HBV DNA titer greater than 20,000 IU/mL, which is a level 10 times higher than the group’s treatment threshold in HBeAg-negative patients. However, these thresholds are intended as guidance, not absolute rules, Dr. Terrault emphasized. Nearly 40% of patients don’t meet the dual ALT and HBV DNA thresholds, and serial monitoring of such patients for 6-12 months is recommended because they may be in transition.

The choice of nucleoside analogue is largely based on comorbidities. Any of the three preferred antivirals can be used when there are none. Tenofovir disoproxil is preferred in pregnancy because of its safety profile in that setting. In patients who are aged over 60 years or have bone disease or renal impairment, tenofovir alafenamide and entecavir are preferred. Entecavir should be avoided in favor of either form of tenofovir in patients who are HIV positive or have prior exposure to lamivudine.

Regarding treatment with these drugs, the recommendations target those whose liver disease is being driven by active HBV rather than fatty liver disease or some other cause. That’s the reason for the reserving treatment for patients with both high HBV DNA and high serum ALT.

“There’s definitely a camp that feels these are safe drugs, easy to use, and we should treat more people. I have to say I’m not hanging out in that camp. I still feel we should do targeted treatment, especially since there are many new drugs coming where we’re going to be able to offer cure to more people. So I feel like putting everybody on suppressive therapy isn’t the answer,” she said.

Dr. Terrault receives research grants from and/or serves as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

These days deciding when to stop targeted treatment for chronic hepatitis B is a bigger challenge than knowing when to start, Norah A. Terrault, MD, MPH, observed at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

Tetra Images/Getty Images

That’s because the treatment paradigm is in flux. The strategy is shifting from achieving hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA suppression through indefinite use of nucleoside analogues to striving for functional cure, which means eliminating hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and sustained inactive chronic hepatitis B off therapy. It’s a goal that recognizes that, while suppression is worthwhile because it reduces a patient’s risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, HBsAg clearance is better because it’s associated with an even lower risk of the malignancy, explained Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology and liver diseases at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The current strategy in patients who are hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive at the outset is to treat with a nucleoside analogue until seroconversion, followed by a further year or more of consolidation therapy then treatment withdrawal. It’s a rational approach whose primary benefit is it allows identification of the roughly 50% of patients who can remain off treatment with inactive chronic hepatitis B. The other 50% – those who experience clinical relapse – will need retreatment.

Factors predictive of increased likelihood of a sustained off-treatment response include age younger than 40 years at the time of seroconversion, more than 1 year of consolidation therapy, and undetectable HBV DNA at cessation of treatment.

“In my own practice now, I actually extend the consolidation period for 2 years before I consider stopping, and I really favor doing a trial of stopping treatment in those who are younger,” Dr. Terrault said.

The biggest change in thinking involves the duration of therapy in patients who are HBeAg negative. The strategy has been to treat indefinitely unless there is a compelling reason to stop, such as toxicity, cost, or patient preference. However, it has now been demonstrated in at least nine published studies that withdrawal of therapy has a favorable immunologic effect in noncirrhotic patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B who have been HBV DNA negative on nucleoside analogues for at least 3 years. This trial off therapy can bring major benefits because roughly 50% of patients will have sustained inactive chronic hepatitis B off-treatment and 20% of patients will become HbsAg negative with functional cure at 3-5 years of follow-up.

“This is what’s impressive: that 20% of patients have lost surface antigen, because if you continue HbeAg-negative patients on nucleoside analogue therapy, essentially none of them lose surface antigen. This is an impressive number, and you’re also able to identify about 50% of patients who didn’t need to be on treatment because they now have immune control and can remain inactive carriers off treatment,” the gastroenterologist commented.

Treatment withdrawal in HBeAg-negative patients usually is followed by disease flares 8-12 weeks later because of host immune clearance, and therein lies a problem.

“The challenge with the withdrawal strategy is these flares that appear to be necessary and important, can be good or bad, and we’re really not very good at predicting what the flare is going to look like and how severe it’s going to be,” according to Dr. Terrault, first author of the current American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B.

The good flares are accompanied by a reductions in HBV DNA and viral proteins, loss of HbsAg, and preserved liver function. The bad flares entail excessive host immune clearance leading to liver dysfunction or failure, with no reduction in viral proteins. The search is on for predictors of response to treatment withdrawal in HbeAg-negative patients. Potential differences in outcomes with the three available nucleoside analogues are being looked at, as are duration of viral suppression on treatment and differences in patient characteristics. A low quantitative HbsAg level at the time of drug withdrawal may also be important as a predictor of a higher likelihood of HBsAg loss over time off treatment.

“The studies that have been done are basically withdrawing everyone and then seeing what happens. I think we want to have a more refined approach,” she said.

This is an unfolding story. The encouraging news is that the drug development pipeline is rich with agents with a variety of mechanisms aimed at achieving HbsAg loss with finite therapy. Some of the studies are now in phase 2 and 3.

“We should be extremely excited,” Dr. Terrault said. “I think in the future we’re very likely to have curative therapies in a much greater proportion of our patients.”
 

When to start nucleoside analogues

Three antiviral oral nucleoside analogues are available as preferred therapies for chronic HBV: entecavir (Baraclude), tenofovir alafenamide (Vemlidy), and tenofovir disoproxil (Viread). All three provide high antiviral efficacy and low risk for resistance. The treatment goal is to prevent disease progression and HBV complications, including hepatocellular carcinoma, in individuals with active chronic hepatitis B.

The major liver disease medical societies differ only slightly on the criteria for starting treatment. Broadly, they recommend starting therapy in all patients with cirrhosis, as well as in patients without cirrhosis who have both a serum ALT level more than twice the upper limit of normal and elevated HBV DNA levels. The treatment threshold for HBV DNA levels is higher in patients who are HBeAg positive than it is for patients who are HBeAg negative; for example, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases recommends that an HbeAg-positive patient should have a HBV DNA titer greater than 20,000 IU/mL, which is a level 10 times higher than the group’s treatment threshold in HBeAg-negative patients. However, these thresholds are intended as guidance, not absolute rules, Dr. Terrault emphasized. Nearly 40% of patients don’t meet the dual ALT and HBV DNA thresholds, and serial monitoring of such patients for 6-12 months is recommended because they may be in transition.

The choice of nucleoside analogue is largely based on comorbidities. Any of the three preferred antivirals can be used when there are none. Tenofovir disoproxil is preferred in pregnancy because of its safety profile in that setting. In patients who are aged over 60 years or have bone disease or renal impairment, tenofovir alafenamide and entecavir are preferred. Entecavir should be avoided in favor of either form of tenofovir in patients who are HIV positive or have prior exposure to lamivudine.

Regarding treatment with these drugs, the recommendations target those whose liver disease is being driven by active HBV rather than fatty liver disease or some other cause. That’s the reason for the reserving treatment for patients with both high HBV DNA and high serum ALT.

“There’s definitely a camp that feels these are safe drugs, easy to use, and we should treat more people. I have to say I’m not hanging out in that camp. I still feel we should do targeted treatment, especially since there are many new drugs coming where we’re going to be able to offer cure to more people. So I feel like putting everybody on suppressive therapy isn’t the answer,” she said.

Dr. Terrault receives research grants from and/or serves as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and compensated advanced chronic liver disease, liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) are associated with risks of hepatic events, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

“[N]oninvasive markers that can predict liver disease severity and outcomes in patients with NAFLD and advanced fibrosis are a major unmet need,” wrote lead author Salvatore Petta, MD, of the University of Palermo, Italy, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Data about the accuracy of LSM in the prediction of events in NAFLD, and especially in patients with NAFLD and F3-F4 fibrosis, are scarce.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data from 1,039 consecutive patients with NAFLD who had baseline LSMs of more than 10 kPa and/or histologically diagnosed F3-F4 fibrosis. Patients were prospectively recruited at 10 centers in 6 countries, then followed for a median of 35 months, ranging from 19 to 63 months.

All patients had their liver stiffness measured with an M or XL probe at baseline. In addition, approximately half of the patients (n = 533) had a follow-up measurement using the same method, generating a subgroup with changes in liver stiffness. “Improved” liver stiffness was defined as a decrease in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, “impaired” liver stiffness was defined as an increase in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, and “stable” liver stiffness was defined as a change falling between 20% lower and 20% higher than baseline.

At baseline, mean LSM was 17.6 kPa. Cox regression analysis revealed that baseline LSM was independently associated with HCC (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.04; P = .003), liver decompensation (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P < .001), and liver-related death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .005), but not extrahepatic events.

According to the investigators, the association between LSM at baseline and risk of liver decompensation was maintained after adjustment for the severity of liver disease and for surrogate markers of portal hypertension, they noted. Furthermore, patients with a baseline LSM of at least 21 kPa – which indicates high risk of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) – were at greater risk of liver decompensation than were those with an LSM less than 21 kPa (HR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.89-6.78; P = .04).

In the subgroup with follow-up measurements, approximately half of the patients had an improved LSM (53.3%), while 27.2% had a stable LSM, and 19.5% had an impaired LSM, a pattern that was significantly associated with diabetes at baseline (P = .01).

“These data agree with the available literature identifying diabetes as a risk factor for liver disease progression and liver-related complications,” the investigators wrote.

Cox regression showed that, among those with follow-up LSM, changes in LSM were independently associated with HCC (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01-3.02; P = .04), liver decompensation (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.51; P = . 04), liver-related mortality (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.10-3.38; P = .02), and mortality of any cause (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.11-2.69; P = .01).

These risks could be further stratified by level of change in liver stiffness, with greater impairment predicting greater risk: The crude rate of liver decompensation was 14.4% among those with impaired LSM, compared with 6.2% among those with stable LSM and 3.8% among those with LSM improvement. That said, the categories of changes in LSM were not predictive of decompensation among patients with high risk of CSPH at baseline; however, they remained predictive among those with low risk of CSPH at baseline.

“[T]his study … showed that an integrated assessment of baseline LSM or [changes in LSM] can help in stratifying the risk of development of liver-related complications and of both hepatic and overall mortality,” the investigators concluded. “These data, if further validated, could help personalize prognosis and follow-up in NAFLD with [compensated advanced chronic liver disease].”

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Novo Nordisk, Gilead, and others.

Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and compensated advanced chronic liver disease, liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) are associated with risks of hepatic events, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

“[N]oninvasive markers that can predict liver disease severity and outcomes in patients with NAFLD and advanced fibrosis are a major unmet need,” wrote lead author Salvatore Petta, MD, of the University of Palermo, Italy, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Data about the accuracy of LSM in the prediction of events in NAFLD, and especially in patients with NAFLD and F3-F4 fibrosis, are scarce.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data from 1,039 consecutive patients with NAFLD who had baseline LSMs of more than 10 kPa and/or histologically diagnosed F3-F4 fibrosis. Patients were prospectively recruited at 10 centers in 6 countries, then followed for a median of 35 months, ranging from 19 to 63 months.

All patients had their liver stiffness measured with an M or XL probe at baseline. In addition, approximately half of the patients (n = 533) had a follow-up measurement using the same method, generating a subgroup with changes in liver stiffness. “Improved” liver stiffness was defined as a decrease in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, “impaired” liver stiffness was defined as an increase in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, and “stable” liver stiffness was defined as a change falling between 20% lower and 20% higher than baseline.

At baseline, mean LSM was 17.6 kPa. Cox regression analysis revealed that baseline LSM was independently associated with HCC (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.04; P = .003), liver decompensation (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P < .001), and liver-related death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .005), but not extrahepatic events.

According to the investigators, the association between LSM at baseline and risk of liver decompensation was maintained after adjustment for the severity of liver disease and for surrogate markers of portal hypertension, they noted. Furthermore, patients with a baseline LSM of at least 21 kPa – which indicates high risk of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) – were at greater risk of liver decompensation than were those with an LSM less than 21 kPa (HR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.89-6.78; P = .04).

In the subgroup with follow-up measurements, approximately half of the patients had an improved LSM (53.3%), while 27.2% had a stable LSM, and 19.5% had an impaired LSM, a pattern that was significantly associated with diabetes at baseline (P = .01).

“These data agree with the available literature identifying diabetes as a risk factor for liver disease progression and liver-related complications,” the investigators wrote.

Cox regression showed that, among those with follow-up LSM, changes in LSM were independently associated with HCC (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01-3.02; P = .04), liver decompensation (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.51; P = . 04), liver-related mortality (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.10-3.38; P = .02), and mortality of any cause (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.11-2.69; P = .01).

These risks could be further stratified by level of change in liver stiffness, with greater impairment predicting greater risk: The crude rate of liver decompensation was 14.4% among those with impaired LSM, compared with 6.2% among those with stable LSM and 3.8% among those with LSM improvement. That said, the categories of changes in LSM were not predictive of decompensation among patients with high risk of CSPH at baseline; however, they remained predictive among those with low risk of CSPH at baseline.

“[T]his study … showed that an integrated assessment of baseline LSM or [changes in LSM] can help in stratifying the risk of development of liver-related complications and of both hepatic and overall mortality,” the investigators concluded. “These data, if further validated, could help personalize prognosis and follow-up in NAFLD with [compensated advanced chronic liver disease].”

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Novo Nordisk, Gilead, and others.

Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and compensated advanced chronic liver disease, liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) are associated with risks of hepatic events, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

“[N]oninvasive markers that can predict liver disease severity and outcomes in patients with NAFLD and advanced fibrosis are a major unmet need,” wrote lead author Salvatore Petta, MD, of the University of Palermo, Italy, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Data about the accuracy of LSM in the prediction of events in NAFLD, and especially in patients with NAFLD and F3-F4 fibrosis, are scarce.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data from 1,039 consecutive patients with NAFLD who had baseline LSMs of more than 10 kPa and/or histologically diagnosed F3-F4 fibrosis. Patients were prospectively recruited at 10 centers in 6 countries, then followed for a median of 35 months, ranging from 19 to 63 months.

All patients had their liver stiffness measured with an M or XL probe at baseline. In addition, approximately half of the patients (n = 533) had a follow-up measurement using the same method, generating a subgroup with changes in liver stiffness. “Improved” liver stiffness was defined as a decrease in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, “impaired” liver stiffness was defined as an increase in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, and “stable” liver stiffness was defined as a change falling between 20% lower and 20% higher than baseline.

At baseline, mean LSM was 17.6 kPa. Cox regression analysis revealed that baseline LSM was independently associated with HCC (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.04; P = .003), liver decompensation (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P < .001), and liver-related death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .005), but not extrahepatic events.

According to the investigators, the association between LSM at baseline and risk of liver decompensation was maintained after adjustment for the severity of liver disease and for surrogate markers of portal hypertension, they noted. Furthermore, patients with a baseline LSM of at least 21 kPa – which indicates high risk of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) – were at greater risk of liver decompensation than were those with an LSM less than 21 kPa (HR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.89-6.78; P = .04).

In the subgroup with follow-up measurements, approximately half of the patients had an improved LSM (53.3%), while 27.2% had a stable LSM, and 19.5% had an impaired LSM, a pattern that was significantly associated with diabetes at baseline (P = .01).

“These data agree with the available literature identifying diabetes as a risk factor for liver disease progression and liver-related complications,” the investigators wrote.

Cox regression showed that, among those with follow-up LSM, changes in LSM were independently associated with HCC (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01-3.02; P = .04), liver decompensation (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.51; P = . 04), liver-related mortality (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.10-3.38; P = .02), and mortality of any cause (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.11-2.69; P = .01).

These risks could be further stratified by level of change in liver stiffness, with greater impairment predicting greater risk: The crude rate of liver decompensation was 14.4% among those with impaired LSM, compared with 6.2% among those with stable LSM and 3.8% among those with LSM improvement. That said, the categories of changes in LSM were not predictive of decompensation among patients with high risk of CSPH at baseline; however, they remained predictive among those with low risk of CSPH at baseline.

“[T]his study … showed that an integrated assessment of baseline LSM or [changes in LSM] can help in stratifying the risk of development of liver-related complications and of both hepatic and overall mortality,” the investigators concluded. “These data, if further validated, could help personalize prognosis and follow-up in NAFLD with [compensated advanced chronic liver disease].”

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Novo Nordisk, Gilead, and others.

Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients are underrepresented on many liver transplant waiting lists, whereas non-Hispanic White patients are often overrepresented, according to data from 109 centers.

pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

While racial disparities “greatly diminished” after placement on a waiting list, which suggests recent progress in the field, pre–wait-listing disparities may be more challenging to overcome, reported lead author Curtis Warren, MPH, CPH, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“In 2020, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented a new allocation system for liver transplantation based on concentric circles of geographic proximity rather than somewhat arbitrarily delineated Donor Service Areas (DSAs),” the investigators wrote in Journal of the American College of Surgeons. “Although this was a step toward improving and equalizing access to lifesaving organs for those on the liver transplant wait list, the listing process determining which patients will be considered for transplantation has continued to be a significant hurdle.”

The process is “rife with impediments to equal access to listing,” according to Dr. Warren and colleagues; getting on a waiting list can be affected by factors such as inequitable access to primary care, lack of private health insurance, and subjective selection by transplant centers.

To better characterize these impediments, the investigators gathered center-specific data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the U.S. Census Bureau. The final dataset included 30,353 patients from treated at 109 transplant centers, each of which performed more than 250 transplants between January 2013 and December 2018. The investigators compared waiting list data for each center with demographics from its DSA. Primary variables included race/ethnicity, education level, poverty, and insurance coverage.

Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare expected waiting list demographics with observed waiting list demographics with the aid of observed/expected ratios for each race/ethnicity. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify significant predictors, including covariates such as age at listing, distance traveled to transplant center, and center type.

On an adjusted basis, the observed/expected ratios showed that non-Hispanic Black patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 88 out of 109 centers (81%) and Hispanic patients were underrepresented at 68 centers (62%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White patients were overrepresented on waiting lists at 65 centers (58%). Non-Hispanic White patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 49 centers, or 45%. Minority underrepresentation was further supported by mean MELD (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) scores, which were significantly higher among non-Hispanic Black patients (20.2) and Hispanic patients (19.4), compared with non-Hispanic White patients (18.7) (P < .0001 for all) at the time of wait-listing.

Based on the multivariate model, underrepresentation among Black patients was most common in areas with a higher proportion of Black individuals in the population, longer travel distances to transplant centers, and a higher rate of private insurance among transplant recipients. For Hispanic patients, rates of private insurance alone predicted underrepresentation.

Once patients were listed, however, these disparities faded. Non-Hispanic Black patients accounted for 9.8% of all transplants across all hospitals, compared with 7.9% of wait-listed individuals (P < .0001). At approximately two out of three hospitals (65%), the transplanted percentage of Black patients exceeded the wait-listed percentage (P = .002).

“Data from this study show that the wait lists at many transplant centers in the United States underrepresent minority populations, compared with what would be expected based on their service areas,” the investigators concluded. “Future work will need to be devoted to increasing awareness of these trends to promote equitable access to listing for liver transplantation.”

Looking at social determinants of health

According to Lauren D. Nephew, MD, MSc, MAE, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, “The question of access to care is particularly important at this juncture as we examine the inequities that COVID-19 exposed in access to care for racial minorities, and as we prepare for potential changes to health insurance coverage with the new administration.”

Dr. Nephew noted that the reported racial disparities stem from social determinants of health, such as proximity to transplant centers and type of insurance coverage.

“Another striking finding was that the disparity in wait-listing non-Hispanic Black patients increased with the percentage of non-Hispanic Black patients living in the area, further highlighting barriers in access to care in majority Black neighborhoods,” she said. “Inequities such as these are unacceptable, given our mandate to distribute organs in a fair and equitable fashion, and they require prospective studies for further examination.”
 

Identifying discrimination

Lanla Conteh, MD, MPH, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, described how these inequities are magnified through bias in patient selection.

“Often times two very similar patients may present with the same medical profile and social circumstances; however, one is turned down,” she said. “Often the patient turned down is the non-Hispanic Black patient while the non-Hispanic White patient is given a pass.”

Dr. Conteh suggested that the first step in fixing this bias is recognizing that it is a problem and calling it by its proper name.

“As transplant centers, in order to address and change these significant disparities, we must first be willing to acknowledge that they do exist,” she said. “Only then can we move to the next step of developing awareness and methods to actively combat what we should label as systemic discrimination in medicine. Transplantation is a lifesaving treatment for many patients with decompensated liver disease or liver cancer. Ensuring equitable access for all patients and populations is of paramount importance.”

The study was supported by a Health Resources and Services Administration contract, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients are underrepresented on many liver transplant waiting lists, whereas non-Hispanic White patients are often overrepresented, according to data from 109 centers.

pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

While racial disparities “greatly diminished” after placement on a waiting list, which suggests recent progress in the field, pre–wait-listing disparities may be more challenging to overcome, reported lead author Curtis Warren, MPH, CPH, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“In 2020, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented a new allocation system for liver transplantation based on concentric circles of geographic proximity rather than somewhat arbitrarily delineated Donor Service Areas (DSAs),” the investigators wrote in Journal of the American College of Surgeons. “Although this was a step toward improving and equalizing access to lifesaving organs for those on the liver transplant wait list, the listing process determining which patients will be considered for transplantation has continued to be a significant hurdle.”

The process is “rife with impediments to equal access to listing,” according to Dr. Warren and colleagues; getting on a waiting list can be affected by factors such as inequitable access to primary care, lack of private health insurance, and subjective selection by transplant centers.

To better characterize these impediments, the investigators gathered center-specific data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the U.S. Census Bureau. The final dataset included 30,353 patients from treated at 109 transplant centers, each of which performed more than 250 transplants between January 2013 and December 2018. The investigators compared waiting list data for each center with demographics from its DSA. Primary variables included race/ethnicity, education level, poverty, and insurance coverage.

Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare expected waiting list demographics with observed waiting list demographics with the aid of observed/expected ratios for each race/ethnicity. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify significant predictors, including covariates such as age at listing, distance traveled to transplant center, and center type.

On an adjusted basis, the observed/expected ratios showed that non-Hispanic Black patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 88 out of 109 centers (81%) and Hispanic patients were underrepresented at 68 centers (62%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White patients were overrepresented on waiting lists at 65 centers (58%). Non-Hispanic White patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 49 centers, or 45%. Minority underrepresentation was further supported by mean MELD (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) scores, which were significantly higher among non-Hispanic Black patients (20.2) and Hispanic patients (19.4), compared with non-Hispanic White patients (18.7) (P < .0001 for all) at the time of wait-listing.

Based on the multivariate model, underrepresentation among Black patients was most common in areas with a higher proportion of Black individuals in the population, longer travel distances to transplant centers, and a higher rate of private insurance among transplant recipients. For Hispanic patients, rates of private insurance alone predicted underrepresentation.

Once patients were listed, however, these disparities faded. Non-Hispanic Black patients accounted for 9.8% of all transplants across all hospitals, compared with 7.9% of wait-listed individuals (P < .0001). At approximately two out of three hospitals (65%), the transplanted percentage of Black patients exceeded the wait-listed percentage (P = .002).

“Data from this study show that the wait lists at many transplant centers in the United States underrepresent minority populations, compared with what would be expected based on their service areas,” the investigators concluded. “Future work will need to be devoted to increasing awareness of these trends to promote equitable access to listing for liver transplantation.”

Looking at social determinants of health

According to Lauren D. Nephew, MD, MSc, MAE, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, “The question of access to care is particularly important at this juncture as we examine the inequities that COVID-19 exposed in access to care for racial minorities, and as we prepare for potential changes to health insurance coverage with the new administration.”

Dr. Nephew noted that the reported racial disparities stem from social determinants of health, such as proximity to transplant centers and type of insurance coverage.

“Another striking finding was that the disparity in wait-listing non-Hispanic Black patients increased with the percentage of non-Hispanic Black patients living in the area, further highlighting barriers in access to care in majority Black neighborhoods,” she said. “Inequities such as these are unacceptable, given our mandate to distribute organs in a fair and equitable fashion, and they require prospective studies for further examination.”
 

Identifying discrimination

Lanla Conteh, MD, MPH, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, described how these inequities are magnified through bias in patient selection.

“Often times two very similar patients may present with the same medical profile and social circumstances; however, one is turned down,” she said. “Often the patient turned down is the non-Hispanic Black patient while the non-Hispanic White patient is given a pass.”

Dr. Conteh suggested that the first step in fixing this bias is recognizing that it is a problem and calling it by its proper name.

“As transplant centers, in order to address and change these significant disparities, we must first be willing to acknowledge that they do exist,” she said. “Only then can we move to the next step of developing awareness and methods to actively combat what we should label as systemic discrimination in medicine. Transplantation is a lifesaving treatment for many patients with decompensated liver disease or liver cancer. Ensuring equitable access for all patients and populations is of paramount importance.”

The study was supported by a Health Resources and Services Administration contract, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients are underrepresented on many liver transplant waiting lists, whereas non-Hispanic White patients are often overrepresented, according to data from 109 centers.

pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

While racial disparities “greatly diminished” after placement on a waiting list, which suggests recent progress in the field, pre–wait-listing disparities may be more challenging to overcome, reported lead author Curtis Warren, MPH, CPH, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“In 2020, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented a new allocation system for liver transplantation based on concentric circles of geographic proximity rather than somewhat arbitrarily delineated Donor Service Areas (DSAs),” the investigators wrote in Journal of the American College of Surgeons. “Although this was a step toward improving and equalizing access to lifesaving organs for those on the liver transplant wait list, the listing process determining which patients will be considered for transplantation has continued to be a significant hurdle.”

The process is “rife with impediments to equal access to listing,” according to Dr. Warren and colleagues; getting on a waiting list can be affected by factors such as inequitable access to primary care, lack of private health insurance, and subjective selection by transplant centers.

To better characterize these impediments, the investigators gathered center-specific data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the U.S. Census Bureau. The final dataset included 30,353 patients from treated at 109 transplant centers, each of which performed more than 250 transplants between January 2013 and December 2018. The investigators compared waiting list data for each center with demographics from its DSA. Primary variables included race/ethnicity, education level, poverty, and insurance coverage.

Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare expected waiting list demographics with observed waiting list demographics with the aid of observed/expected ratios for each race/ethnicity. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify significant predictors, including covariates such as age at listing, distance traveled to transplant center, and center type.

On an adjusted basis, the observed/expected ratios showed that non-Hispanic Black patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 88 out of 109 centers (81%) and Hispanic patients were underrepresented at 68 centers (62%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White patients were overrepresented on waiting lists at 65 centers (58%). Non-Hispanic White patients were underrepresented on waiting lists at 49 centers, or 45%. Minority underrepresentation was further supported by mean MELD (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) scores, which were significantly higher among non-Hispanic Black patients (20.2) and Hispanic patients (19.4), compared with non-Hispanic White patients (18.7) (P < .0001 for all) at the time of wait-listing.

Based on the multivariate model, underrepresentation among Black patients was most common in areas with a higher proportion of Black individuals in the population, longer travel distances to transplant centers, and a higher rate of private insurance among transplant recipients. For Hispanic patients, rates of private insurance alone predicted underrepresentation.

Once patients were listed, however, these disparities faded. Non-Hispanic Black patients accounted for 9.8% of all transplants across all hospitals, compared with 7.9% of wait-listed individuals (P < .0001). At approximately two out of three hospitals (65%), the transplanted percentage of Black patients exceeded the wait-listed percentage (P = .002).

“Data from this study show that the wait lists at many transplant centers in the United States underrepresent minority populations, compared with what would be expected based on their service areas,” the investigators concluded. “Future work will need to be devoted to increasing awareness of these trends to promote equitable access to listing for liver transplantation.”

Looking at social determinants of health

According to Lauren D. Nephew, MD, MSc, MAE, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, “The question of access to care is particularly important at this juncture as we examine the inequities that COVID-19 exposed in access to care for racial minorities, and as we prepare for potential changes to health insurance coverage with the new administration.”

Dr. Nephew noted that the reported racial disparities stem from social determinants of health, such as proximity to transplant centers and type of insurance coverage.

“Another striking finding was that the disparity in wait-listing non-Hispanic Black patients increased with the percentage of non-Hispanic Black patients living in the area, further highlighting barriers in access to care in majority Black neighborhoods,” she said. “Inequities such as these are unacceptable, given our mandate to distribute organs in a fair and equitable fashion, and they require prospective studies for further examination.”
 

Identifying discrimination

Lanla Conteh, MD, MPH, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, described how these inequities are magnified through bias in patient selection.

“Often times two very similar patients may present with the same medical profile and social circumstances; however, one is turned down,” she said. “Often the patient turned down is the non-Hispanic Black patient while the non-Hispanic White patient is given a pass.”

Dr. Conteh suggested that the first step in fixing this bias is recognizing that it is a problem and calling it by its proper name.

“As transplant centers, in order to address and change these significant disparities, we must first be willing to acknowledge that they do exist,” she said. “Only then can we move to the next step of developing awareness and methods to actively combat what we should label as systemic discrimination in medicine. Transplantation is a lifesaving treatment for many patients with decompensated liver disease or liver cancer. Ensuring equitable access for all patients and populations is of paramount importance.”

The study was supported by a Health Resources and Services Administration contract, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

Patients taking methotrexate for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at a higher risk of developing liver disease than were patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on methotrexate, in a large population-based study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/ThinkStockPhotos.com

“These findings suggest that conservative liver monitoring is warranted in patients receiving methotrexate for psoriatic disease,” particularly psoriasis, the investigators concluded.

• Mild liver disease: The IR per 1,000 person-years for patients with psoriasis was 4.22 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 3.61-4.91), compared with 2.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.95-2.91) for patients with PsA, and 1.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.25-1.55) for patients with RA.
• Moderate to severe liver disease: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 0.98 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 0.70-1.33), compared with 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.77) for patients with PsA, and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37-0.55) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 1.89 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 1.49-2.37), compared with 0.84 (95% CI, 0.59-1.16) for patients with PsA, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.51) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis-related hospitalization: This was the least common outcome, with an IR per 1,000 person years of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49-1.05) for patients with psoriasis, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.18-0.54) for patients with PsA, and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.29) for patients with RA.

When results were adjusted with Cox regression analyses, the psoriasis group had a significantly increased risk compared with the RA group with regard to mild liver disease (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.81-2.72), moderate to-severe liver disease (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31), cirrhosis (HR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.44-4.68), and cirrhosis-related hospitalization (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37-3.69). Compared with patients with RA, patients with PsA had a significantly increased risk of mild liver disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60) and cirrhosis (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.42), but not moderate to severe liver disease or hospitalizations related to cirrhosis.

The researchers noted it is unclear why there was a difference in risk between the three groups of patients.

“While such differences in hepatotoxicity risk were previously attributed to differences in rates of alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities between the disease populations, our study finds that the underlying disease influences liver disease risk independent of age, sex, smoking, alcohol use, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, overall comorbidity, and weekly methotrexate dose,” wrote Dr. Gelfand and colleagues.

As far as they know, their study “ is one of the first and largest population-based studies to directly compare” liver disease in these three groups of patients on methotrexate, they wrote, noting that earlier studies were smaller and frequently used indirect hepatic injury measures.

Limitations of the study included the inability to account for disease severity as well as the potential for disease misclassification, surveillance bias, and confounding by unmeasured variables such as body mass index. Further, the results do not show whether “liver disease is attributed to methotrexate use, the underlying disease, or a combination of both,” the researchers noted.

Four authors report relationships in the form of consultancies, continuing medical information payments, deputy editor positions, fellowship support, individual or spousal honoraria, patents, research grants, and/or speaker positions with various pharmaceutical companies, medical journals, societies, and other organizations; two authors had no disclosures. There was no funding source.

Patients taking methotrexate for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at a higher risk of developing liver disease than were patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on methotrexate, in a large population-based study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/ThinkStockPhotos.com

“These findings suggest that conservative liver monitoring is warranted in patients receiving methotrexate for psoriatic disease,” particularly psoriasis, the investigators concluded.

• Mild liver disease: The IR per 1,000 person-years for patients with psoriasis was 4.22 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 3.61-4.91), compared with 2.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.95-2.91) for patients with PsA, and 1.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.25-1.55) for patients with RA.
• Moderate to severe liver disease: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 0.98 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 0.70-1.33), compared with 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.77) for patients with PsA, and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37-0.55) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 1.89 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 1.49-2.37), compared with 0.84 (95% CI, 0.59-1.16) for patients with PsA, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.51) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis-related hospitalization: This was the least common outcome, with an IR per 1,000 person years of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49-1.05) for patients with psoriasis, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.18-0.54) for patients with PsA, and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.29) for patients with RA.

When results were adjusted with Cox regression analyses, the psoriasis group had a significantly increased risk compared with the RA group with regard to mild liver disease (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.81-2.72), moderate to-severe liver disease (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31), cirrhosis (HR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.44-4.68), and cirrhosis-related hospitalization (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37-3.69). Compared with patients with RA, patients with PsA had a significantly increased risk of mild liver disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60) and cirrhosis (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.42), but not moderate to severe liver disease or hospitalizations related to cirrhosis.

The researchers noted it is unclear why there was a difference in risk between the three groups of patients.

“While such differences in hepatotoxicity risk were previously attributed to differences in rates of alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities between the disease populations, our study finds that the underlying disease influences liver disease risk independent of age, sex, smoking, alcohol use, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, overall comorbidity, and weekly methotrexate dose,” wrote Dr. Gelfand and colleagues.

As far as they know, their study “ is one of the first and largest population-based studies to directly compare” liver disease in these three groups of patients on methotrexate, they wrote, noting that earlier studies were smaller and frequently used indirect hepatic injury measures.

Limitations of the study included the inability to account for disease severity as well as the potential for disease misclassification, surveillance bias, and confounding by unmeasured variables such as body mass index. Further, the results do not show whether “liver disease is attributed to methotrexate use, the underlying disease, or a combination of both,” the researchers noted.

Four authors report relationships in the form of consultancies, continuing medical information payments, deputy editor positions, fellowship support, individual or spousal honoraria, patents, research grants, and/or speaker positions with various pharmaceutical companies, medical journals, societies, and other organizations; two authors had no disclosures. There was no funding source.

Patients taking methotrexate for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at a higher risk of developing liver disease than were patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on methotrexate, in a large population-based study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/ThinkStockPhotos.com

“These findings suggest that conservative liver monitoring is warranted in patients receiving methotrexate for psoriatic disease,” particularly psoriasis, the investigators concluded.

• Mild liver disease: The IR per 1,000 person-years for patients with psoriasis was 4.22 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 3.61-4.91), compared with 2.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.95-2.91) for patients with PsA, and 1.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.25-1.55) for patients with RA.
• Moderate to severe liver disease: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 0.98 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 0.70-1.33), compared with 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.77) for patients with PsA, and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37-0.55) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 1.89 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 1.49-2.37), compared with 0.84 (95% CI, 0.59-1.16) for patients with PsA, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.51) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis-related hospitalization: This was the least common outcome, with an IR per 1,000 person years of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49-1.05) for patients with psoriasis, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.18-0.54) for patients with PsA, and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.29) for patients with RA.

When results were adjusted with Cox regression analyses, the psoriasis group had a significantly increased risk compared with the RA group with regard to mild liver disease (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.81-2.72), moderate to-severe liver disease (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31), cirrhosis (HR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.44-4.68), and cirrhosis-related hospitalization (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37-3.69). Compared with patients with RA, patients with PsA had a significantly increased risk of mild liver disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60) and cirrhosis (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.42), but not moderate to severe liver disease or hospitalizations related to cirrhosis.

The researchers noted it is unclear why there was a difference in risk between the three groups of patients.

“While such differences in hepatotoxicity risk were previously attributed to differences in rates of alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities between the disease populations, our study finds that the underlying disease influences liver disease risk independent of age, sex, smoking, alcohol use, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, overall comorbidity, and weekly methotrexate dose,” wrote Dr. Gelfand and colleagues.

As far as they know, their study “ is one of the first and largest population-based studies to directly compare” liver disease in these three groups of patients on methotrexate, they wrote, noting that earlier studies were smaller and frequently used indirect hepatic injury measures.

Limitations of the study included the inability to account for disease severity as well as the potential for disease misclassification, surveillance bias, and confounding by unmeasured variables such as body mass index. Further, the results do not show whether “liver disease is attributed to methotrexate use, the underlying disease, or a combination of both,” the researchers noted.

Four authors report relationships in the form of consultancies, continuing medical information payments, deputy editor positions, fellowship support, individual or spousal honoraria, patents, research grants, and/or speaker positions with various pharmaceutical companies, medical journals, societies, and other organizations; two authors had no disclosures. There was no funding source.

Obesity, a risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a prevalent comorbidity among people with cirrhosis of all etiologies, is associated with a number of untoward health outcomes, and weight loss is an important goal, according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association. According to one study cited in the update, approximately 30% of patients with cirrhosis have comorbid obesity, and this figure may increase even further as the epidemic of NAFLD progresses.

For obese patients with cirrhosis, weight loss “is an important therapeutic goal” because obesity heightens risks of portal vein thrombosis, portal hypertension, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver failure in acute on chronic liver disease, and other concerns. Despite no longer being an absolute contraindication, obesity can also complicate liver transplantation considerations, Heather Patton, MD, of the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Consideration of individuals with cirrhosis, however, requires careful scrutiny of surgical candidacy, appropriate resources for care of patients with advanced liver disease, and a high-volume bariatric surgical center given the inherent risks of surgical procedures in this patient population.

For patients with cirrhosis and obesity, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is probably the best option for bariatric surgery because it preserves endoscopic access to the biliary tree, facilitates gradual weight loss, and does not cause malabsorption, according to the update.

Clinicians and patients should time bariatric surgery based on liver disease stage – for patients with decompensated disease, surgery should be performed only at the same time as or after liver transplantation, the experts wrote. Clinicians should also evaluate candidacy for liver transplantation before bariatric surgery “so that patients who are ineligible for transplant (and their families) have a clear understanding of this, avoiding the need for the medical team to address this issue urgently if the patient’s condition deteriorates postoperatively.”

One review suggested that bariatric surgery is “the most effective and durable” means of weight loss, according to the authors of the update; however, another review suggested increased surgical risk for bariatric surgery among patients with cirrhosis, so the update’s authors advised individualized risk-benefit assessments. These assessments are made even more complicated by scarcity of relevant randomized trial data, so the experts identified PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2020 and used these to make 10 best practice advice statements for bariatric surgery in obese patients with cirrhosis.

The surgical, anesthesia, and medical teams must be well versed in assessing and operating on patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis and in managing these patients postoperatively, the experts wrote. The preoperative assessment should include cirrhosis status (compensated versus decompensated), the presence and severity of sarcopenia, ascites, and portal hypertension, and candidacy for liver transplantation. It is vital to check for clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) because endoscopic devices should not be used in patients with gastric and/or esophageal varices. To do so, upper endoscopy and cross-sectional imaging are advised, pending better data on noninvasive assessment methods. For patients without CSPH, endoscopic bariatric treatment can be somewhat less effective for weight loss but also might be less likely to lead to postoperative complications. However, head-to-head and long-term safety data are not yet available.

The experts also noted that bariatric surgery increases the effects (blood levels) of alcohol and can increase patients’ risk for developing an alcohol use disorder. Therefore, clinicians should carefully the history of alcohol use and repeatedly educate patients about the risks of consuming alcohol after bariatric surgery. According to a study from 2012 and a review from 2015, male sex, younger age, less social support, and regular or “problematic” alcohol use before bariatric surgery heighten the risk for developing an alcohol use disorder afterward, the experts noted.

Funding sources included the Robert H. Yauk Charitable Trust Gift for Liver Transplant Research 2017-2020 and Regenerative Medicine for Prevention of Post-Transplant Biliary Complications. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Feb. 23, 2021.

Obesity, a risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a prevalent comorbidity among people with cirrhosis of all etiologies, is associated with a number of untoward health outcomes, and weight loss is an important goal, according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association. According to one study cited in the update, approximately 30% of patients with cirrhosis have comorbid obesity, and this figure may increase even further as the epidemic of NAFLD progresses.

For obese patients with cirrhosis, weight loss “is an important therapeutic goal” because obesity heightens risks of portal vein thrombosis, portal hypertension, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver failure in acute on chronic liver disease, and other concerns. Despite no longer being an absolute contraindication, obesity can also complicate liver transplantation considerations, Heather Patton, MD, of the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Consideration of individuals with cirrhosis, however, requires careful scrutiny of surgical candidacy, appropriate resources for care of patients with advanced liver disease, and a high-volume bariatric surgical center given the inherent risks of surgical procedures in this patient population.

For patients with cirrhosis and obesity, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is probably the best option for bariatric surgery because it preserves endoscopic access to the biliary tree, facilitates gradual weight loss, and does not cause malabsorption, according to the update.

Clinicians and patients should time bariatric surgery based on liver disease stage – for patients with decompensated disease, surgery should be performed only at the same time as or after liver transplantation, the experts wrote. Clinicians should also evaluate candidacy for liver transplantation before bariatric surgery “so that patients who are ineligible for transplant (and their families) have a clear understanding of this, avoiding the need for the medical team to address this issue urgently if the patient’s condition deteriorates postoperatively.”

One review suggested that bariatric surgery is “the most effective and durable” means of weight loss, according to the authors of the update; however, another review suggested increased surgical risk for bariatric surgery among patients with cirrhosis, so the update’s authors advised individualized risk-benefit assessments. These assessments are made even more complicated by scarcity of relevant randomized trial data, so the experts identified PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2020 and used these to make 10 best practice advice statements for bariatric surgery in obese patients with cirrhosis.

The surgical, anesthesia, and medical teams must be well versed in assessing and operating on patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis and in managing these patients postoperatively, the experts wrote. The preoperative assessment should include cirrhosis status (compensated versus decompensated), the presence and severity of sarcopenia, ascites, and portal hypertension, and candidacy for liver transplantation. It is vital to check for clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) because endoscopic devices should not be used in patients with gastric and/or esophageal varices. To do so, upper endoscopy and cross-sectional imaging are advised, pending better data on noninvasive assessment methods. For patients without CSPH, endoscopic bariatric treatment can be somewhat less effective for weight loss but also might be less likely to lead to postoperative complications. However, head-to-head and long-term safety data are not yet available.

The experts also noted that bariatric surgery increases the effects (blood levels) of alcohol and can increase patients’ risk for developing an alcohol use disorder. Therefore, clinicians should carefully the history of alcohol use and repeatedly educate patients about the risks of consuming alcohol after bariatric surgery. According to a study from 2012 and a review from 2015, male sex, younger age, less social support, and regular or “problematic” alcohol use before bariatric surgery heighten the risk for developing an alcohol use disorder afterward, the experts noted.

Funding sources included the Robert H. Yauk Charitable Trust Gift for Liver Transplant Research 2017-2020 and Regenerative Medicine for Prevention of Post-Transplant Biliary Complications. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Feb. 23, 2021.

Obesity, a risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a prevalent comorbidity among people with cirrhosis of all etiologies, is associated with a number of untoward health outcomes, and weight loss is an important goal, according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association. According to one study cited in the update, approximately 30% of patients with cirrhosis have comorbid obesity, and this figure may increase even further as the epidemic of NAFLD progresses.

For obese patients with cirrhosis, weight loss “is an important therapeutic goal” because obesity heightens risks of portal vein thrombosis, portal hypertension, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver failure in acute on chronic liver disease, and other concerns. Despite no longer being an absolute contraindication, obesity can also complicate liver transplantation considerations, Heather Patton, MD, of the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Consideration of individuals with cirrhosis, however, requires careful scrutiny of surgical candidacy, appropriate resources for care of patients with advanced liver disease, and a high-volume bariatric surgical center given the inherent risks of surgical procedures in this patient population.

For patients with cirrhosis and obesity, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is probably the best option for bariatric surgery because it preserves endoscopic access to the biliary tree, facilitates gradual weight loss, and does not cause malabsorption, according to the update.

Clinicians and patients should time bariatric surgery based on liver disease stage – for patients with decompensated disease, surgery should be performed only at the same time as or after liver transplantation, the experts wrote. Clinicians should also evaluate candidacy for liver transplantation before bariatric surgery “so that patients who are ineligible for transplant (and their families) have a clear understanding of this, avoiding the need for the medical team to address this issue urgently if the patient’s condition deteriorates postoperatively.”

One review suggested that bariatric surgery is “the most effective and durable” means of weight loss, according to the authors of the update; however, another review suggested increased surgical risk for bariatric surgery among patients with cirrhosis, so the update’s authors advised individualized risk-benefit assessments. These assessments are made even more complicated by scarcity of relevant randomized trial data, so the experts identified PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2020 and used these to make 10 best practice advice statements for bariatric surgery in obese patients with cirrhosis.

The surgical, anesthesia, and medical teams must be well versed in assessing and operating on patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis and in managing these patients postoperatively, the experts wrote. The preoperative assessment should include cirrhosis status (compensated versus decompensated), the presence and severity of sarcopenia, ascites, and portal hypertension, and candidacy for liver transplantation. It is vital to check for clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) because endoscopic devices should not be used in patients with gastric and/or esophageal varices. To do so, upper endoscopy and cross-sectional imaging are advised, pending better data on noninvasive assessment methods. For patients without CSPH, endoscopic bariatric treatment can be somewhat less effective for weight loss but also might be less likely to lead to postoperative complications. However, head-to-head and long-term safety data are not yet available.

The experts also noted that bariatric surgery increases the effects (blood levels) of alcohol and can increase patients’ risk for developing an alcohol use disorder. Therefore, clinicians should carefully the history of alcohol use and repeatedly educate patients about the risks of consuming alcohol after bariatric surgery. According to a study from 2012 and a review from 2015, male sex, younger age, less social support, and regular or “problematic” alcohol use before bariatric surgery heighten the risk for developing an alcohol use disorder afterward, the experts noted.

Funding sources included the Robert H. Yauk Charitable Trust Gift for Liver Transplant Research 2017-2020 and Regenerative Medicine for Prevention of Post-Transplant Biliary Complications. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Feb. 23, 2021.

Mounting evidence of strikingly high prevalence rates of fatty liver disease, advanced fibrosis, and cirrhosis among patients with type 2 diabetes has led to calls for heightened awareness and screening to identify these patients and target treatments to reduce their risk for irreversible liver damage.

Courtesy Dr. Christos S. Mantzoros

Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.

This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.

“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.

“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
 

Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D

Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.

One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .

The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.

Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”

“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”

“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.

These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
 

How to find NASH

Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.

“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.

“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.

But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.

“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
 

Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment

Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.

“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.

Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.

“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”

Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.

“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.

Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
 

Getting the name right

Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.

A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.

“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.

While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”

Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.

“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”

Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

Mounting evidence of strikingly high prevalence rates of fatty liver disease, advanced fibrosis, and cirrhosis among patients with type 2 diabetes has led to calls for heightened awareness and screening to identify these patients and target treatments to reduce their risk for irreversible liver damage.

Courtesy Dr. Christos S. Mantzoros

Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.

This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.

“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.

“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
 

Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D

Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.

One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .

The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.

Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”

“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”

“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.

These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
 

How to find NASH

Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.

“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.

“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.

But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.

“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
 

Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment

Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.

“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.

Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.

“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”

Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.

“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.

Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
 

Getting the name right

Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.

A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.

“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.

While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”

Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.

“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”

Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

Mounting evidence of strikingly high prevalence rates of fatty liver disease, advanced fibrosis, and cirrhosis among patients with type 2 diabetes has led to calls for heightened awareness and screening to identify these patients and target treatments to reduce their risk for irreversible liver damage.

Courtesy Dr. Christos S. Mantzoros

Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.

This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.

“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.

“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
 

Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D

Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.

One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .

The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.

Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”

“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”

“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.

These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
 

How to find NASH

Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.

“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.

“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.

But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.

“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
 

Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment

Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.

“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.

Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.

“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”

Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.

“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.

Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
 

Getting the name right

Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.

A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.

“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.

While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”

Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.

“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”

Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

In an effort to counteract alarming trends in rising hepatitis infections, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has developed and released its Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan 2021-2025, which aims to eliminate viral hepatitis infection in the United States by 2030.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

An estimated 3.3 million people in the United States were chronically infected with hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV) as of 2016. In addition, the country “is currently facing unprecedented hepatitis A (HAV) outbreaks, while progress in preventing hepatitis B has stalled, and hepatitis C rates nearly tripled from 2011 to 2018,” according to the HHS.

The new plan, “A Roadmap to Elimination for the United States,” builds upon previous initiatives the HHS has made to tackle the diseases and was coordinated by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health through the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy.

The plan focuses on HAV, HBV, and HCV, which have the largest impact on the health of the nation, according to the HHS. The plan addresses populations with the highest burden of viral hepatitis based on nationwide data so that resources can be focused there to achieve the greatest impact. Persons who inject drugs are a priority population for all three hepatitis viruses. HAV efforts will also include a focus on the homeless population. HBV efforts will also focus on Asian and Pacific Islander and the Black, non-Hispanic populations, while HCV efforts will include a focus on Black, non-Hispanic people, people born during 1945-1965, people with HIV, and the American Indian/Alaska Native population.
 

Goal-setting

There are five main goals outlined in the plan, according to the HHS:

• Prevent new hepatitis infections.
• Improve hepatitis-related health outcomes of people with viral hepatitis.
• Reduce hepatitis-related disparities and health inequities.
• Improve hepatitis surveillance and data use.
• Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the viral hepatitis epidemics among all partners and stakeholders.

“The United States will be a place where new viral hepatitis infections are prevented, every person knows their status, and every person with viral hepatitis has high-quality health care and treatment and lives free from stigma and discrimination. This vision includes all people, regardless of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, geographic location, or socioeconomic circumstance,” according to the HHS vision statement.

[email protected]

In an effort to counteract alarming trends in rising hepatitis infections, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has developed and released its Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan 2021-2025, which aims to eliminate viral hepatitis infection in the United States by 2030.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

An estimated 3.3 million people in the United States were chronically infected with hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV) as of 2016. In addition, the country “is currently facing unprecedented hepatitis A (HAV) outbreaks, while progress in preventing hepatitis B has stalled, and hepatitis C rates nearly tripled from 2011 to 2018,” according to the HHS.

The new plan, “A Roadmap to Elimination for the United States,” builds upon previous initiatives the HHS has made to tackle the diseases and was coordinated by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health through the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy.

The plan focuses on HAV, HBV, and HCV, which have the largest impact on the health of the nation, according to the HHS. The plan addresses populations with the highest burden of viral hepatitis based on nationwide data so that resources can be focused there to achieve the greatest impact. Persons who inject drugs are a priority population for all three hepatitis viruses. HAV efforts will also include a focus on the homeless population. HBV efforts will also focus on Asian and Pacific Islander and the Black, non-Hispanic populations, while HCV efforts will include a focus on Black, non-Hispanic people, people born during 1945-1965, people with HIV, and the American Indian/Alaska Native population.
 

Goal-setting

There are five main goals outlined in the plan, according to the HHS:

• Prevent new hepatitis infections.
• Improve hepatitis-related health outcomes of people with viral hepatitis.
• Reduce hepatitis-related disparities and health inequities.
• Improve hepatitis surveillance and data use.
• Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the viral hepatitis epidemics among all partners and stakeholders.

“The United States will be a place where new viral hepatitis infections are prevented, every person knows their status, and every person with viral hepatitis has high-quality health care and treatment and lives free from stigma and discrimination. This vision includes all people, regardless of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, geographic location, or socioeconomic circumstance,” according to the HHS vision statement.

[email protected]

In an effort to counteract alarming trends in rising hepatitis infections, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has developed and released its Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan 2021-2025, which aims to eliminate viral hepatitis infection in the United States by 2030.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

An estimated 3.3 million people in the United States were chronically infected with hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV) as of 2016. In addition, the country “is currently facing unprecedented hepatitis A (HAV) outbreaks, while progress in preventing hepatitis B has stalled, and hepatitis C rates nearly tripled from 2011 to 2018,” according to the HHS.

The new plan, “A Roadmap to Elimination for the United States,” builds upon previous initiatives the HHS has made to tackle the diseases and was coordinated by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health through the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy.

The plan focuses on HAV, HBV, and HCV, which have the largest impact on the health of the nation, according to the HHS. The plan addresses populations with the highest burden of viral hepatitis based on nationwide data so that resources can be focused there to achieve the greatest impact. Persons who inject drugs are a priority population for all three hepatitis viruses. HAV efforts will also include a focus on the homeless population. HBV efforts will also focus on Asian and Pacific Islander and the Black, non-Hispanic populations, while HCV efforts will include a focus on Black, non-Hispanic people, people born during 1945-1965, people with HIV, and the American Indian/Alaska Native population.
 

Goal-setting

There are five main goals outlined in the plan, according to the HHS:

• Prevent new hepatitis infections.
• Improve hepatitis-related health outcomes of people with viral hepatitis.
• Reduce hepatitis-related disparities and health inequities.
• Improve hepatitis surveillance and data use.
• Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the viral hepatitis epidemics among all partners and stakeholders.

“The United States will be a place where new viral hepatitis infections are prevented, every person knows their status, and every person with viral hepatitis has high-quality health care and treatment and lives free from stigma and discrimination. This vision includes all people, regardless of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, geographic location, or socioeconomic circumstance,” according to the HHS vision statement.

[email protected]

A growing body of evidence suggests that patients with COVID-19 and preexisting liver disease face increased risks of decompensation and mortality, according to a review of recent literature.

The review aimed to bring together the best approaches for caring for patients with preexisting liver conditions based on recommendations from three major hepatology societies. Findings in included studies could guide clinical decision-making, but a reliable framework for patient management has yet to be established, most likely because of limited research, according to lead author Abdul Mohammed, MD, of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues.

The relationship between chronic liver diseases and “COVID-19 is not well documented in the literature,” Dr. Mohammed and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “The intricate interplay between immune dysfunction in preexisting liver diseases and the immune dysregulation triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 virus needs further evaluation.”

Such knowledge gaps likely explain the inconsistencies in recommendations between major hepatology societies, including clinical guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver.

Both the literature review and the societal guidance address nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, autoimmune hepatitis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cirrhosis, and liver transplantation.

Dr. Mohammed and colleagues first offered an update of the relationship between COVID-19 and liver pathology. While it is clear that SARS-CoV-2 gains hepatic access through binding to ACE2 receptors in bile duct epithelial cells, it remains unclear whether this results in direct hepatic injury or indirect damage from virus-mediated cytokine release. Regardless, more than 90% of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 may develop increased levels of ALT and AST, and these elevations “appear to mirror disease severity,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that severity of COVID-19 appears to correlate with type of preexisting liver disease. For example, one study in the review associated NAFLD with a significantly increased risk of progressive COVID-19 (odds ratio, 6.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-31.2), and it also found that patients with NAFLD had longer duration of viral shedding than those without (17 vs. 12 days). Although the AASLD and APASL give no specific recommendations, the EASL recommends prioritizing COVID-19 patients with NAFLD.

Cirrhosis has been associated with a fourfold increased risk of mortality (relative risk, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.6-8.3) According to data from two international self-reporting registries, COVIDHep.net and COVIDCirrhosis.org, likelihood of death appears to move in tandem with Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores. Decompensated cirrhosis appears to predispose patients to having pulmonary complications, but more studies exploring this correlation need to be performed, according to the review authors. One study found that acute-on-chronic liver failure or acute decompensation occurred in 20% of patients who had COVID-19 and cirrhosis. It’s little surprise, then, that both the AASLD and the EASL recommend prioritizing in person evaluation for patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Chronic HBV infection has also been associated with a higher COVID-19 mortality rate, although Dr. Mohammed and colleagues suggested that “larger studies are needed.” The review notes that the three societies recommend initiating HBV treatment only if there is clinical suspicion of hepatitis flare.

Findings are also cloudy among patients with autoimmune hepatitis and liver transplant recipients; however, the investigators noted that COVID-19 causes tissue damage primarily through cytokine release, and suggested that “immunosuppression can potentially curb this response.” Even so, recommendations from leading hepatology societies allude to a safe middle ground of immunosuppression, albeit with indistinct borders. All three caution against withdrawing immunosuppression, but the societies each describe tailoring regimens in different ways and for different patients, emphasizing continued corticosteroid treatments, according to the review.

Guidance also varies for management of HCC. “Since the tumor doubling time is 4-8 months and current guidelines recommend screening every 6 months, in patients at lower risk for developing HCC, a 2-month delay in ultrasound surveillance has been suggested by the AASLD,” the review authors noted. “In patients with a high risk of developing HCC, 6-month interval screening should be continued.” The AASLD recommends proceeding with treatment with newly diagnosed HCC, the EASL suggests that checkpoint inhibitors should be withheld and locoregional therapies should be postponed, and the APASL calls for a less frequent schedule of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapy.

“COVID-19 patients with the preexisting liver disease face a higher risk of decompensation and mortality,” the review authors concluded. “We presented the most up-to-date literature on preexisting liver disease and its interaction with COVID-19.”

While such discrepancies may remain unresolved until further data are available, Wajahat Mehal, MD, PhD, director of the fatty liver disease program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., suggested that clinicians remain vigilant for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which is common among overweight and obese individuals, an overrepresented group among those hospitalized for COVID-19.

“This is of great significance because patients with various forms of liver disease have a worse outcome with COVID-19,” Dr. Mehal said. “When seeing a patient with COVID-19 it is therefore important to ask if they have underlying liver disease, with attention paid to NASH. This can be approached by seeing if they have any evidence of abnormal liver function tests before the onset of COVID and any evidence of abnormal liver imaging. The Fib-4 test is a good screening tool for the presence of advanced liver fibrosis and a positive result should lead to more specific tests of liver fibrosis status such as fibroscan.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehal reported having nothing to disclose.

A growing body of evidence suggests that patients with COVID-19 and preexisting liver disease face increased risks of decompensation and mortality, according to a review of recent literature.

The review aimed to bring together the best approaches for caring for patients with preexisting liver conditions based on recommendations from three major hepatology societies. Findings in included studies could guide clinical decision-making, but a reliable framework for patient management has yet to be established, most likely because of limited research, according to lead author Abdul Mohammed, MD, of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues.

The relationship between chronic liver diseases and “COVID-19 is not well documented in the literature,” Dr. Mohammed and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “The intricate interplay between immune dysfunction in preexisting liver diseases and the immune dysregulation triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 virus needs further evaluation.”

Such knowledge gaps likely explain the inconsistencies in recommendations between major hepatology societies, including clinical guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver.

Both the literature review and the societal guidance address nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, autoimmune hepatitis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cirrhosis, and liver transplantation.

Dr. Mohammed and colleagues first offered an update of the relationship between COVID-19 and liver pathology. While it is clear that SARS-CoV-2 gains hepatic access through binding to ACE2 receptors in bile duct epithelial cells, it remains unclear whether this results in direct hepatic injury or indirect damage from virus-mediated cytokine release. Regardless, more than 90% of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 may develop increased levels of ALT and AST, and these elevations “appear to mirror disease severity,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that severity of COVID-19 appears to correlate with type of preexisting liver disease. For example, one study in the review associated NAFLD with a significantly increased risk of progressive COVID-19 (odds ratio, 6.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-31.2), and it also found that patients with NAFLD had longer duration of viral shedding than those without (17 vs. 12 days). Although the AASLD and APASL give no specific recommendations, the EASL recommends prioritizing COVID-19 patients with NAFLD.

Cirrhosis has been associated with a fourfold increased risk of mortality (relative risk, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.6-8.3) According to data from two international self-reporting registries, COVIDHep.net and COVIDCirrhosis.org, likelihood of death appears to move in tandem with Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores. Decompensated cirrhosis appears to predispose patients to having pulmonary complications, but more studies exploring this correlation need to be performed, according to the review authors. One study found that acute-on-chronic liver failure or acute decompensation occurred in 20% of patients who had COVID-19 and cirrhosis. It’s little surprise, then, that both the AASLD and the EASL recommend prioritizing in person evaluation for patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Chronic HBV infection has also been associated with a higher COVID-19 mortality rate, although Dr. Mohammed and colleagues suggested that “larger studies are needed.” The review notes that the three societies recommend initiating HBV treatment only if there is clinical suspicion of hepatitis flare.

Findings are also cloudy among patients with autoimmune hepatitis and liver transplant recipients; however, the investigators noted that COVID-19 causes tissue damage primarily through cytokine release, and suggested that “immunosuppression can potentially curb this response.” Even so, recommendations from leading hepatology societies allude to a safe middle ground of immunosuppression, albeit with indistinct borders. All three caution against withdrawing immunosuppression, but the societies each describe tailoring regimens in different ways and for different patients, emphasizing continued corticosteroid treatments, according to the review.

Guidance also varies for management of HCC. “Since the tumor doubling time is 4-8 months and current guidelines recommend screening every 6 months, in patients at lower risk for developing HCC, a 2-month delay in ultrasound surveillance has been suggested by the AASLD,” the review authors noted. “In patients with a high risk of developing HCC, 6-month interval screening should be continued.” The AASLD recommends proceeding with treatment with newly diagnosed HCC, the EASL suggests that checkpoint inhibitors should be withheld and locoregional therapies should be postponed, and the APASL calls for a less frequent schedule of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapy.

“COVID-19 patients with the preexisting liver disease face a higher risk of decompensation and mortality,” the review authors concluded. “We presented the most up-to-date literature on preexisting liver disease and its interaction with COVID-19.”

While such discrepancies may remain unresolved until further data are available, Wajahat Mehal, MD, PhD, director of the fatty liver disease program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., suggested that clinicians remain vigilant for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which is common among overweight and obese individuals, an overrepresented group among those hospitalized for COVID-19.

“This is of great significance because patients with various forms of liver disease have a worse outcome with COVID-19,” Dr. Mehal said. “When seeing a patient with COVID-19 it is therefore important to ask if they have underlying liver disease, with attention paid to NASH. This can be approached by seeing if they have any evidence of abnormal liver function tests before the onset of COVID and any evidence of abnormal liver imaging. The Fib-4 test is a good screening tool for the presence of advanced liver fibrosis and a positive result should lead to more specific tests of liver fibrosis status such as fibroscan.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehal reported having nothing to disclose.

A growing body of evidence suggests that patients with COVID-19 and preexisting liver disease face increased risks of decompensation and mortality, according to a review of recent literature.

The review aimed to bring together the best approaches for caring for patients with preexisting liver conditions based on recommendations from three major hepatology societies. Findings in included studies could guide clinical decision-making, but a reliable framework for patient management has yet to be established, most likely because of limited research, according to lead author Abdul Mohammed, MD, of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues.

The relationship between chronic liver diseases and “COVID-19 is not well documented in the literature,” Dr. Mohammed and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “The intricate interplay between immune dysfunction in preexisting liver diseases and the immune dysregulation triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 virus needs further evaluation.”

Such knowledge gaps likely explain the inconsistencies in recommendations between major hepatology societies, including clinical guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver.

Both the literature review and the societal guidance address nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, autoimmune hepatitis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cirrhosis, and liver transplantation.

Dr. Mohammed and colleagues first offered an update of the relationship between COVID-19 and liver pathology. While it is clear that SARS-CoV-2 gains hepatic access through binding to ACE2 receptors in bile duct epithelial cells, it remains unclear whether this results in direct hepatic injury or indirect damage from virus-mediated cytokine release. Regardless, more than 90% of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 may develop increased levels of ALT and AST, and these elevations “appear to mirror disease severity,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that severity of COVID-19 appears to correlate with type of preexisting liver disease. For example, one study in the review associated NAFLD with a significantly increased risk of progressive COVID-19 (odds ratio, 6.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-31.2), and it also found that patients with NAFLD had longer duration of viral shedding than those without (17 vs. 12 days). Although the AASLD and APASL give no specific recommendations, the EASL recommends prioritizing COVID-19 patients with NAFLD.

Cirrhosis has been associated with a fourfold increased risk of mortality (relative risk, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.6-8.3) According to data from two international self-reporting registries, COVIDHep.net and COVIDCirrhosis.org, likelihood of death appears to move in tandem with Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores. Decompensated cirrhosis appears to predispose patients to having pulmonary complications, but more studies exploring this correlation need to be performed, according to the review authors. One study found that acute-on-chronic liver failure or acute decompensation occurred in 20% of patients who had COVID-19 and cirrhosis. It’s little surprise, then, that both the AASLD and the EASL recommend prioritizing in person evaluation for patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Chronic HBV infection has also been associated with a higher COVID-19 mortality rate, although Dr. Mohammed and colleagues suggested that “larger studies are needed.” The review notes that the three societies recommend initiating HBV treatment only if there is clinical suspicion of hepatitis flare.

Findings are also cloudy among patients with autoimmune hepatitis and liver transplant recipients; however, the investigators noted that COVID-19 causes tissue damage primarily through cytokine release, and suggested that “immunosuppression can potentially curb this response.” Even so, recommendations from leading hepatology societies allude to a safe middle ground of immunosuppression, albeit with indistinct borders. All three caution against withdrawing immunosuppression, but the societies each describe tailoring regimens in different ways and for different patients, emphasizing continued corticosteroid treatments, according to the review.

Guidance also varies for management of HCC. “Since the tumor doubling time is 4-8 months and current guidelines recommend screening every 6 months, in patients at lower risk for developing HCC, a 2-month delay in ultrasound surveillance has been suggested by the AASLD,” the review authors noted. “In patients with a high risk of developing HCC, 6-month interval screening should be continued.” The AASLD recommends proceeding with treatment with newly diagnosed HCC, the EASL suggests that checkpoint inhibitors should be withheld and locoregional therapies should be postponed, and the APASL calls for a less frequent schedule of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapy.

“COVID-19 patients with the preexisting liver disease face a higher risk of decompensation and mortality,” the review authors concluded. “We presented the most up-to-date literature on preexisting liver disease and its interaction with COVID-19.”

While such discrepancies may remain unresolved until further data are available, Wajahat Mehal, MD, PhD, director of the fatty liver disease program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., suggested that clinicians remain vigilant for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which is common among overweight and obese individuals, an overrepresented group among those hospitalized for COVID-19.

“This is of great significance because patients with various forms of liver disease have a worse outcome with COVID-19,” Dr. Mehal said. “When seeing a patient with COVID-19 it is therefore important to ask if they have underlying liver disease, with attention paid to NASH. This can be approached by seeing if they have any evidence of abnormal liver function tests before the onset of COVID and any evidence of abnormal liver imaging. The Fib-4 test is a good screening tool for the presence of advanced liver fibrosis and a positive result should lead to more specific tests of liver fibrosis status such as fibroscan.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehal reported having nothing to disclose.

An update of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation for hepatitis B screening shows little change from the 2014 version, but some wonder if it should have gone farther than a risk-based approach.

The recommendation, which was published in JAMA, reinforces that screening should be conducted among adolescents and adults who are at increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. The USPSTF named six categories of individuals at increased risk of infection: Persons born in countries with a 2% or higher prevalence of hepatitis B, such as Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands, and some areas of South America; unvaccinated individuals born in the United States to parents from regions with a very high prevalence of HBV (≥8%); HIV-positive individuals; those who use injected drugs; men who have sex with men; and people who live with people who have HBV or who have HBV-infected sexual partners. It also recommended that pregnant women be screened for HBV infection during their first prenatal visit.

“I view the updated recommendations as an important document because it validates the importance of HBV screening, and the Grade B recommendation supports mandated insurance coverage for the screening test,” said Joseph Lim, MD, who is a professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Viral Hepatitis Program, both in New Haven, Conn.

Still, the recommendation could have gone further. Notably absent from the USPSTF document, yet featured in recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, are patients who have diabetes, are on immunosuppressive therapy, or have elevated liver enzymes or liver disease. Furthermore, a single-center study found that, among physicians administering immunosuppressive therapy, a setting in which HBV reactivation is a concern, there were low rates of screening for HBV infection, and the physicians did not reliably identify high-risk patients.

“This may also be viewed as a lost opportunity. Evidence suggests that risk factor–based screening is ineffective for the identification of chronic conditions such as hepatitis B. Risk factor–based screening is difficult to implement across health systems and exacerbates the burden on community-based organizations that are motivated to address viral hepatitis. It may further exacerbate labeling, stigma, and discrimination within already marginalized communities that are deemed to be at high risk,” said Dr. Lim.

A similar view was expressed by Avegail Flores, MD, medical director of liver transplantation at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. “This is a good launching point, and with further evidence provided, hopefully it will also bring in a broader conversation about other persons who are at risk but not included in these criteria.” Neither Dr. Lim nor Dr. Flores were involved in the study.

She noted that resistance to universal screening may be caused by the relatively low prevalence of hepatitis B infection in the United States. However, the CDC estimates that only about 61% of people infected with HBV are aware of it. “I don’t think we have done a good job screening those who are at risk,” said Dr. Flores.

Universal screening could help, but would have a low yield. Dr. Flores suggested expansion into other at-risk groups, such as Baby Boomers. With respect to other risk groups that could be stigmatized or discriminated against, Dr. Flores recalled her medical school days when some students went directly into underserved communities to provide information and screening services. “We have to think of creative ways of how to reach out to people, not just relying on the usual physician-patient relationship.”

The issue is especially timely because the World Health Organization has declared a target to reduce new hepatitis B infections by 90% by 2030, and that will require addressing gaps in diagnosis. “That’s why these recommendations are so consequential. We are at a critical juncture in terms of global hepatitis elimination efforts. There is a time sensitive need to have multistakeholder engagement in ensuring that all aspects of the care cascade are addressed. Because of the central role of screening and diagnosis, it’s of critical importance that organizations such as USPSTF are in alignment with other organizations that have already issued clear guidance on who should be screened. It is (my) hope that further examination of the evidence-base will further support broadening USPSTF guidance to include a larger group of at-risk individuals, or ideally a universal screening strategy,” said Dr. Lim.

The recommendation’s authors received travel reimbursement for their involvement, and one author reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. Dr. Flores has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lim is a member of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease’s Viral Hepatitis Elimination Task Force.

SOURCE: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2020 Dec 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22980.

Updated Jan. 20, 2021

An update of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation for hepatitis B screening shows little change from the 2014 version, but some wonder if it should have gone farther than a risk-based approach.

The recommendation, which was published in JAMA, reinforces that screening should be conducted among adolescents and adults who are at increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. The USPSTF named six categories of individuals at increased risk of infection: Persons born in countries with a 2% or higher prevalence of hepatitis B, such as Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands, and some areas of South America; unvaccinated individuals born in the United States to parents from regions with a very high prevalence of HBV (≥8%); HIV-positive individuals; those who use injected drugs; men who have sex with men; and people who live with people who have HBV or who have HBV-infected sexual partners. It also recommended that pregnant women be screened for HBV infection during their first prenatal visit.

“I view the updated recommendations as an important document because it validates the importance of HBV screening, and the Grade B recommendation supports mandated insurance coverage for the screening test,” said Joseph Lim, MD, who is a professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Viral Hepatitis Program, both in New Haven, Conn.

Still, the recommendation could have gone further. Notably absent from the USPSTF document, yet featured in recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, are patients who have diabetes, are on immunosuppressive therapy, or have elevated liver enzymes or liver disease. Furthermore, a single-center study found that, among physicians administering immunosuppressive therapy, a setting in which HBV reactivation is a concern, there were low rates of screening for HBV infection, and the physicians did not reliably identify high-risk patients.

“This may also be viewed as a lost opportunity. Evidence suggests that risk factor–based screening is ineffective for the identification of chronic conditions such as hepatitis B. Risk factor–based screening is difficult to implement across health systems and exacerbates the burden on community-based organizations that are motivated to address viral hepatitis. It may further exacerbate labeling, stigma, and discrimination within already marginalized communities that are deemed to be at high risk,” said Dr. Lim.

A similar view was expressed by Avegail Flores, MD, medical director of liver transplantation at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. “This is a good launching point, and with further evidence provided, hopefully it will also bring in a broader conversation about other persons who are at risk but not included in these criteria.” Neither Dr. Lim nor Dr. Flores were involved in the study.

She noted that resistance to universal screening may be caused by the relatively low prevalence of hepatitis B infection in the United States. However, the CDC estimates that only about 61% of people infected with HBV are aware of it. “I don’t think we have done a good job screening those who are at risk,” said Dr. Flores.

Universal screening could help, but would have a low yield. Dr. Flores suggested expansion into other at-risk groups, such as Baby Boomers. With respect to other risk groups that could be stigmatized or discriminated against, Dr. Flores recalled her medical school days when some students went directly into underserved communities to provide information and screening services. “We have to think of creative ways of how to reach out to people, not just relying on the usual physician-patient relationship.”

The issue is especially timely because the World Health Organization has declared a target to reduce new hepatitis B infections by 90% by 2030, and that will require addressing gaps in diagnosis. “That’s why these recommendations are so consequential. We are at a critical juncture in terms of global hepatitis elimination efforts. There is a time sensitive need to have multistakeholder engagement in ensuring that all aspects of the care cascade are addressed. Because of the central role of screening and diagnosis, it’s of critical importance that organizations such as USPSTF are in alignment with other organizations that have already issued clear guidance on who should be screened. It is (my) hope that further examination of the evidence-base will further support broadening USPSTF guidance to include a larger group of at-risk individuals, or ideally a universal screening strategy,” said Dr. Lim.

The recommendation’s authors received travel reimbursement for their involvement, and one author reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. Dr. Flores has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lim is a member of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease’s Viral Hepatitis Elimination Task Force.

SOURCE: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2020 Dec 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22980.

Updated Jan. 20, 2021

An update of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation for hepatitis B screening shows little change from the 2014 version, but some wonder if it should have gone farther than a risk-based approach.

The recommendation, which was published in JAMA, reinforces that screening should be conducted among adolescents and adults who are at increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. The USPSTF named six categories of individuals at increased risk of infection: Persons born in countries with a 2% or higher prevalence of hepatitis B, such as Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands, and some areas of South America; unvaccinated individuals born in the United States to parents from regions with a very high prevalence of HBV (≥8%); HIV-positive individuals; those who use injected drugs; men who have sex with men; and people who live with people who have HBV or who have HBV-infected sexual partners. It also recommended that pregnant women be screened for HBV infection during their first prenatal visit.

“I view the updated recommendations as an important document because it validates the importance of HBV screening, and the Grade B recommendation supports mandated insurance coverage for the screening test,” said Joseph Lim, MD, who is a professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Viral Hepatitis Program, both in New Haven, Conn.

Still, the recommendation could have gone further. Notably absent from the USPSTF document, yet featured in recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, are patients who have diabetes, are on immunosuppressive therapy, or have elevated liver enzymes or liver disease. Furthermore, a single-center study found that, among physicians administering immunosuppressive therapy, a setting in which HBV reactivation is a concern, there were low rates of screening for HBV infection, and the physicians did not reliably identify high-risk patients.

“This may also be viewed as a lost opportunity. Evidence suggests that risk factor–based screening is ineffective for the identification of chronic conditions such as hepatitis B. Risk factor–based screening is difficult to implement across health systems and exacerbates the burden on community-based organizations that are motivated to address viral hepatitis. It may further exacerbate labeling, stigma, and discrimination within already marginalized communities that are deemed to be at high risk,” said Dr. Lim.

A similar view was expressed by Avegail Flores, MD, medical director of liver transplantation at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. “This is a good launching point, and with further evidence provided, hopefully it will also bring in a broader conversation about other persons who are at risk but not included in these criteria.” Neither Dr. Lim nor Dr. Flores were involved in the study.

She noted that resistance to universal screening may be caused by the relatively low prevalence of hepatitis B infection in the United States. However, the CDC estimates that only about 61% of people infected with HBV are aware of it. “I don’t think we have done a good job screening those who are at risk,” said Dr. Flores.

Universal screening could help, but would have a low yield. Dr. Flores suggested expansion into other at-risk groups, such as Baby Boomers. With respect to other risk groups that could be stigmatized or discriminated against, Dr. Flores recalled her medical school days when some students went directly into underserved communities to provide information and screening services. “We have to think of creative ways of how to reach out to people, not just relying on the usual physician-patient relationship.”

The issue is especially timely because the World Health Organization has declared a target to reduce new hepatitis B infections by 90% by 2030, and that will require addressing gaps in diagnosis. “That’s why these recommendations are so consequential. We are at a critical juncture in terms of global hepatitis elimination efforts. There is a time sensitive need to have multistakeholder engagement in ensuring that all aspects of the care cascade are addressed. Because of the central role of screening and diagnosis, it’s of critical importance that organizations such as USPSTF are in alignment with other organizations that have already issued clear guidance on who should be screened. It is (my) hope that further examination of the evidence-base will further support broadening USPSTF guidance to include a larger group of at-risk individuals, or ideally a universal screening strategy,” said Dr. Lim.

The recommendation’s authors received travel reimbursement for their involvement, and one author reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. Dr. Flores has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lim is a member of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease’s Viral Hepatitis Elimination Task Force.

SOURCE: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2020 Dec 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22980.

Updated Jan. 20, 2021

Once-daily treatment with the lipid-lowering agent bezafibrate significantly reduced moderate to severe pruritis among patients with cholestasis, according to the findings of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (Fibrates for Itch, or FITCH).

Two weeks after completing treatment, 45% of bezafibrate recipients met the primary endpoint, reporting at least a 50% decrease in itch on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), compared with 11% of patients in the placebo group (P = .003). There was also a statistically significant decrease in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels from baseline (35% vs. 6%, respectively; P = .03) that corresponded with improved pruritus, and bezafibrate significantly improved both morning and evening pruritus. Bezafibrate was not associated with myalgia, rhabdomyolysis, or serum alanine transaminase elevations but did lead to a 3% increase in serum creatinine that “was not different from the placebo group,” wrote Elsemieke de Vries, MD, PhD, of the department of gastroenterology & hepatology at Tytgat Institute for Liver and Intestinal Research, Amsterdam, and of department of gastroenterology & metabolism at Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and associates. Their report is in Gastroenterology.

Up to 70% of patients with cholangitis experience pruritus. Current guidelines recommend management with cholestyramine, rifampin, naltrexone, or sertraline, but efficacy and tolerability are subpar, the investigators wrote. In a recent study, a selective inhibitor of an ileal bile acid transporter (GSK2330672) reduced pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis but frequently was associated with diarrhea. In another recent study of patients with primary biliary cholangitis who had responded inadequately to ursodeoxycholic acid (BEZURSO), bezafibrate induced biochemical responses that correlated with improvements in pruritis (a secondary endpoint).

Lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) has been implicated in cholangiopathy-associated pruritus but is not found in bile. However, biliary drainage rapidly improves severe itch in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. Therefore, Dr. de Vries and associates hypothesized that an as-yet unknown factor in bile contributes to pruritus in fibrosing cholangiopathies and that bezafibrate reduces itch by “alleviating hepatobiliary cholestasis and injury and, thereby, reducing formation and biliary secretion of this biliary factor X.”

The FITCH study, which was conducted at seven academic hospitals in the Netherlands and one in Spain, enrolled 74 patients 18 years and older with primary biliary cholangitis or primary or secondary sclerosing cholangitis who reported having pruritus with an intensity of at least 5 on the 10-point VAS at baseline (with 10 indicating “worst itch possible”; median, 7; interquartile range, 7-8). Patients with hepatocellular cholestasis caused by medications or pregnancy were excluded. Ages among most participants ranged from 30s to 50s, and approximately two-thirds were female. None had received another pruritus treatment within 10 days of enrollment, and prior treatment with bezafibrate was not allowed. Patients received once-daily bezafibrate (400 mg) or placebo tablets for 21 days, with visits to the outpatient clinic on days 0, 21, and 35.

There were no serious adverse events or new safety signals. One event of oral pain was considered possibly related to bezafibrate, and itch and jaundice worsened in two patients after completing treatment. As in the 24-month BEZURSO study, increases in serum creatinine were modest and similar between groups (3% with bezafibrate and 5% with placebo). Myalgia and increases in serum alanine transaminase were observed in BEZURSO but not in FITCH. However, the short treatment duration provides “no judgment on long-term safety [of bezafibrate] in complex diseases such as primary sclerosing cholangitis or primary biliary cholangitis,” the investigators wrote.

Four patients discontinued treatment – three stopped placebo because of “unbearable pruritus,” and one stopped bezafibrate after developing acute bacterial cholangitis that required emergency treatment. Although FITCH excluded patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate was less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², one such patient was accidentally enrolled. Her serum creatinine, measured in mmol/L, rose from 121 at baseline to 148 on day 21, and then dropped to 134 after 2 weeks off treatment.

The trial was supported by patient donations, the Netherlands Society of Gastroenterology, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: de Vries E et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.001.

Once-daily treatment with the lipid-lowering agent bezafibrate significantly reduced moderate to severe pruritis among patients with cholestasis, according to the findings of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (Fibrates for Itch, or FITCH).

Two weeks after completing treatment, 45% of bezafibrate recipients met the primary endpoint, reporting at least a 50% decrease in itch on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), compared with 11% of patients in the placebo group (P = .003). There was also a statistically significant decrease in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels from baseline (35% vs. 6%, respectively; P = .03) that corresponded with improved pruritus, and bezafibrate significantly improved both morning and evening pruritus. Bezafibrate was not associated with myalgia, rhabdomyolysis, or serum alanine transaminase elevations but did lead to a 3% increase in serum creatinine that “was not different from the placebo group,” wrote Elsemieke de Vries, MD, PhD, of the department of gastroenterology & hepatology at Tytgat Institute for Liver and Intestinal Research, Amsterdam, and of department of gastroenterology & metabolism at Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and associates. Their report is in Gastroenterology.

Up to 70% of patients with cholangitis experience pruritus. Current guidelines recommend management with cholestyramine, rifampin, naltrexone, or sertraline, but efficacy and tolerability are subpar, the investigators wrote. In a recent study, a selective inhibitor of an ileal bile acid transporter (GSK2330672) reduced pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis but frequently was associated with diarrhea. In another recent study of patients with primary biliary cholangitis who had responded inadequately to ursodeoxycholic acid (BEZURSO), bezafibrate induced biochemical responses that correlated with improvements in pruritis (a secondary endpoint).

Lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) has been implicated in cholangiopathy-associated pruritus but is not found in bile. However, biliary drainage rapidly improves severe itch in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. Therefore, Dr. de Vries and associates hypothesized that an as-yet unknown factor in bile contributes to pruritus in fibrosing cholangiopathies and that bezafibrate reduces itch by “alleviating hepatobiliary cholestasis and injury and, thereby, reducing formation and biliary secretion of this biliary factor X.”

The FITCH study, which was conducted at seven academic hospitals in the Netherlands and one in Spain, enrolled 74 patients 18 years and older with primary biliary cholangitis or primary or secondary sclerosing cholangitis who reported having pruritus with an intensity of at least 5 on the 10-point VAS at baseline (with 10 indicating “worst itch possible”; median, 7; interquartile range, 7-8). Patients with hepatocellular cholestasis caused by medications or pregnancy were excluded. Ages among most participants ranged from 30s to 50s, and approximately two-thirds were female. None had received another pruritus treatment within 10 days of enrollment, and prior treatment with bezafibrate was not allowed. Patients received once-daily bezafibrate (400 mg) or placebo tablets for 21 days, with visits to the outpatient clinic on days 0, 21, and 35.

There were no serious adverse events or new safety signals. One event of oral pain was considered possibly related to bezafibrate, and itch and jaundice worsened in two patients after completing treatment. As in the 24-month BEZURSO study, increases in serum creatinine were modest and similar between groups (3% with bezafibrate and 5% with placebo). Myalgia and increases in serum alanine transaminase were observed in BEZURSO but not in FITCH. However, the short treatment duration provides “no judgment on long-term safety [of bezafibrate] in complex diseases such as primary sclerosing cholangitis or primary biliary cholangitis,” the investigators wrote.

Four patients discontinued treatment – three stopped placebo because of “unbearable pruritus,” and one stopped bezafibrate after developing acute bacterial cholangitis that required emergency treatment. Although FITCH excluded patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate was less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², one such patient was accidentally enrolled. Her serum creatinine, measured in mmol/L, rose from 121 at baseline to 148 on day 21, and then dropped to 134 after 2 weeks off treatment.

The trial was supported by patient donations, the Netherlands Society of Gastroenterology, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: de Vries E et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.001.

Once-daily treatment with the lipid-lowering agent bezafibrate significantly reduced moderate to severe pruritis among patients with cholestasis, according to the findings of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (Fibrates for Itch, or FITCH).

Two weeks after completing treatment, 45% of bezafibrate recipients met the primary endpoint, reporting at least a 50% decrease in itch on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), compared with 11% of patients in the placebo group (P = .003). There was also a statistically significant decrease in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels from baseline (35% vs. 6%, respectively; P = .03) that corresponded with improved pruritus, and bezafibrate significantly improved both morning and evening pruritus. Bezafibrate was not associated with myalgia, rhabdomyolysis, or serum alanine transaminase elevations but did lead to a 3% increase in serum creatinine that “was not different from the placebo group,” wrote Elsemieke de Vries, MD, PhD, of the department of gastroenterology & hepatology at Tytgat Institute for Liver and Intestinal Research, Amsterdam, and of department of gastroenterology & metabolism at Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and associates. Their report is in Gastroenterology.

Up to 70% of patients with cholangitis experience pruritus. Current guidelines recommend management with cholestyramine, rifampin, naltrexone, or sertraline, but efficacy and tolerability are subpar, the investigators wrote. In a recent study, a selective inhibitor of an ileal bile acid transporter (GSK2330672) reduced pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis but frequently was associated with diarrhea. In another recent study of patients with primary biliary cholangitis who had responded inadequately to ursodeoxycholic acid (BEZURSO), bezafibrate induced biochemical responses that correlated with improvements in pruritis (a secondary endpoint).

Lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) has been implicated in cholangiopathy-associated pruritus but is not found in bile. However, biliary drainage rapidly improves severe itch in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. Therefore, Dr. de Vries and associates hypothesized that an as-yet unknown factor in bile contributes to pruritus in fibrosing cholangiopathies and that bezafibrate reduces itch by “alleviating hepatobiliary cholestasis and injury and, thereby, reducing formation and biliary secretion of this biliary factor X.”

The FITCH study, which was conducted at seven academic hospitals in the Netherlands and one in Spain, enrolled 74 patients 18 years and older with primary biliary cholangitis or primary or secondary sclerosing cholangitis who reported having pruritus with an intensity of at least 5 on the 10-point VAS at baseline (with 10 indicating “worst itch possible”; median, 7; interquartile range, 7-8). Patients with hepatocellular cholestasis caused by medications or pregnancy were excluded. Ages among most participants ranged from 30s to 50s, and approximately two-thirds were female. None had received another pruritus treatment within 10 days of enrollment, and prior treatment with bezafibrate was not allowed. Patients received once-daily bezafibrate (400 mg) or placebo tablets for 21 days, with visits to the outpatient clinic on days 0, 21, and 35.

There were no serious adverse events or new safety signals. One event of oral pain was considered possibly related to bezafibrate, and itch and jaundice worsened in two patients after completing treatment. As in the 24-month BEZURSO study, increases in serum creatinine were modest and similar between groups (3% with bezafibrate and 5% with placebo). Myalgia and increases in serum alanine transaminase were observed in BEZURSO but not in FITCH. However, the short treatment duration provides “no judgment on long-term safety [of bezafibrate] in complex diseases such as primary sclerosing cholangitis or primary biliary cholangitis,” the investigators wrote.

Four patients discontinued treatment – three stopped placebo because of “unbearable pruritus,” and one stopped bezafibrate after developing acute bacterial cholangitis that required emergency treatment. Although FITCH excluded patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate was less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², one such patient was accidentally enrolled. Her serum creatinine, measured in mmol/L, rose from 121 at baseline to 148 on day 21, and then dropped to 134 after 2 weeks off treatment.

The trial was supported by patient donations, the Netherlands Society of Gastroenterology, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: de Vries E et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.001.