Hepatology

A 12-month program of moderate to vigorous exercise reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by approximately 50% in adults with obesity over 10 years, according to a new analysis of a study.

“Physical exercise combined with diet restriction has been proven to be effective in prevention of diabetes. However, the long-term effect of exercise on prevention of diabetes, and the difference of exercise intensity in prevention of diabetes have not been well studied,” said corresponding author Xiaoying Li, MD, of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, in an interview.

In the research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed the results of a study of 220 adults with central obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, but no incident diabetes, randomized to a 12-month program of vigorous exercise (73 patients), moderate aerobic exercise (73 patients) or no exercise (74 patients).

A total of 208 participants completed the 1-year intervention; of these, 195 and 178 remained to provide data at 2 years and 10 years, respectively. The mean age of the participants was 53.9 years, 32.3% were male, and the mean waist circumference was 96.1 cm at baseline.

The cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes in the vigorous exercise, moderate exercise, and nonexercise groups was 2.1 per 100 person-years 1.9 per 100 person-years, and 4.1 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 10-year follow-up period. This translated to a reduction in type 2 diabetes risk of 49% in the vigorous exercise group and 53% in the moderate exercise group compared with the nonexercise group.

In addition, individuals in the vigorous and moderate exercise groups significantly reduced their HbA1c and waist circumference compared with the nonexercisers. Levels of plasma fasting glucose and weight regain were lower in both exercise groups compared with nonexercisers, but these differences were not significant.

The exercise intervention was described in a 2016 study, which was also published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That study’s purpose was to compare the effects of exercise on patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Participants were coached and supervised for their exercise programs. The program for the vigorous group involved jogging for 150 minutes per week at 65%-80% of maximum heart rate for 6 months and brisk walking 150 minutes per week at 45%-55% of maximum heart rate for another 6 months. The program for the moderate exercise group involved brisk walking 150 minutes per week for 12 months.

Both exercise groups showed a trend towards higher levels of leisure time physical activity after 10 years compared with the nonexercise groups, although the difference was not significant.

The main limitation of the study was that incident prediabetes was not prespecified, which may have led to some confounding, the researchers noted. In addition, the participants were highly supervised for a 12-month program only. However, the results support the long-term value of physical exercise as a method of obesity management and to delay progression to type 2 diabetes in obese individuals, they said. Vigorous and moderate aerobic exercise programs could be implemented for this patient population, they concluded.

“Surprisingly, our findings demonstrated that a 12-month vigorous aerobic exercise or moderate aerobic exercise could significantly reduce the risk of incident diabetes by 50% over the 10-year follow-up,” Dr. Li said in an interview. The results suggest that physical exercise for some period of time can produce a long-term beneficial effect in prevention of type 2 diabetes, he said.

Potential barriers to the routine use of an exercise intervention in patients with obesity include the unwillingness of this population to engage in vigorous exercise, and the potential for musculoskeletal injury, said Dr. Li. In these cases, obese patients should be encouraged to pursue moderate exercise, Dr. Li said.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to examine the potential mechanism behind the effect of exercise on diabetes prevention, said Dr. Li.

Findings fill gap in long-term outcome data

The current study is important because of the long-term follow-up data, said Jill Kanaley, PhD, professor and interim chair of nutrition and exercise physiology at the University of Missouri, in an interview. “We seldom follow up on our training studies, thus it is important to see if there is any long-term impact of these interventions,” she said.

Dr. Kanaley said she was surprised to see the residual benefits of the exercise intervention 10 years later.

“We often wonder how long the impact of the exercise training will stay with someone so that they continue to exercise and watch their weight; this study seems to indicate that there is an educational component that stays with them,” she said.

The main clinical takeaway from the current study was the minimal weight gain over time, Dr. Kanaley said.

Although time may be a barrier to the routine use of an exercise intervention, patients have to realize that they can usually find the time, especially given the multiple benefits, said Dr. Kanaley. “The exercise interventions provide more benefits than just weight control and glucose levels,” she said.

“The 30-60 minutes of exercise does not have to come all at the same time,” Dr. Kanaley noted. “It could be three 15-minute bouts of exercise/physical activity to get their 45 minutes in,” she noted. Exercise does not have to be heavy vigorous exercise, even walking is beneficial, she said. For people who complain of boredom with an exercise routine, Dr. Kanaley encourages mixing it up, with activities such as different exercise classes, running, or walking on a different day of any given week.

Although the current study was conducted in China, the findings may translate to a U.S. population, Dr. Kanaley said in an interview. However, “frequently our Western diet is less healthy than the traditional Chinese diet. This may have provided an immeasurable benefit to these subjects,” although study participants did not make specific adjustments to their diets, she said.  

Additional research is needed to confirm the findings, said Dr. Kanaley. “Ideally, the study should be repeated in a population with a Western diet,” she noted.

Next steps for research include maintenance of activity

Evidence on the long-term benefits of exercise programs is limited, said Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in an interview.

“Chronic diseases such as diabetes can take years to develop, so understanding these important health outcomes requires years of follow-up. This study followed their study participants for 10 years, which gives us a nice glimpse of the long-term benefits of exercise training on diabetes prevention,” she said.

Data from previous observational studies of individuals’ current activity levels (without an intervention) suggest that adults who are more physically active have a lower risk of diabetes over time, said Dr. Paluch. However, the current study is one of the few with rigorous exercise interventions with extensive follow-up on diabetes risk, and it provides important evidence that a 12-month structured exercise program in inactive adults with obesity can result in meaningful long-term health benefits by lowering the risk of diabetes, she said.

“The individuals in the current study participated in a structured exercise program where their exercise sessions were supervised and coached,” Dr. Paluch noted. “Having a personalized coach may not be within the budget or time constraints for many people,” she said. Her message to clinicians for their patients: “When looking to start an exercise routine, identify an activity you enjoy and find feasible to fit into your existing life and schedule,” she said.

“Although this study was conducted in China, the results are meaningful for the U.S. population, as we would expect the physiological benefit of exercise to be consistent across various populations,” Dr. Paluch said. “However, there are certainly differences across countries at the individual level to the larger community-wide level that may influence a person’s ability to maintain physical activity and prevent diabetes, so replicating similar studies in other countries, including the U.S., would be of value.” 

“Additionally, we need more research on how to encourage maintenance of physical activity in the long-term, after the initial exercise program is over,” she said.

“From this current study, we cannot tease out whether diabetes risk is reduced because of the 12-month exercise intervention or the benefit is from maintaining physical activity regularly over the 10 years of follow-up, or a combination of the two,” said Dr. Paluch. Future studies should consider teasing out participants who were only active during the exercise intervention, then ceased being active vs. participants who continued with vigorous activity long-term, she said.

The study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project. The researchers, Dr. Kanaley, and Dr. Paluch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 12-month program of moderate to vigorous exercise reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by approximately 50% in adults with obesity over 10 years, according to a new analysis of a study.

“Physical exercise combined with diet restriction has been proven to be effective in prevention of diabetes. However, the long-term effect of exercise on prevention of diabetes, and the difference of exercise intensity in prevention of diabetes have not been well studied,” said corresponding author Xiaoying Li, MD, of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, in an interview.

In the research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed the results of a study of 220 adults with central obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, but no incident diabetes, randomized to a 12-month program of vigorous exercise (73 patients), moderate aerobic exercise (73 patients) or no exercise (74 patients).

A total of 208 participants completed the 1-year intervention; of these, 195 and 178 remained to provide data at 2 years and 10 years, respectively. The mean age of the participants was 53.9 years, 32.3% were male, and the mean waist circumference was 96.1 cm at baseline.

The cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes in the vigorous exercise, moderate exercise, and nonexercise groups was 2.1 per 100 person-years 1.9 per 100 person-years, and 4.1 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 10-year follow-up period. This translated to a reduction in type 2 diabetes risk of 49% in the vigorous exercise group and 53% in the moderate exercise group compared with the nonexercise group.

In addition, individuals in the vigorous and moderate exercise groups significantly reduced their HbA1c and waist circumference compared with the nonexercisers. Levels of plasma fasting glucose and weight regain were lower in both exercise groups compared with nonexercisers, but these differences were not significant.

The exercise intervention was described in a 2016 study, which was also published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That study’s purpose was to compare the effects of exercise on patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Participants were coached and supervised for their exercise programs. The program for the vigorous group involved jogging for 150 minutes per week at 65%-80% of maximum heart rate for 6 months and brisk walking 150 minutes per week at 45%-55% of maximum heart rate for another 6 months. The program for the moderate exercise group involved brisk walking 150 minutes per week for 12 months.

Both exercise groups showed a trend towards higher levels of leisure time physical activity after 10 years compared with the nonexercise groups, although the difference was not significant.

The main limitation of the study was that incident prediabetes was not prespecified, which may have led to some confounding, the researchers noted. In addition, the participants were highly supervised for a 12-month program only. However, the results support the long-term value of physical exercise as a method of obesity management and to delay progression to type 2 diabetes in obese individuals, they said. Vigorous and moderate aerobic exercise programs could be implemented for this patient population, they concluded.

“Surprisingly, our findings demonstrated that a 12-month vigorous aerobic exercise or moderate aerobic exercise could significantly reduce the risk of incident diabetes by 50% over the 10-year follow-up,” Dr. Li said in an interview. The results suggest that physical exercise for some period of time can produce a long-term beneficial effect in prevention of type 2 diabetes, he said.

Potential barriers to the routine use of an exercise intervention in patients with obesity include the unwillingness of this population to engage in vigorous exercise, and the potential for musculoskeletal injury, said Dr. Li. In these cases, obese patients should be encouraged to pursue moderate exercise, Dr. Li said.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to examine the potential mechanism behind the effect of exercise on diabetes prevention, said Dr. Li.

Findings fill gap in long-term outcome data

The current study is important because of the long-term follow-up data, said Jill Kanaley, PhD, professor and interim chair of nutrition and exercise physiology at the University of Missouri, in an interview. “We seldom follow up on our training studies, thus it is important to see if there is any long-term impact of these interventions,” she said.

Dr. Kanaley said she was surprised to see the residual benefits of the exercise intervention 10 years later.

“We often wonder how long the impact of the exercise training will stay with someone so that they continue to exercise and watch their weight; this study seems to indicate that there is an educational component that stays with them,” she said.

The main clinical takeaway from the current study was the minimal weight gain over time, Dr. Kanaley said.

Although time may be a barrier to the routine use of an exercise intervention, patients have to realize that they can usually find the time, especially given the multiple benefits, said Dr. Kanaley. “The exercise interventions provide more benefits than just weight control and glucose levels,” she said.

“The 30-60 minutes of exercise does not have to come all at the same time,” Dr. Kanaley noted. “It could be three 15-minute bouts of exercise/physical activity to get their 45 minutes in,” she noted. Exercise does not have to be heavy vigorous exercise, even walking is beneficial, she said. For people who complain of boredom with an exercise routine, Dr. Kanaley encourages mixing it up, with activities such as different exercise classes, running, or walking on a different day of any given week.

Although the current study was conducted in China, the findings may translate to a U.S. population, Dr. Kanaley said in an interview. However, “frequently our Western diet is less healthy than the traditional Chinese diet. This may have provided an immeasurable benefit to these subjects,” although study participants did not make specific adjustments to their diets, she said.  

Additional research is needed to confirm the findings, said Dr. Kanaley. “Ideally, the study should be repeated in a population with a Western diet,” she noted.

Next steps for research include maintenance of activity

Evidence on the long-term benefits of exercise programs is limited, said Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in an interview.

“Chronic diseases such as diabetes can take years to develop, so understanding these important health outcomes requires years of follow-up. This study followed their study participants for 10 years, which gives us a nice glimpse of the long-term benefits of exercise training on diabetes prevention,” she said.

Data from previous observational studies of individuals’ current activity levels (without an intervention) suggest that adults who are more physically active have a lower risk of diabetes over time, said Dr. Paluch. However, the current study is one of the few with rigorous exercise interventions with extensive follow-up on diabetes risk, and it provides important evidence that a 12-month structured exercise program in inactive adults with obesity can result in meaningful long-term health benefits by lowering the risk of diabetes, she said.

“The individuals in the current study participated in a structured exercise program where their exercise sessions were supervised and coached,” Dr. Paluch noted. “Having a personalized coach may not be within the budget or time constraints for many people,” she said. Her message to clinicians for their patients: “When looking to start an exercise routine, identify an activity you enjoy and find feasible to fit into your existing life and schedule,” she said.

“Although this study was conducted in China, the results are meaningful for the U.S. population, as we would expect the physiological benefit of exercise to be consistent across various populations,” Dr. Paluch said. “However, there are certainly differences across countries at the individual level to the larger community-wide level that may influence a person’s ability to maintain physical activity and prevent diabetes, so replicating similar studies in other countries, including the U.S., would be of value.” 

“Additionally, we need more research on how to encourage maintenance of physical activity in the long-term, after the initial exercise program is over,” she said.

“From this current study, we cannot tease out whether diabetes risk is reduced because of the 12-month exercise intervention or the benefit is from maintaining physical activity regularly over the 10 years of follow-up, or a combination of the two,” said Dr. Paluch. Future studies should consider teasing out participants who were only active during the exercise intervention, then ceased being active vs. participants who continued with vigorous activity long-term, she said.

The study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project. The researchers, Dr. Kanaley, and Dr. Paluch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 12-month program of moderate to vigorous exercise reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by approximately 50% in adults with obesity over 10 years, according to a new analysis of a study.

“Physical exercise combined with diet restriction has been proven to be effective in prevention of diabetes. However, the long-term effect of exercise on prevention of diabetes, and the difference of exercise intensity in prevention of diabetes have not been well studied,” said corresponding author Xiaoying Li, MD, of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, in an interview.

In the research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed the results of a study of 220 adults with central obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, but no incident diabetes, randomized to a 12-month program of vigorous exercise (73 patients), moderate aerobic exercise (73 patients) or no exercise (74 patients).

A total of 208 participants completed the 1-year intervention; of these, 195 and 178 remained to provide data at 2 years and 10 years, respectively. The mean age of the participants was 53.9 years, 32.3% were male, and the mean waist circumference was 96.1 cm at baseline.

The cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes in the vigorous exercise, moderate exercise, and nonexercise groups was 2.1 per 100 person-years 1.9 per 100 person-years, and 4.1 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 10-year follow-up period. This translated to a reduction in type 2 diabetes risk of 49% in the vigorous exercise group and 53% in the moderate exercise group compared with the nonexercise group.

In addition, individuals in the vigorous and moderate exercise groups significantly reduced their HbA1c and waist circumference compared with the nonexercisers. Levels of plasma fasting glucose and weight regain were lower in both exercise groups compared with nonexercisers, but these differences were not significant.

The exercise intervention was described in a 2016 study, which was also published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That study’s purpose was to compare the effects of exercise on patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Participants were coached and supervised for their exercise programs. The program for the vigorous group involved jogging for 150 minutes per week at 65%-80% of maximum heart rate for 6 months and brisk walking 150 minutes per week at 45%-55% of maximum heart rate for another 6 months. The program for the moderate exercise group involved brisk walking 150 minutes per week for 12 months.

Both exercise groups showed a trend towards higher levels of leisure time physical activity after 10 years compared with the nonexercise groups, although the difference was not significant.

The main limitation of the study was that incident prediabetes was not prespecified, which may have led to some confounding, the researchers noted. In addition, the participants were highly supervised for a 12-month program only. However, the results support the long-term value of physical exercise as a method of obesity management and to delay progression to type 2 diabetes in obese individuals, they said. Vigorous and moderate aerobic exercise programs could be implemented for this patient population, they concluded.

“Surprisingly, our findings demonstrated that a 12-month vigorous aerobic exercise or moderate aerobic exercise could significantly reduce the risk of incident diabetes by 50% over the 10-year follow-up,” Dr. Li said in an interview. The results suggest that physical exercise for some period of time can produce a long-term beneficial effect in prevention of type 2 diabetes, he said.

Potential barriers to the routine use of an exercise intervention in patients with obesity include the unwillingness of this population to engage in vigorous exercise, and the potential for musculoskeletal injury, said Dr. Li. In these cases, obese patients should be encouraged to pursue moderate exercise, Dr. Li said.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to examine the potential mechanism behind the effect of exercise on diabetes prevention, said Dr. Li.

Findings fill gap in long-term outcome data

The current study is important because of the long-term follow-up data, said Jill Kanaley, PhD, professor and interim chair of nutrition and exercise physiology at the University of Missouri, in an interview. “We seldom follow up on our training studies, thus it is important to see if there is any long-term impact of these interventions,” she said.

Dr. Kanaley said she was surprised to see the residual benefits of the exercise intervention 10 years later.

“We often wonder how long the impact of the exercise training will stay with someone so that they continue to exercise and watch their weight; this study seems to indicate that there is an educational component that stays with them,” she said.

The main clinical takeaway from the current study was the minimal weight gain over time, Dr. Kanaley said.

Although time may be a barrier to the routine use of an exercise intervention, patients have to realize that they can usually find the time, especially given the multiple benefits, said Dr. Kanaley. “The exercise interventions provide more benefits than just weight control and glucose levels,” she said.

“The 30-60 minutes of exercise does not have to come all at the same time,” Dr. Kanaley noted. “It could be three 15-minute bouts of exercise/physical activity to get their 45 minutes in,” she noted. Exercise does not have to be heavy vigorous exercise, even walking is beneficial, she said. For people who complain of boredom with an exercise routine, Dr. Kanaley encourages mixing it up, with activities such as different exercise classes, running, or walking on a different day of any given week.

Although the current study was conducted in China, the findings may translate to a U.S. population, Dr. Kanaley said in an interview. However, “frequently our Western diet is less healthy than the traditional Chinese diet. This may have provided an immeasurable benefit to these subjects,” although study participants did not make specific adjustments to their diets, she said.  

Additional research is needed to confirm the findings, said Dr. Kanaley. “Ideally, the study should be repeated in a population with a Western diet,” she noted.

Next steps for research include maintenance of activity

Evidence on the long-term benefits of exercise programs is limited, said Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in an interview.

“Chronic diseases such as diabetes can take years to develop, so understanding these important health outcomes requires years of follow-up. This study followed their study participants for 10 years, which gives us a nice glimpse of the long-term benefits of exercise training on diabetes prevention,” she said.

Data from previous observational studies of individuals’ current activity levels (without an intervention) suggest that adults who are more physically active have a lower risk of diabetes over time, said Dr. Paluch. However, the current study is one of the few with rigorous exercise interventions with extensive follow-up on diabetes risk, and it provides important evidence that a 12-month structured exercise program in inactive adults with obesity can result in meaningful long-term health benefits by lowering the risk of diabetes, she said.

“The individuals in the current study participated in a structured exercise program where their exercise sessions were supervised and coached,” Dr. Paluch noted. “Having a personalized coach may not be within the budget or time constraints for many people,” she said. Her message to clinicians for their patients: “When looking to start an exercise routine, identify an activity you enjoy and find feasible to fit into your existing life and schedule,” she said.

“Although this study was conducted in China, the results are meaningful for the U.S. population, as we would expect the physiological benefit of exercise to be consistent across various populations,” Dr. Paluch said. “However, there are certainly differences across countries at the individual level to the larger community-wide level that may influence a person’s ability to maintain physical activity and prevent diabetes, so replicating similar studies in other countries, including the U.S., would be of value.” 

“Additionally, we need more research on how to encourage maintenance of physical activity in the long-term, after the initial exercise program is over,” she said.

“From this current study, we cannot tease out whether diabetes risk is reduced because of the 12-month exercise intervention or the benefit is from maintaining physical activity regularly over the 10 years of follow-up, or a combination of the two,” said Dr. Paluch. Future studies should consider teasing out participants who were only active during the exercise intervention, then ceased being active vs. participants who continued with vigorous activity long-term, she said.

The study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project. The researchers, Dr. Kanaley, and Dr. Paluch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For a patient who needs a liver, living donation offers an alternative to staying on a list of more than 10,000 people waiting for a transplant. But what happens when your donor is not a match? To expand the number of living liver donations in the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has launched the first national paired liver donation pilot program.

“It’s an exciting time to be caring for patients who need liver transplants,” Benjamin Samstein, MD, chief of liver transplantation at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He is the principal investigator for the UNOS pilot program. “I do believe it is within our grasp to make sure that nobody dies while waiting for an organ,” he said.

The initiative involves 15 U.S. transplant centers. So far, one recipient-donor pair has enrolled in the program. The pilot program has three main goals: Increase access to living donor transplants; increase access to transplants earlier, when recipients are in better health; and work out how to create and sustain a national program.
 

What is paired donation?

In 2020, 1,095 people died while waiting for a liver transplant, according to a report from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) – a public-private partnership that includes more than 250 transplant centers and 50 organ procurement organizations across the country.

Most liver transplants involve deceased donors. One way to improve access to lifesaving transplants is through living donation, by which a healthy individual donates part of his or her liver. Someone can participate in nondirected or “altruistic” donation, in which someone donates a liver to someone they don’t know, or they can donate to a specific individual (usually a blood relative or a spouse).

With living liver donation, someone may receive a liver earlier, before getting sick enough to be given priority on the wait-list for deceased donation. Because the recipients are in better health, they may have an easier time recovering from the surgery, Ruthanne Leishman, who manages paired donation programs at UNOS, said in an interview.

In some cases, an individual will want to donate an organ to a specific person, but testing reveals that the two would not be a good match. Paired donation allows incompatible donors and recipients to find matches with other incompatible pairs. Each donor matches with the other pairs’ recipient, so the organs are essentially swapped or exchanged between the two pairs.

“People who want to donate get excited about the fact that they are not just helping their loved one but they’re also helping somebody else,” Ms. Leishman said.

Paired kidney donation programs have been running since 2002, but paired liver donation is relatively new. Since the first U.S. living-donor liver transplant in 1989, the procedure has become safer and is a viable alternative to deceased liver donation. A growing number of living donor programs are popping up at transplant centers across the country.

Still, living-donor liver donation makes up a small percentage of the liver transplants that are performed every year. In 2022, 603 living-donor liver transplants were performed in the United States, compared to 8,925 liver transplants from deceased donors, according to OPTN data. Dr. Samstein estimates a couple dozen paired liver exchanges may have been performed in the United States over the past few years within individual hospital systems. A goal of this pilot program, along with increasing access to liver transplants, is to see whether paired liver donation works on a national level, Ms. Leishman said.
 

Challenges to building a national program

There are several notable differences between living donor kidney transplants and living donor liver transplants. For example, living donor liver transplant is a more complicated surgery and poses greater risk to the donor. According to the OPTN 2020 Annual Report, from 2015 to 2019, the rehospitalization rate for living liver donors was twice that of living kidney donors up to 6 weeks after transplant (4.7% vs. 2.4%). One year post transplant, the cumulative rehospitalization rate was 11.0% for living liver donors and 4.8% for living kidney donors.

The risk of dying because of living donation is also higher for liver donors compared to kidney donors. The National Kidney Association states that the odds of dying during kidney donation are about 3 in 100,000, while estimates for risk of death for living liver donors range from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000. But some of these estimates are from 10 or more years ago, and outcomes have likely improved, said Whitney Jackson, MD, medical director of living donor liver transplant at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora. Her program is participating in the UNOS pilot.

More recent data from OPTN provides some idea of risk: Of 3,967 liver donors who donated between March 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2022, three deaths were reported within 30 days of transplant. However, the causes of death were not specified and therefore may be unrelated to the surgery. By comparison, of 74,555 kidney donors during that date range, 10 deaths were reported at 30 days post surgery.

In addition to a more complex surgery, surgeons also have a smaller time window in which to transplant a liver than than they do to transplant a kidney. A kidney can remain viable in cold storage for 24-36 hours, and it can be transported via commercial airlines cross country. Livers have to be transplanted within 8-12 hours, according to the OPTN website. For living donation, the graft needs to be transplanted within about 4 hours, Dr. Samstein noted; this poses a logistical challenge for a national organ paired donation program.

“We worked around that with the idea that we would move the donor rather than the organ,” he said. The program will require a donor (and a support person) to travel to the recipient’s transplant center where the surgery will be performed. While 3 of the 15 pilot paired donation transplant centers are in New York City, the other programs are scattered across the country, meaning a donor may have to fly to a different city to undergo surgery.

Including the preoperative evaluation, meeting the surgical team, the surgery itself, and follow-up, the donor could stay for about a month. The program offers up to $10,000 of financial assistance for travel expenses (for both the donor and support person), as well as lost wages and dependent care (for the donor only). Health insurance coverage will also be provided by the pilot program, in partnership with the American Foundation for Donation and Transplant.

The program requires that transplant candidates (the recipients) be at least 12 years old, be on the waiting list for deceased liver donation at one of the pilot’s transplant centers, and have a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 25 or less. All potential donors must be 18 years or older and must undergo a medical and psychosocial evaluation. Nondirected donors can register with the program, and they will be paired with a candidate on the liver transplant waiting list at the same transplant center.

The 1-year pilot program is set to begin when the program conducts its first match run – an algorithm will help match pairs who are enrolled in the program. About five to seven enrolled pairs would be ideal for the first match run, a UNOS spokesperson said. It is possible that the 1-year pilot program could run without performing any paired transplants, but that’s unlikely if multiple pairs are enrolled in the system, the spokesperson said. At the time of this story’s publication, the one enrolled pair are a mother and daughter who are registered at the UCHealth Transplant Center in Colorado.
 

Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?

While the UNOS pilot program offers financial assistance for expenses related to liver donation, some transplant surgeons are skeptical about the potential travel component of the pilot program.

The pilot program requires that the donor bring one support person if there is a need to travel for the surgery, but undergoing major abdominal surgery from a transplant team they are not familiar with may be stressful, said Peter Abt, MD, a transplant surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “That’s a big ask,” he said, “and I’m not sure many potential donors would be up to that.”

John Roberts, MD, a transplant surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the travel component may put additional stress on the donor, but “if it’s the only way for the recipient to get a transplant, then the donor might be motivated,” he added.

Dr. Jackson remains optimistic. “Our experience so far has been that, yes, some people have been hesitant for things like traveling, but a lot of people who seem to be genuinely dedicated to the idea of living donation have been very enthusiastic,” she noted.

Dr. Leishman agreed that the travel aspect appears to one of the greatest barriers to participants entering the program but noted that a goal of the pilot program is to understand better what works - and what doesn’t – when considering a liver paired donation program on a national scale. “[Our] steering committee has put together a really nice framework that they think will work, but they know it’s not perfect. We’re going to have to tweak it along the way,” she said.

More information on the paired liver donation pilot program can be found on the UNOS website.

The sources interviewed for this article reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 2/15/23.

For a patient who needs a liver, living donation offers an alternative to staying on a list of more than 10,000 people waiting for a transplant. But what happens when your donor is not a match? To expand the number of living liver donations in the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has launched the first national paired liver donation pilot program.

“It’s an exciting time to be caring for patients who need liver transplants,” Benjamin Samstein, MD, chief of liver transplantation at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He is the principal investigator for the UNOS pilot program. “I do believe it is within our grasp to make sure that nobody dies while waiting for an organ,” he said.

The initiative involves 15 U.S. transplant centers. So far, one recipient-donor pair has enrolled in the program. The pilot program has three main goals: Increase access to living donor transplants; increase access to transplants earlier, when recipients are in better health; and work out how to create and sustain a national program.
 

What is paired donation?

In 2020, 1,095 people died while waiting for a liver transplant, according to a report from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) – a public-private partnership that includes more than 250 transplant centers and 50 organ procurement organizations across the country.

Most liver transplants involve deceased donors. One way to improve access to lifesaving transplants is through living donation, by which a healthy individual donates part of his or her liver. Someone can participate in nondirected or “altruistic” donation, in which someone donates a liver to someone they don’t know, or they can donate to a specific individual (usually a blood relative or a spouse).

With living liver donation, someone may receive a liver earlier, before getting sick enough to be given priority on the wait-list for deceased donation. Because the recipients are in better health, they may have an easier time recovering from the surgery, Ruthanne Leishman, who manages paired donation programs at UNOS, said in an interview.

In some cases, an individual will want to donate an organ to a specific person, but testing reveals that the two would not be a good match. Paired donation allows incompatible donors and recipients to find matches with other incompatible pairs. Each donor matches with the other pairs’ recipient, so the organs are essentially swapped or exchanged between the two pairs.

“People who want to donate get excited about the fact that they are not just helping their loved one but they’re also helping somebody else,” Ms. Leishman said.

Paired kidney donation programs have been running since 2002, but paired liver donation is relatively new. Since the first U.S. living-donor liver transplant in 1989, the procedure has become safer and is a viable alternative to deceased liver donation. A growing number of living donor programs are popping up at transplant centers across the country.

Still, living-donor liver donation makes up a small percentage of the liver transplants that are performed every year. In 2022, 603 living-donor liver transplants were performed in the United States, compared to 8,925 liver transplants from deceased donors, according to OPTN data. Dr. Samstein estimates a couple dozen paired liver exchanges may have been performed in the United States over the past few years within individual hospital systems. A goal of this pilot program, along with increasing access to liver transplants, is to see whether paired liver donation works on a national level, Ms. Leishman said.
 

Challenges to building a national program

There are several notable differences between living donor kidney transplants and living donor liver transplants. For example, living donor liver transplant is a more complicated surgery and poses greater risk to the donor. According to the OPTN 2020 Annual Report, from 2015 to 2019, the rehospitalization rate for living liver donors was twice that of living kidney donors up to 6 weeks after transplant (4.7% vs. 2.4%). One year post transplant, the cumulative rehospitalization rate was 11.0% for living liver donors and 4.8% for living kidney donors.

The risk of dying because of living donation is also higher for liver donors compared to kidney donors. The National Kidney Association states that the odds of dying during kidney donation are about 3 in 100,000, while estimates for risk of death for living liver donors range from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000. But some of these estimates are from 10 or more years ago, and outcomes have likely improved, said Whitney Jackson, MD, medical director of living donor liver transplant at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora. Her program is participating in the UNOS pilot.

More recent data from OPTN provides some idea of risk: Of 3,967 liver donors who donated between March 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2022, three deaths were reported within 30 days of transplant. However, the causes of death were not specified and therefore may be unrelated to the surgery. By comparison, of 74,555 kidney donors during that date range, 10 deaths were reported at 30 days post surgery.

In addition to a more complex surgery, surgeons also have a smaller time window in which to transplant a liver than than they do to transplant a kidney. A kidney can remain viable in cold storage for 24-36 hours, and it can be transported via commercial airlines cross country. Livers have to be transplanted within 8-12 hours, according to the OPTN website. For living donation, the graft needs to be transplanted within about 4 hours, Dr. Samstein noted; this poses a logistical challenge for a national organ paired donation program.

“We worked around that with the idea that we would move the donor rather than the organ,” he said. The program will require a donor (and a support person) to travel to the recipient’s transplant center where the surgery will be performed. While 3 of the 15 pilot paired donation transplant centers are in New York City, the other programs are scattered across the country, meaning a donor may have to fly to a different city to undergo surgery.

Including the preoperative evaluation, meeting the surgical team, the surgery itself, and follow-up, the donor could stay for about a month. The program offers up to $10,000 of financial assistance for travel expenses (for both the donor and support person), as well as lost wages and dependent care (for the donor only). Health insurance coverage will also be provided by the pilot program, in partnership with the American Foundation for Donation and Transplant.

The program requires that transplant candidates (the recipients) be at least 12 years old, be on the waiting list for deceased liver donation at one of the pilot’s transplant centers, and have a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 25 or less. All potential donors must be 18 years or older and must undergo a medical and psychosocial evaluation. Nondirected donors can register with the program, and they will be paired with a candidate on the liver transplant waiting list at the same transplant center.

The 1-year pilot program is set to begin when the program conducts its first match run – an algorithm will help match pairs who are enrolled in the program. About five to seven enrolled pairs would be ideal for the first match run, a UNOS spokesperson said. It is possible that the 1-year pilot program could run without performing any paired transplants, but that’s unlikely if multiple pairs are enrolled in the system, the spokesperson said. At the time of this story’s publication, the one enrolled pair are a mother and daughter who are registered at the UCHealth Transplant Center in Colorado.
 

Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?

While the UNOS pilot program offers financial assistance for expenses related to liver donation, some transplant surgeons are skeptical about the potential travel component of the pilot program.

The pilot program requires that the donor bring one support person if there is a need to travel for the surgery, but undergoing major abdominal surgery from a transplant team they are not familiar with may be stressful, said Peter Abt, MD, a transplant surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “That’s a big ask,” he said, “and I’m not sure many potential donors would be up to that.”

John Roberts, MD, a transplant surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the travel component may put additional stress on the donor, but “if it’s the only way for the recipient to get a transplant, then the donor might be motivated,” he added.

Dr. Jackson remains optimistic. “Our experience so far has been that, yes, some people have been hesitant for things like traveling, but a lot of people who seem to be genuinely dedicated to the idea of living donation have been very enthusiastic,” she noted.

Dr. Leishman agreed that the travel aspect appears to one of the greatest barriers to participants entering the program but noted that a goal of the pilot program is to understand better what works - and what doesn’t – when considering a liver paired donation program on a national scale. “[Our] steering committee has put together a really nice framework that they think will work, but they know it’s not perfect. We’re going to have to tweak it along the way,” she said.

More information on the paired liver donation pilot program can be found on the UNOS website.

The sources interviewed for this article reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 2/15/23.

For a patient who needs a liver, living donation offers an alternative to staying on a list of more than 10,000 people waiting for a transplant. But what happens when your donor is not a match? To expand the number of living liver donations in the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has launched the first national paired liver donation pilot program.

“It’s an exciting time to be caring for patients who need liver transplants,” Benjamin Samstein, MD, chief of liver transplantation at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He is the principal investigator for the UNOS pilot program. “I do believe it is within our grasp to make sure that nobody dies while waiting for an organ,” he said.

The initiative involves 15 U.S. transplant centers. So far, one recipient-donor pair has enrolled in the program. The pilot program has three main goals: Increase access to living donor transplants; increase access to transplants earlier, when recipients are in better health; and work out how to create and sustain a national program.
 

What is paired donation?

In 2020, 1,095 people died while waiting for a liver transplant, according to a report from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) – a public-private partnership that includes more than 250 transplant centers and 50 organ procurement organizations across the country.

Most liver transplants involve deceased donors. One way to improve access to lifesaving transplants is through living donation, by which a healthy individual donates part of his or her liver. Someone can participate in nondirected or “altruistic” donation, in which someone donates a liver to someone they don’t know, or they can donate to a specific individual (usually a blood relative or a spouse).

With living liver donation, someone may receive a liver earlier, before getting sick enough to be given priority on the wait-list for deceased donation. Because the recipients are in better health, they may have an easier time recovering from the surgery, Ruthanne Leishman, who manages paired donation programs at UNOS, said in an interview.

In some cases, an individual will want to donate an organ to a specific person, but testing reveals that the two would not be a good match. Paired donation allows incompatible donors and recipients to find matches with other incompatible pairs. Each donor matches with the other pairs’ recipient, so the organs are essentially swapped or exchanged between the two pairs.

“People who want to donate get excited about the fact that they are not just helping their loved one but they’re also helping somebody else,” Ms. Leishman said.

Paired kidney donation programs have been running since 2002, but paired liver donation is relatively new. Since the first U.S. living-donor liver transplant in 1989, the procedure has become safer and is a viable alternative to deceased liver donation. A growing number of living donor programs are popping up at transplant centers across the country.

Still, living-donor liver donation makes up a small percentage of the liver transplants that are performed every year. In 2022, 603 living-donor liver transplants were performed in the United States, compared to 8,925 liver transplants from deceased donors, according to OPTN data. Dr. Samstein estimates a couple dozen paired liver exchanges may have been performed in the United States over the past few years within individual hospital systems. A goal of this pilot program, along with increasing access to liver transplants, is to see whether paired liver donation works on a national level, Ms. Leishman said.
 

Challenges to building a national program

There are several notable differences between living donor kidney transplants and living donor liver transplants. For example, living donor liver transplant is a more complicated surgery and poses greater risk to the donor. According to the OPTN 2020 Annual Report, from 2015 to 2019, the rehospitalization rate for living liver donors was twice that of living kidney donors up to 6 weeks after transplant (4.7% vs. 2.4%). One year post transplant, the cumulative rehospitalization rate was 11.0% for living liver donors and 4.8% for living kidney donors.

The risk of dying because of living donation is also higher for liver donors compared to kidney donors. The National Kidney Association states that the odds of dying during kidney donation are about 3 in 100,000, while estimates for risk of death for living liver donors range from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000. But some of these estimates are from 10 or more years ago, and outcomes have likely improved, said Whitney Jackson, MD, medical director of living donor liver transplant at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora. Her program is participating in the UNOS pilot.

More recent data from OPTN provides some idea of risk: Of 3,967 liver donors who donated between March 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2022, three deaths were reported within 30 days of transplant. However, the causes of death were not specified and therefore may be unrelated to the surgery. By comparison, of 74,555 kidney donors during that date range, 10 deaths were reported at 30 days post surgery.

In addition to a more complex surgery, surgeons also have a smaller time window in which to transplant a liver than than they do to transplant a kidney. A kidney can remain viable in cold storage for 24-36 hours, and it can be transported via commercial airlines cross country. Livers have to be transplanted within 8-12 hours, according to the OPTN website. For living donation, the graft needs to be transplanted within about 4 hours, Dr. Samstein noted; this poses a logistical challenge for a national organ paired donation program.

“We worked around that with the idea that we would move the donor rather than the organ,” he said. The program will require a donor (and a support person) to travel to the recipient’s transplant center where the surgery will be performed. While 3 of the 15 pilot paired donation transplant centers are in New York City, the other programs are scattered across the country, meaning a donor may have to fly to a different city to undergo surgery.

Including the preoperative evaluation, meeting the surgical team, the surgery itself, and follow-up, the donor could stay for about a month. The program offers up to $10,000 of financial assistance for travel expenses (for both the donor and support person), as well as lost wages and dependent care (for the donor only). Health insurance coverage will also be provided by the pilot program, in partnership with the American Foundation for Donation and Transplant.

The program requires that transplant candidates (the recipients) be at least 12 years old, be on the waiting list for deceased liver donation at one of the pilot’s transplant centers, and have a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 25 or less. All potential donors must be 18 years or older and must undergo a medical and psychosocial evaluation. Nondirected donors can register with the program, and they will be paired with a candidate on the liver transplant waiting list at the same transplant center.

The 1-year pilot program is set to begin when the program conducts its first match run – an algorithm will help match pairs who are enrolled in the program. About five to seven enrolled pairs would be ideal for the first match run, a UNOS spokesperson said. It is possible that the 1-year pilot program could run without performing any paired transplants, but that’s unlikely if multiple pairs are enrolled in the system, the spokesperson said. At the time of this story’s publication, the one enrolled pair are a mother and daughter who are registered at the UCHealth Transplant Center in Colorado.
 

Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?

While the UNOS pilot program offers financial assistance for expenses related to liver donation, some transplant surgeons are skeptical about the potential travel component of the pilot program.

The pilot program requires that the donor bring one support person if there is a need to travel for the surgery, but undergoing major abdominal surgery from a transplant team they are not familiar with may be stressful, said Peter Abt, MD, a transplant surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “That’s a big ask,” he said, “and I’m not sure many potential donors would be up to that.”

John Roberts, MD, a transplant surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the travel component may put additional stress on the donor, but “if it’s the only way for the recipient to get a transplant, then the donor might be motivated,” he added.

Dr. Jackson remains optimistic. “Our experience so far has been that, yes, some people have been hesitant for things like traveling, but a lot of people who seem to be genuinely dedicated to the idea of living donation have been very enthusiastic,” she noted.

Dr. Leishman agreed that the travel aspect appears to one of the greatest barriers to participants entering the program but noted that a goal of the pilot program is to understand better what works - and what doesn’t – when considering a liver paired donation program on a national scale. “[Our] steering committee has put together a really nice framework that they think will work, but they know it’s not perfect. We’re going to have to tweak it along the way,” she said.

More information on the paired liver donation pilot program can be found on the UNOS website.

The sources interviewed for this article reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 2/15/23.

The FibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase (FAST) score shows high sensitivity and specificity for noninvasive identification of patients with fibrotic nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The FAST score had an overall sensitivity of 89% and an overall specificity of 89% with a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher, respectively, Federico Ravaioli, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Modena & Reggio Emilia in Italy, and colleagues, wrote in Gut.

“These results could be used in clinical screening studies to efficiently identify patients at risk of progressive NASH, who should be referred for a conclusive liver biopsy, and who might benefit from treatment with emerging pharmacotherapies,” the authors wrote.

The research team analyzed 12 observational studies with 5,835 participants with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) between February 2020 and April 2022. They included articles that reported data for the calculation of sensitivity and specificity of the FAST score for identifying adult patients with fibrotic NASH based on a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher. Fibrotic NASH was defined as patients with NASH plus a NAFLD activity score of 4 or greater and fibrosis stage 2 or higher.

The pooled prevalence of fibrotic NASH was 28%. The mean age of participants ranged from 40 to 60, and the proportion of men ranged from 23% to 91%. The mean body mass index ranged from 23 kg/m² to 41 kg/m², with a prevalence of obesity ranging from 23% to 100% and preexisting type 2 diabetes ranging from 18% to 60%. Nine studies included patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from tertiary care liver centers, and three studies included patients from bariatric clinics or bariatric surgery centers with available liver biopsy data.

Fibrotic NASH was ruled out in 2,723 patients (45.5%) by a FAST score of .35 or lower and ruled in 1,287 patients (21.5%) by a FAST score of .67 or higher. In addition, 1,979 patients (33%) had a FAST score in the so-called “grey” intermediate zone.

Overall, the FAST score pooled sensitivity was 89%, and the pooled specificity was 89%. By the rule-out cutoff of .35, the sensitivity was 89% and the specificity was 56%. By the rule-in cutoff of .67, the sensitivity was 46% and the specificity was 89%.

At an expected prevalence of fibrotic NASH of 30%, the negative predictive value of the .35 cutoff was 92%, and the positive predictive value of the .67 cutoff was 65%. Across the included studies, the negative predictive value ranged from 77% to 98%, and the positive predictive value ranged from 32% to 87%.

For the rule-in cutoff of .67, at a pretest probability of 10%, 20%, 26.3%, and 30%, there was an increasing likelihood of detecting fibrotic NASH by FAST score at 32%, 52%, 60%, and 65%, respectively. For the rule-out cutoff of .35, at the same pretest probability levels, the likelihood of someone not having fibrotic NASH and not being detected by FAST score was 2%, 5%, 7%, and 8%, respectively.

In subgroup analyses, the sensitivity of the rule-out cutoff was significantly affected by the study design. In addition, age and BMI above the median both affected pooled sensitivity but not pooled specificity. On the other hand, the rule-in cutoff was significantly affected by study design, BMI above the median, and presence of preexisting type 2 diabetes above the median.

“Today, we stand on the cusp of a revolutionary time to treat NASH. This is due in part to the fact that many exciting, novel precision metabolic treatments are in the pipeline to combat this disease,” said Brian DeBosch, MD, PhD, associate professor of cell biology and physiology at the Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with this study.

The FibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase (FAST) score shows high sensitivity and specificity for noninvasive identification of patients with fibrotic nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The FAST score had an overall sensitivity of 89% and an overall specificity of 89% with a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher, respectively, Federico Ravaioli, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Modena & Reggio Emilia in Italy, and colleagues, wrote in Gut.

“These results could be used in clinical screening studies to efficiently identify patients at risk of progressive NASH, who should be referred for a conclusive liver biopsy, and who might benefit from treatment with emerging pharmacotherapies,” the authors wrote.

The research team analyzed 12 observational studies with 5,835 participants with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) between February 2020 and April 2022. They included articles that reported data for the calculation of sensitivity and specificity of the FAST score for identifying adult patients with fibrotic NASH based on a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher. Fibrotic NASH was defined as patients with NASH plus a NAFLD activity score of 4 or greater and fibrosis stage 2 or higher.

The pooled prevalence of fibrotic NASH was 28%. The mean age of participants ranged from 40 to 60, and the proportion of men ranged from 23% to 91%. The mean body mass index ranged from 23 kg/m² to 41 kg/m², with a prevalence of obesity ranging from 23% to 100% and preexisting type 2 diabetes ranging from 18% to 60%. Nine studies included patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from tertiary care liver centers, and three studies included patients from bariatric clinics or bariatric surgery centers with available liver biopsy data.

Fibrotic NASH was ruled out in 2,723 patients (45.5%) by a FAST score of .35 or lower and ruled in 1,287 patients (21.5%) by a FAST score of .67 or higher. In addition, 1,979 patients (33%) had a FAST score in the so-called “grey” intermediate zone.

Overall, the FAST score pooled sensitivity was 89%, and the pooled specificity was 89%. By the rule-out cutoff of .35, the sensitivity was 89% and the specificity was 56%. By the rule-in cutoff of .67, the sensitivity was 46% and the specificity was 89%.

At an expected prevalence of fibrotic NASH of 30%, the negative predictive value of the .35 cutoff was 92%, and the positive predictive value of the .67 cutoff was 65%. Across the included studies, the negative predictive value ranged from 77% to 98%, and the positive predictive value ranged from 32% to 87%.

For the rule-in cutoff of .67, at a pretest probability of 10%, 20%, 26.3%, and 30%, there was an increasing likelihood of detecting fibrotic NASH by FAST score at 32%, 52%, 60%, and 65%, respectively. For the rule-out cutoff of .35, at the same pretest probability levels, the likelihood of someone not having fibrotic NASH and not being detected by FAST score was 2%, 5%, 7%, and 8%, respectively.

In subgroup analyses, the sensitivity of the rule-out cutoff was significantly affected by the study design. In addition, age and BMI above the median both affected pooled sensitivity but not pooled specificity. On the other hand, the rule-in cutoff was significantly affected by study design, BMI above the median, and presence of preexisting type 2 diabetes above the median.

“Today, we stand on the cusp of a revolutionary time to treat NASH. This is due in part to the fact that many exciting, novel precision metabolic treatments are in the pipeline to combat this disease,” said Brian DeBosch, MD, PhD, associate professor of cell biology and physiology at the Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with this study.

The FibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase (FAST) score shows high sensitivity and specificity for noninvasive identification of patients with fibrotic nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The FAST score had an overall sensitivity of 89% and an overall specificity of 89% with a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher, respectively, Federico Ravaioli, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Modena & Reggio Emilia in Italy, and colleagues, wrote in Gut.

“These results could be used in clinical screening studies to efficiently identify patients at risk of progressive NASH, who should be referred for a conclusive liver biopsy, and who might benefit from treatment with emerging pharmacotherapies,” the authors wrote.

The research team analyzed 12 observational studies with 5,835 participants with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) between February 2020 and April 2022. They included articles that reported data for the calculation of sensitivity and specificity of the FAST score for identifying adult patients with fibrotic NASH based on a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher. Fibrotic NASH was defined as patients with NASH plus a NAFLD activity score of 4 or greater and fibrosis stage 2 or higher.

The pooled prevalence of fibrotic NASH was 28%. The mean age of participants ranged from 40 to 60, and the proportion of men ranged from 23% to 91%. The mean body mass index ranged from 23 kg/m² to 41 kg/m², with a prevalence of obesity ranging from 23% to 100% and preexisting type 2 diabetes ranging from 18% to 60%. Nine studies included patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from tertiary care liver centers, and three studies included patients from bariatric clinics or bariatric surgery centers with available liver biopsy data.

Fibrotic NASH was ruled out in 2,723 patients (45.5%) by a FAST score of .35 or lower and ruled in 1,287 patients (21.5%) by a FAST score of .67 or higher. In addition, 1,979 patients (33%) had a FAST score in the so-called “grey” intermediate zone.

Overall, the FAST score pooled sensitivity was 89%, and the pooled specificity was 89%. By the rule-out cutoff of .35, the sensitivity was 89% and the specificity was 56%. By the rule-in cutoff of .67, the sensitivity was 46% and the specificity was 89%.

At an expected prevalence of fibrotic NASH of 30%, the negative predictive value of the .35 cutoff was 92%, and the positive predictive value of the .67 cutoff was 65%. Across the included studies, the negative predictive value ranged from 77% to 98%, and the positive predictive value ranged from 32% to 87%.

For the rule-in cutoff of .67, at a pretest probability of 10%, 20%, 26.3%, and 30%, there was an increasing likelihood of detecting fibrotic NASH by FAST score at 32%, 52%, 60%, and 65%, respectively. For the rule-out cutoff of .35, at the same pretest probability levels, the likelihood of someone not having fibrotic NASH and not being detected by FAST score was 2%, 5%, 7%, and 8%, respectively.

In subgroup analyses, the sensitivity of the rule-out cutoff was significantly affected by the study design. In addition, age and BMI above the median both affected pooled sensitivity but not pooled specificity. On the other hand, the rule-in cutoff was significantly affected by study design, BMI above the median, and presence of preexisting type 2 diabetes above the median.

“Today, we stand on the cusp of a revolutionary time to treat NASH. This is due in part to the fact that many exciting, novel precision metabolic treatments are in the pipeline to combat this disease,” said Brian DeBosch, MD, PhD, associate professor of cell biology and physiology at the Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with this study.

New research suggests that coffee’s benefits for reducing severity of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) stem from more than just caffeine.

Increased intake of both regular and decaffeinated coffee was significantly associated with a reduced severity of NAFLD in the study, published in Nutrients. The study participants included 156 overweight adults, most of whom had type 2 diabetes.

A confluence of factors including diet and lifestyle changes and increased obesity have contributed to a rise in type 2 diabetes and of NAFLD, Margarida Coelho, of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal), and colleagues wrote.

Previous studies support an association between coffee and protection against NAFLD, but the roles of the caffeine and noncaffeine components of coffee have not been examined, corresponding author John Griffith Jones, PhD, also of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra, said in an interview.

“There have been previous studies indicating a link between coffee intake and NAFLD amelioration, but these were entirely based on self-reporting questionnaire data, but the main limitation of this approach is that it does not provide any information on which components of coffee confer the beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “The development of new analytical techniques allowing reliable profiling of coffee metabolites in urine allowed this limitation to be addressed.”

Dr. Jones and associates examined the relationship between consumption of regular and decaffeinated coffee on the fatty liver index (FLI), a validated predictor of NAFLD. They measured coffee intake of 156 overweight adults, 135 of whom had type 2 diabetes. The study population included 76 women and 80 men with a mean age of 59 years and a mean body mass index of 29 kg/m².

The participants reported coffee intake via questionnaires, and 98 participants (all with type 2 diabetes) also provided urine samples for measurement of caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites (the products of the body breaking down coffee). NAFLD was assessed using the FLI and a scanning measure of fibrosis.

Overall, no associations appeared between self-reported coffee intake and NAFLD measures. However, urine caffeine metabolite levels were significantly higher among individuals with no liver fibrosis, compared with those with fibrosis, and noncaffeine metabolites showed a significant negative association with FLI measures.

In a multiple regression analysis of 89 individuals with type 2 diabetes, both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites were negatively associated with FLI, which suggests less severe NAFLD, the researchers noted.

Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the findings suggest that other noncaffeine coffee components such as polyphenols may reduce the risk of fibrosis by reducing oxidative stress on the liver, they said.
 

Benefits beyond caffeine

“The main surprise of the study was that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites had beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “We had anticipated caffeine, based on its well-known effects on inhibiting liver fibrosis, but the effects of other components were less well described.”

Clinicians can encourage their patients with type 2 diabetes who drink coffee to continue to do so within a normal range (up to three to four cups per day) including decaffeinated coffee; however, “they should be strongly encouraged to drink coffee without added fats and sugars, otherwise the protective benefits [against more severe NAFLD] will not be realized,” Dr. Jones said.

Additional research is needed to extend the analysis to include more coffee compounds, especially those truly unique to coffee, since caffeine can be found in many other foods and beverages, Dr. Jones added.
 

Limitations include 24-hour time frame

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 24-hour urine sample, which may not represent an individual’s habitual coffee consumption, the researchers noted. The urine metabolites measured also may be derived from foods and beverages other than coffee. In addition, the assessment of NAFLD was based on serum markers and ultrasound/elastography, which are less precise than liver biopsy and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

However, the study is the first known to use urine data to examine coffee’s protective effect against NAFLD and suggests that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites are associated with less severe disease, they concluded.
 

Findings intriguing but not ready for prime time

“The bottom line is that we have a major epidemic of NAFLD in the United States,” Victor L. Roberts, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. NAFLD has become the most common cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, and will become one of the leading causes of cirrhosis – surpassing infections as the main driver of end-stage liver disease.

“In this country, the epidemic of obesity compounds the problem, and risks for NAFLD include obesity and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Roberts.

The concept of coffee as beneficial is not new, but data suggest that the effects vary with insulin resistance, he said. If liver disease is advanced, coffee and its components may not have much benefit, but early on, it might have a role.

The likely mechanism of action for the benefits of coffee on the reduction in liver fibrosis is through a complex set of metabolic steps that interrupt the promotion of collagen production and reduce liver stiffness, said Dr. Roberts.

The current study authors were up front about the limitations, mainly the use of self-reports, although including the urine collection provided more scientific data, he said. More studies are needed in other populations, but the findings are interesting enough to merit additional research.

The take-home message for primary care, however, is that drinking coffee – regular or decaf – does not replace standard of care, Dr. Roberts emphasized.

“If a patient is a coffee drinker and they have NAFLD or are at risk, they could be encouraged to continue drinking coffee,” in reasonable amounts, said Dr. Roberts. “Anywhere from 1-3 cups a day is unlikely to be a problem, and there is some hope and interest in this area,” but the findings of the current study “should not be taken as gospel or advocacy as a solution for people with NAFLD.”

Instead, clinicians should focus on the standard of care for management of patients at risk for NAFLD, promoting lifestyle changes such as weight loss, diet, and exercise (challenging as that may be), and prescribing appropriate medications, he said.

The study was supported by the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, and the researchers received funding from the ISIC to conduct the study. Dr. Roberts had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

New research suggests that coffee’s benefits for reducing severity of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) stem from more than just caffeine.

Increased intake of both regular and decaffeinated coffee was significantly associated with a reduced severity of NAFLD in the study, published in Nutrients. The study participants included 156 overweight adults, most of whom had type 2 diabetes.

A confluence of factors including diet and lifestyle changes and increased obesity have contributed to a rise in type 2 diabetes and of NAFLD, Margarida Coelho, of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal), and colleagues wrote.

Previous studies support an association between coffee and protection against NAFLD, but the roles of the caffeine and noncaffeine components of coffee have not been examined, corresponding author John Griffith Jones, PhD, also of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra, said in an interview.

“There have been previous studies indicating a link between coffee intake and NAFLD amelioration, but these were entirely based on self-reporting questionnaire data, but the main limitation of this approach is that it does not provide any information on which components of coffee confer the beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “The development of new analytical techniques allowing reliable profiling of coffee metabolites in urine allowed this limitation to be addressed.”

Dr. Jones and associates examined the relationship between consumption of regular and decaffeinated coffee on the fatty liver index (FLI), a validated predictor of NAFLD. They measured coffee intake of 156 overweight adults, 135 of whom had type 2 diabetes. The study population included 76 women and 80 men with a mean age of 59 years and a mean body mass index of 29 kg/m².

The participants reported coffee intake via questionnaires, and 98 participants (all with type 2 diabetes) also provided urine samples for measurement of caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites (the products of the body breaking down coffee). NAFLD was assessed using the FLI and a scanning measure of fibrosis.

Overall, no associations appeared between self-reported coffee intake and NAFLD measures. However, urine caffeine metabolite levels were significantly higher among individuals with no liver fibrosis, compared with those with fibrosis, and noncaffeine metabolites showed a significant negative association with FLI measures.

In a multiple regression analysis of 89 individuals with type 2 diabetes, both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites were negatively associated with FLI, which suggests less severe NAFLD, the researchers noted.

Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the findings suggest that other noncaffeine coffee components such as polyphenols may reduce the risk of fibrosis by reducing oxidative stress on the liver, they said.
 

Benefits beyond caffeine

“The main surprise of the study was that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites had beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “We had anticipated caffeine, based on its well-known effects on inhibiting liver fibrosis, but the effects of other components were less well described.”

Clinicians can encourage their patients with type 2 diabetes who drink coffee to continue to do so within a normal range (up to three to four cups per day) including decaffeinated coffee; however, “they should be strongly encouraged to drink coffee without added fats and sugars, otherwise the protective benefits [against more severe NAFLD] will not be realized,” Dr. Jones said.

Additional research is needed to extend the analysis to include more coffee compounds, especially those truly unique to coffee, since caffeine can be found in many other foods and beverages, Dr. Jones added.
 

Limitations include 24-hour time frame

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 24-hour urine sample, which may not represent an individual’s habitual coffee consumption, the researchers noted. The urine metabolites measured also may be derived from foods and beverages other than coffee. In addition, the assessment of NAFLD was based on serum markers and ultrasound/elastography, which are less precise than liver biopsy and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

However, the study is the first known to use urine data to examine coffee’s protective effect against NAFLD and suggests that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites are associated with less severe disease, they concluded.
 

Findings intriguing but not ready for prime time

“The bottom line is that we have a major epidemic of NAFLD in the United States,” Victor L. Roberts, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. NAFLD has become the most common cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, and will become one of the leading causes of cirrhosis – surpassing infections as the main driver of end-stage liver disease.

“In this country, the epidemic of obesity compounds the problem, and risks for NAFLD include obesity and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Roberts.

The concept of coffee as beneficial is not new, but data suggest that the effects vary with insulin resistance, he said. If liver disease is advanced, coffee and its components may not have much benefit, but early on, it might have a role.

The likely mechanism of action for the benefits of coffee on the reduction in liver fibrosis is through a complex set of metabolic steps that interrupt the promotion of collagen production and reduce liver stiffness, said Dr. Roberts.

The current study authors were up front about the limitations, mainly the use of self-reports, although including the urine collection provided more scientific data, he said. More studies are needed in other populations, but the findings are interesting enough to merit additional research.

The take-home message for primary care, however, is that drinking coffee – regular or decaf – does not replace standard of care, Dr. Roberts emphasized.

“If a patient is a coffee drinker and they have NAFLD or are at risk, they could be encouraged to continue drinking coffee,” in reasonable amounts, said Dr. Roberts. “Anywhere from 1-3 cups a day is unlikely to be a problem, and there is some hope and interest in this area,” but the findings of the current study “should not be taken as gospel or advocacy as a solution for people with NAFLD.”

Instead, clinicians should focus on the standard of care for management of patients at risk for NAFLD, promoting lifestyle changes such as weight loss, diet, and exercise (challenging as that may be), and prescribing appropriate medications, he said.

The study was supported by the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, and the researchers received funding from the ISIC to conduct the study. Dr. Roberts had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

New research suggests that coffee’s benefits for reducing severity of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) stem from more than just caffeine.

Increased intake of both regular and decaffeinated coffee was significantly associated with a reduced severity of NAFLD in the study, published in Nutrients. The study participants included 156 overweight adults, most of whom had type 2 diabetes.

A confluence of factors including diet and lifestyle changes and increased obesity have contributed to a rise in type 2 diabetes and of NAFLD, Margarida Coelho, of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal), and colleagues wrote.

Previous studies support an association between coffee and protection against NAFLD, but the roles of the caffeine and noncaffeine components of coffee have not been examined, corresponding author John Griffith Jones, PhD, also of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra, said in an interview.

“There have been previous studies indicating a link between coffee intake and NAFLD amelioration, but these were entirely based on self-reporting questionnaire data, but the main limitation of this approach is that it does not provide any information on which components of coffee confer the beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “The development of new analytical techniques allowing reliable profiling of coffee metabolites in urine allowed this limitation to be addressed.”

Dr. Jones and associates examined the relationship between consumption of regular and decaffeinated coffee on the fatty liver index (FLI), a validated predictor of NAFLD. They measured coffee intake of 156 overweight adults, 135 of whom had type 2 diabetes. The study population included 76 women and 80 men with a mean age of 59 years and a mean body mass index of 29 kg/m².

The participants reported coffee intake via questionnaires, and 98 participants (all with type 2 diabetes) also provided urine samples for measurement of caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites (the products of the body breaking down coffee). NAFLD was assessed using the FLI and a scanning measure of fibrosis.

Overall, no associations appeared between self-reported coffee intake and NAFLD measures. However, urine caffeine metabolite levels were significantly higher among individuals with no liver fibrosis, compared with those with fibrosis, and noncaffeine metabolites showed a significant negative association with FLI measures.

In a multiple regression analysis of 89 individuals with type 2 diabetes, both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites were negatively associated with FLI, which suggests less severe NAFLD, the researchers noted.

Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the findings suggest that other noncaffeine coffee components such as polyphenols may reduce the risk of fibrosis by reducing oxidative stress on the liver, they said.
 

Benefits beyond caffeine

“The main surprise of the study was that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites had beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “We had anticipated caffeine, based on its well-known effects on inhibiting liver fibrosis, but the effects of other components were less well described.”

Clinicians can encourage their patients with type 2 diabetes who drink coffee to continue to do so within a normal range (up to three to four cups per day) including decaffeinated coffee; however, “they should be strongly encouraged to drink coffee without added fats and sugars, otherwise the protective benefits [against more severe NAFLD] will not be realized,” Dr. Jones said.

Additional research is needed to extend the analysis to include more coffee compounds, especially those truly unique to coffee, since caffeine can be found in many other foods and beverages, Dr. Jones added.
 

Limitations include 24-hour time frame

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 24-hour urine sample, which may not represent an individual’s habitual coffee consumption, the researchers noted. The urine metabolites measured also may be derived from foods and beverages other than coffee. In addition, the assessment of NAFLD was based on serum markers and ultrasound/elastography, which are less precise than liver biopsy and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

However, the study is the first known to use urine data to examine coffee’s protective effect against NAFLD and suggests that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites are associated with less severe disease, they concluded.
 

Findings intriguing but not ready for prime time

“The bottom line is that we have a major epidemic of NAFLD in the United States,” Victor L. Roberts, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. NAFLD has become the most common cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, and will become one of the leading causes of cirrhosis – surpassing infections as the main driver of end-stage liver disease.

“In this country, the epidemic of obesity compounds the problem, and risks for NAFLD include obesity and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Roberts.

The concept of coffee as beneficial is not new, but data suggest that the effects vary with insulin resistance, he said. If liver disease is advanced, coffee and its components may not have much benefit, but early on, it might have a role.

The likely mechanism of action for the benefits of coffee on the reduction in liver fibrosis is through a complex set of metabolic steps that interrupt the promotion of collagen production and reduce liver stiffness, said Dr. Roberts.

The current study authors were up front about the limitations, mainly the use of self-reports, although including the urine collection provided more scientific data, he said. More studies are needed in other populations, but the findings are interesting enough to merit additional research.

The take-home message for primary care, however, is that drinking coffee – regular or decaf – does not replace standard of care, Dr. Roberts emphasized.

“If a patient is a coffee drinker and they have NAFLD or are at risk, they could be encouraged to continue drinking coffee,” in reasonable amounts, said Dr. Roberts. “Anywhere from 1-3 cups a day is unlikely to be a problem, and there is some hope and interest in this area,” but the findings of the current study “should not be taken as gospel or advocacy as a solution for people with NAFLD.”

Instead, clinicians should focus on the standard of care for management of patients at risk for NAFLD, promoting lifestyle changes such as weight loss, diet, and exercise (challenging as that may be), and prescribing appropriate medications, he said.

The study was supported by the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, and the researchers received funding from the ISIC to conduct the study. Dr. Roberts had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with a lower risk for liver and nonliver complications, as well as a “large and significant” 57% reduction in the risk for death from any cause, a large, real-world analysis finds.

Improved outcomes were seen among patients without cirrhosis, those with compensated cirrhosis, and those with existing liver decompensation, the authors noted.

The findings highlight a “substantial need to provide DAA therapy to all patients with HCV, regardless of disease stage or financial status,” wrote Mindie Nguyen, MD, of Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., and coinvestigators.

“Additional national efforts are needed to reach and treat U.S. population groups that are underinsured or not insured, incarcerated and otherwise marginalized, such as users of illicit drugs, who are also at higher risk of disease complication and reinfection,” they said.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

CHC and its complications are associated with high rates of illness and death. However, large-scale data on long-term liver and nonliver effects of DAA treatment are limited.

For their study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues analyzed administrative claims data from 2010 to 2021 for 245,596 adults with CHC, of whom 40,654 had received one or more DAA therapies (without interferon) and 204,942 had not received treatment.

DAA-treated patients were slightly older than their untreated peers (mean age, 59.9 years, vs. 58.5 years) and were more likely to be male (62% vs. 58%) and White (59% vs. 57%), and to have diabetes (26% vs. 25%) and cirrhosis (44% vs. 29%).

For liver outcomes, DAA therapy was associated with a lower incidence of decompensation (28.2 vs. 40.8 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in compensated cirrhosis (20.1 vs. 41.8; P < .001).

For nonliver outcomes, DAA treatment was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes (30.2 vs. 37.2 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and chronic kidney disease (31.1 vs. 34.1; P < .001).

The all-cause mortality rate per 1,000 person-years was 36.5 in the DAA-treated group, vs. 64.7 in the untreated group (P < .001).

In multivariable regression analysis, DAA treatment was independently associated with a significant decrease in the risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73), decompensation (aHR, 0.36), diabetes (aHR, 0.74), chronic kidney disease (aHR, 0.81), cardiovascular disease (aHR, 0.90), nonliver cancer (aHR, 0.89), and mortality (aHR, 0.43).

The 57% lower mortality rate observed among DAA-treated vs. untreated patients aligns with a large French study of adults with CHC.

“Because HCV treatment with a DAA regimen is well tolerated for nearly all patients, we believe these findings provide further support for universal HCV treatment coverage for all patients affected by HCV,” Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wrote.

The strengths of this study are its large sample of DAA-treated and untreated patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups from across the United States and from diverse practice settings (not just tertiary centers).

One limitation is that the study cohort included only patients covered by private insurance; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to individuals who are underinsured or not insured. Miscoding and misclassification are also possible with large claims databases.

Support for the study was provided by Stanford University and the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences. Dr. Nguyen has received institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with a lower risk for liver and nonliver complications, as well as a “large and significant” 57% reduction in the risk for death from any cause, a large, real-world analysis finds.

Improved outcomes were seen among patients without cirrhosis, those with compensated cirrhosis, and those with existing liver decompensation, the authors noted.

The findings highlight a “substantial need to provide DAA therapy to all patients with HCV, regardless of disease stage or financial status,” wrote Mindie Nguyen, MD, of Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., and coinvestigators.

“Additional national efforts are needed to reach and treat U.S. population groups that are underinsured or not insured, incarcerated and otherwise marginalized, such as users of illicit drugs, who are also at higher risk of disease complication and reinfection,” they said.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

CHC and its complications are associated with high rates of illness and death. However, large-scale data on long-term liver and nonliver effects of DAA treatment are limited.

For their study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues analyzed administrative claims data from 2010 to 2021 for 245,596 adults with CHC, of whom 40,654 had received one or more DAA therapies (without interferon) and 204,942 had not received treatment.

DAA-treated patients were slightly older than their untreated peers (mean age, 59.9 years, vs. 58.5 years) and were more likely to be male (62% vs. 58%) and White (59% vs. 57%), and to have diabetes (26% vs. 25%) and cirrhosis (44% vs. 29%).

For liver outcomes, DAA therapy was associated with a lower incidence of decompensation (28.2 vs. 40.8 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in compensated cirrhosis (20.1 vs. 41.8; P < .001).

For nonliver outcomes, DAA treatment was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes (30.2 vs. 37.2 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and chronic kidney disease (31.1 vs. 34.1; P < .001).

The all-cause mortality rate per 1,000 person-years was 36.5 in the DAA-treated group, vs. 64.7 in the untreated group (P < .001).

In multivariable regression analysis, DAA treatment was independently associated with a significant decrease in the risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73), decompensation (aHR, 0.36), diabetes (aHR, 0.74), chronic kidney disease (aHR, 0.81), cardiovascular disease (aHR, 0.90), nonliver cancer (aHR, 0.89), and mortality (aHR, 0.43).

The 57% lower mortality rate observed among DAA-treated vs. untreated patients aligns with a large French study of adults with CHC.

“Because HCV treatment with a DAA regimen is well tolerated for nearly all patients, we believe these findings provide further support for universal HCV treatment coverage for all patients affected by HCV,” Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wrote.

The strengths of this study are its large sample of DAA-treated and untreated patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups from across the United States and from diverse practice settings (not just tertiary centers).

One limitation is that the study cohort included only patients covered by private insurance; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to individuals who are underinsured or not insured. Miscoding and misclassification are also possible with large claims databases.

Support for the study was provided by Stanford University and the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences. Dr. Nguyen has received institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with a lower risk for liver and nonliver complications, as well as a “large and significant” 57% reduction in the risk for death from any cause, a large, real-world analysis finds.

Improved outcomes were seen among patients without cirrhosis, those with compensated cirrhosis, and those with existing liver decompensation, the authors noted.

The findings highlight a “substantial need to provide DAA therapy to all patients with HCV, regardless of disease stage or financial status,” wrote Mindie Nguyen, MD, of Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., and coinvestigators.

“Additional national efforts are needed to reach and treat U.S. population groups that are underinsured or not insured, incarcerated and otherwise marginalized, such as users of illicit drugs, who are also at higher risk of disease complication and reinfection,” they said.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

CHC and its complications are associated with high rates of illness and death. However, large-scale data on long-term liver and nonliver effects of DAA treatment are limited.

For their study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues analyzed administrative claims data from 2010 to 2021 for 245,596 adults with CHC, of whom 40,654 had received one or more DAA therapies (without interferon) and 204,942 had not received treatment.

DAA-treated patients were slightly older than their untreated peers (mean age, 59.9 years, vs. 58.5 years) and were more likely to be male (62% vs. 58%) and White (59% vs. 57%), and to have diabetes (26% vs. 25%) and cirrhosis (44% vs. 29%).

For liver outcomes, DAA therapy was associated with a lower incidence of decompensation (28.2 vs. 40.8 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in compensated cirrhosis (20.1 vs. 41.8; P < .001).

For nonliver outcomes, DAA treatment was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes (30.2 vs. 37.2 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and chronic kidney disease (31.1 vs. 34.1; P < .001).

The all-cause mortality rate per 1,000 person-years was 36.5 in the DAA-treated group, vs. 64.7 in the untreated group (P < .001).

In multivariable regression analysis, DAA treatment was independently associated with a significant decrease in the risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73), decompensation (aHR, 0.36), diabetes (aHR, 0.74), chronic kidney disease (aHR, 0.81), cardiovascular disease (aHR, 0.90), nonliver cancer (aHR, 0.89), and mortality (aHR, 0.43).

The 57% lower mortality rate observed among DAA-treated vs. untreated patients aligns with a large French study of adults with CHC.

“Because HCV treatment with a DAA regimen is well tolerated for nearly all patients, we believe these findings provide further support for universal HCV treatment coverage for all patients affected by HCV,” Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wrote.

The strengths of this study are its large sample of DAA-treated and untreated patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups from across the United States and from diverse practice settings (not just tertiary centers).

One limitation is that the study cohort included only patients covered by private insurance; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to individuals who are underinsured or not insured. Miscoding and misclassification are also possible with large claims databases.

Support for the study was provided by Stanford University and the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences. Dr. Nguyen has received institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonheavy alcohol use – fewer than 14 drinks per week for women and fewer than 21 drinks per week for men – is associated with liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new report.

An analysis of current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study found that a higher number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking were associated with increased odds of fibrosis among patients whose consumption fell below the threshold for heavy alcohol use.

“Although the detrimental effects of heavy alcohol use are well accepted, there is no consensus guideline on how to counsel patients about how nonheavy alcohol use may affect liver health,” Brooke Rice, MD, an internal medicine resident at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Current terminology classifies fatty liver disease as either alcoholic or nonalcoholic,” she said. “Our results call this strict categorization into question, suggesting that even nonheavy alcohol use should be considered as a factor contributing to more advanced nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] phenotypes.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing associations

NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, which are the most common causes of chronic liver disease worldwide, are histologically identical but distinguished by the presence of significant alcohol use, the study authors wrote.

Heavy alcohol use, based on guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, is defined as more than 14 drinks per week for women or more than 21 drinks per week for men.

Although heavy alcohol use is consistently associated with cirrhosis and steatohepatitis, studies of nonheavy alcohol use have shown conflicting results, the authors wrote. However, evidence suggests that the pattern of alcohol consumption – particularly increased weekly drinking and binge drinking – may be an important predictor.

Dr. Rice and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study of 2,629 current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study who completed alcohol-use questionnaires and vibration-controlled transient elastography between April 2016 and April 2019. They analyzed the association between fibrosis and several alcohol-use measures, including total consumption and drinking patterns, among nonheavy alcohol users whose liver disease would be classified as “nonalcoholic” by current nomenclature.

The research team defined clinically significant fibrosis as a liver stiffness measurement of 8.2 kPa or higher. For at-risk NASH, the researchers used two FibroScan-AST (FAST) score thresholds – greater than 0.35 or 0.67 and higher. They also considered additional metabolic factors such as physical activity, body mass index, blood pressure, glucose measures, and metabolic syndrome.

Participants were asked to estimate the frequency of alcohol use (average number of drinking days per week during the past year) and the usual quantity of alcohol consumed (average number of drinks on a typical drinking day during the past year). Researchers multiplied the figures to estimate the average total number of drinks per week.

Among the 2,629 current drinkers (53% women, 47% men), the average age was 54 years, 7.2% had diabetes, and 26.9% met the criteria for metabolic syndrome. Participants drank about 3 days per week on average with a usual consumption of two drinks per drinking day, averaging a total weekly alcohol consumption of six drinks.

The average liver stiffness measurement was 5.6 kPa, and 8.2% had significant fibrosis.

At the FAST score threshold of 0.67 or greater, 1.9% of participants were likely to have at-risk NASH, with a higher prevalence in those with obesity (4.5%) or diabetes (9.5%). At the FAST score threshold of greater than 0.35, the prevalence of at-risk NASH was 12.4%, which was higher in those with obesity (26.3%) or diabetes (34.4%).

Overall, an increased total number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking days were associated with increased odds of fibrosis.

Almost 17.5% of participants engaged in risky weekly drinking, which was defined as 8 or more drinks per week for women and 15 or more drinks per week for men. Risky weekly drinking was also associated with higher odds of fibrosis.

After excluding 158 heavy drinkers, the prevalence of fibrosis was unchanged at 8%, and an increased total of drinks per week remained significantly associated with fibrosis.

In addition, multiple alcohol-use measures were positively associated with a FAST score greater than 0.35 and were similar after excluding heavy alcohol users. These measures include the number of drinks per week, the frequency of drinking days, and binge drinking.

“We showed that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with fibrosis and at-risk NASH, which are both predictors of long-term liver-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Rice said.
 

Implications for patient care

The findings have important implications for both NAFLD clinical trials and patient care, the study authors wrote. For instance, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend limiting alcohol use to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.

“Our results reinforce the importance of encouraging all patients to reduce alcohol intake as much as possible and to at least adhere to current U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommended limits,” Dr. Rice said. “Almost half of participants in our study consumed in excess of these limits, which strongly associated with at-risk NASH.”

Additional long-term studies are needed to determine the benefits of limiting alcohol consumption to reduce liver-related morbidity and mortality, the authors wrote.

The effect of alcohol consumption on liver health “has been controversial, since some studies have suggested that nonheavy alcohol use can even have some beneficial metabolic effects and has been associated with reduced risk of fatty liver disease, while other studies have found that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with increased risk for liver-related clinical outcomes,” Fredrik Åberg, MD, PhD, a hepatologist and liver transplant specialist at Helsinki University Hospital, said in an interview.

Dr. Åberg wasn’t involved with this study but has researched alcohol consumption and liver disease. Among non–heavy alcohol users, drinking more alcohol per week is associated with increased hospitalization for liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death, he and his colleagues have found.

“We concluded that the net effect of non-heavy drinking on the liver is harm,” he said. “Overall, this study by Rice and colleagues supports the recommendation that persons with mild liver disease should reduce their drinking, and persons with severe liver disease (cirrhosis and advanced fibrosis) should abstain from alcohol use.”

The study authors are supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, a Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Grant, a Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, the Boston University Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and the Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. The Framingham Heart Study is supported in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors and Dr. Åberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonheavy alcohol use – fewer than 14 drinks per week for women and fewer than 21 drinks per week for men – is associated with liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new report.

An analysis of current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study found that a higher number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking were associated with increased odds of fibrosis among patients whose consumption fell below the threshold for heavy alcohol use.

“Although the detrimental effects of heavy alcohol use are well accepted, there is no consensus guideline on how to counsel patients about how nonheavy alcohol use may affect liver health,” Brooke Rice, MD, an internal medicine resident at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Current terminology classifies fatty liver disease as either alcoholic or nonalcoholic,” she said. “Our results call this strict categorization into question, suggesting that even nonheavy alcohol use should be considered as a factor contributing to more advanced nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] phenotypes.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing associations

NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, which are the most common causes of chronic liver disease worldwide, are histologically identical but distinguished by the presence of significant alcohol use, the study authors wrote.

Heavy alcohol use, based on guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, is defined as more than 14 drinks per week for women or more than 21 drinks per week for men.

Although heavy alcohol use is consistently associated with cirrhosis and steatohepatitis, studies of nonheavy alcohol use have shown conflicting results, the authors wrote. However, evidence suggests that the pattern of alcohol consumption – particularly increased weekly drinking and binge drinking – may be an important predictor.

Dr. Rice and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study of 2,629 current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study who completed alcohol-use questionnaires and vibration-controlled transient elastography between April 2016 and April 2019. They analyzed the association between fibrosis and several alcohol-use measures, including total consumption and drinking patterns, among nonheavy alcohol users whose liver disease would be classified as “nonalcoholic” by current nomenclature.

The research team defined clinically significant fibrosis as a liver stiffness measurement of 8.2 kPa or higher. For at-risk NASH, the researchers used two FibroScan-AST (FAST) score thresholds – greater than 0.35 or 0.67 and higher. They also considered additional metabolic factors such as physical activity, body mass index, blood pressure, glucose measures, and metabolic syndrome.

Participants were asked to estimate the frequency of alcohol use (average number of drinking days per week during the past year) and the usual quantity of alcohol consumed (average number of drinks on a typical drinking day during the past year). Researchers multiplied the figures to estimate the average total number of drinks per week.

Among the 2,629 current drinkers (53% women, 47% men), the average age was 54 years, 7.2% had diabetes, and 26.9% met the criteria for metabolic syndrome. Participants drank about 3 days per week on average with a usual consumption of two drinks per drinking day, averaging a total weekly alcohol consumption of six drinks.

The average liver stiffness measurement was 5.6 kPa, and 8.2% had significant fibrosis.

At the FAST score threshold of 0.67 or greater, 1.9% of participants were likely to have at-risk NASH, with a higher prevalence in those with obesity (4.5%) or diabetes (9.5%). At the FAST score threshold of greater than 0.35, the prevalence of at-risk NASH was 12.4%, which was higher in those with obesity (26.3%) or diabetes (34.4%).

Overall, an increased total number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking days were associated with increased odds of fibrosis.

Almost 17.5% of participants engaged in risky weekly drinking, which was defined as 8 or more drinks per week for women and 15 or more drinks per week for men. Risky weekly drinking was also associated with higher odds of fibrosis.

After excluding 158 heavy drinkers, the prevalence of fibrosis was unchanged at 8%, and an increased total of drinks per week remained significantly associated with fibrosis.

In addition, multiple alcohol-use measures were positively associated with a FAST score greater than 0.35 and were similar after excluding heavy alcohol users. These measures include the number of drinks per week, the frequency of drinking days, and binge drinking.

“We showed that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with fibrosis and at-risk NASH, which are both predictors of long-term liver-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Rice said.
 

Implications for patient care

The findings have important implications for both NAFLD clinical trials and patient care, the study authors wrote. For instance, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend limiting alcohol use to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.

“Our results reinforce the importance of encouraging all patients to reduce alcohol intake as much as possible and to at least adhere to current U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommended limits,” Dr. Rice said. “Almost half of participants in our study consumed in excess of these limits, which strongly associated with at-risk NASH.”

Additional long-term studies are needed to determine the benefits of limiting alcohol consumption to reduce liver-related morbidity and mortality, the authors wrote.

The effect of alcohol consumption on liver health “has been controversial, since some studies have suggested that nonheavy alcohol use can even have some beneficial metabolic effects and has been associated with reduced risk of fatty liver disease, while other studies have found that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with increased risk for liver-related clinical outcomes,” Fredrik Åberg, MD, PhD, a hepatologist and liver transplant specialist at Helsinki University Hospital, said in an interview.

Dr. Åberg wasn’t involved with this study but has researched alcohol consumption and liver disease. Among non–heavy alcohol users, drinking more alcohol per week is associated with increased hospitalization for liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death, he and his colleagues have found.

“We concluded that the net effect of non-heavy drinking on the liver is harm,” he said. “Overall, this study by Rice and colleagues supports the recommendation that persons with mild liver disease should reduce their drinking, and persons with severe liver disease (cirrhosis and advanced fibrosis) should abstain from alcohol use.”

The study authors are supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, a Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Grant, a Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, the Boston University Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and the Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. The Framingham Heart Study is supported in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors and Dr. Åberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonheavy alcohol use – fewer than 14 drinks per week for women and fewer than 21 drinks per week for men – is associated with liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new report.

An analysis of current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study found that a higher number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking were associated with increased odds of fibrosis among patients whose consumption fell below the threshold for heavy alcohol use.

“Although the detrimental effects of heavy alcohol use are well accepted, there is no consensus guideline on how to counsel patients about how nonheavy alcohol use may affect liver health,” Brooke Rice, MD, an internal medicine resident at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Current terminology classifies fatty liver disease as either alcoholic or nonalcoholic,” she said. “Our results call this strict categorization into question, suggesting that even nonheavy alcohol use should be considered as a factor contributing to more advanced nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] phenotypes.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing associations

NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, which are the most common causes of chronic liver disease worldwide, are histologically identical but distinguished by the presence of significant alcohol use, the study authors wrote.

Heavy alcohol use, based on guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, is defined as more than 14 drinks per week for women or more than 21 drinks per week for men.

Although heavy alcohol use is consistently associated with cirrhosis and steatohepatitis, studies of nonheavy alcohol use have shown conflicting results, the authors wrote. However, evidence suggests that the pattern of alcohol consumption – particularly increased weekly drinking and binge drinking – may be an important predictor.

Dr. Rice and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study of 2,629 current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study who completed alcohol-use questionnaires and vibration-controlled transient elastography between April 2016 and April 2019. They analyzed the association between fibrosis and several alcohol-use measures, including total consumption and drinking patterns, among nonheavy alcohol users whose liver disease would be classified as “nonalcoholic” by current nomenclature.

The research team defined clinically significant fibrosis as a liver stiffness measurement of 8.2 kPa or higher. For at-risk NASH, the researchers used two FibroScan-AST (FAST) score thresholds – greater than 0.35 or 0.67 and higher. They also considered additional metabolic factors such as physical activity, body mass index, blood pressure, glucose measures, and metabolic syndrome.

Participants were asked to estimate the frequency of alcohol use (average number of drinking days per week during the past year) and the usual quantity of alcohol consumed (average number of drinks on a typical drinking day during the past year). Researchers multiplied the figures to estimate the average total number of drinks per week.

Among the 2,629 current drinkers (53% women, 47% men), the average age was 54 years, 7.2% had diabetes, and 26.9% met the criteria for metabolic syndrome. Participants drank about 3 days per week on average with a usual consumption of two drinks per drinking day, averaging a total weekly alcohol consumption of six drinks.

The average liver stiffness measurement was 5.6 kPa, and 8.2% had significant fibrosis.

At the FAST score threshold of 0.67 or greater, 1.9% of participants were likely to have at-risk NASH, with a higher prevalence in those with obesity (4.5%) or diabetes (9.5%). At the FAST score threshold of greater than 0.35, the prevalence of at-risk NASH was 12.4%, which was higher in those with obesity (26.3%) or diabetes (34.4%).

Overall, an increased total number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking days were associated with increased odds of fibrosis.

Almost 17.5% of participants engaged in risky weekly drinking, which was defined as 8 or more drinks per week for women and 15 or more drinks per week for men. Risky weekly drinking was also associated with higher odds of fibrosis.

After excluding 158 heavy drinkers, the prevalence of fibrosis was unchanged at 8%, and an increased total of drinks per week remained significantly associated with fibrosis.

In addition, multiple alcohol-use measures were positively associated with a FAST score greater than 0.35 and were similar after excluding heavy alcohol users. These measures include the number of drinks per week, the frequency of drinking days, and binge drinking.

“We showed that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with fibrosis and at-risk NASH, which are both predictors of long-term liver-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Rice said.
 

Implications for patient care

The findings have important implications for both NAFLD clinical trials and patient care, the study authors wrote. For instance, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend limiting alcohol use to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.

“Our results reinforce the importance of encouraging all patients to reduce alcohol intake as much as possible and to at least adhere to current U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommended limits,” Dr. Rice said. “Almost half of participants in our study consumed in excess of these limits, which strongly associated with at-risk NASH.”

Additional long-term studies are needed to determine the benefits of limiting alcohol consumption to reduce liver-related morbidity and mortality, the authors wrote.

The effect of alcohol consumption on liver health “has been controversial, since some studies have suggested that nonheavy alcohol use can even have some beneficial metabolic effects and has been associated with reduced risk of fatty liver disease, while other studies have found that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with increased risk for liver-related clinical outcomes,” Fredrik Åberg, MD, PhD, a hepatologist and liver transplant specialist at Helsinki University Hospital, said in an interview.

Dr. Åberg wasn’t involved with this study but has researched alcohol consumption and liver disease. Among non–heavy alcohol users, drinking more alcohol per week is associated with increased hospitalization for liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death, he and his colleagues have found.

“We concluded that the net effect of non-heavy drinking on the liver is harm,” he said. “Overall, this study by Rice and colleagues supports the recommendation that persons with mild liver disease should reduce their drinking, and persons with severe liver disease (cirrhosis and advanced fibrosis) should abstain from alcohol use.”

The study authors are supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, a Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Grant, a Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, the Boston University Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and the Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. The Framingham Heart Study is supported in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors and Dr. Åberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Treating adults who have chronic hepatitis C (CHC) with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) was linked with a lower risk of death and poor liver outcomes, in a new study.

Eiichi Ogawa, MD, PhD, with the department of general internal medicine, Kyushu University Hospital in Fukuoka, Japan, led the retrospective study of 245,596 adults with CHC. In the new research, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors analyzed data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (CDM) database, 2010-2021.

It was important to do the study because of limited and conflicting information – mostly from case reports – on safety of the DAAs when they were approved for CHC in 2014, said coauthor Mindie H. Nguyen, MD, in an interview.
 

‘DAA treatment is safe’

“The main message is that DAA treatment is safe,” said Dr. Nguyen, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center in Palo Alto. In the early days of treatment, physicians were treating the sickest patients with the DAAs, which may have introduced patient selection bias and caused lasting misperceptions about poor safety, she noted.

“I really hope to dispel this myth,” she said, adding that this study also shows improved liver and nonliver outcomes.

Of the total cohort in this study, 40,654 patients had one or more prescriptions for a DAA (without interferon) and 204,942 patients had not been treated.
 

All-cause mortality reduced by 57%

DAA treatment, vs. no treatment, was linked with a large and significant reduction (57%) in all-cause mortality. That finding was particularly notable, because it was seen regardless of age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidities, alcohol use, and presence of hepatocellular carcinoma or cirrhosis.

The authors noted that patients without cirrhosis are a population previously considered to receive less benefit from an HCV cure than patients with cirrhosis.

DAAs were associated with lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and decompensation as well as risk of nonliver outcomes, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
 

Lower risk of poor nonliver outcomes

The researchers found that when they compared DAA-treated patients with untreated patients, the incidences per 1,000 person-years of having diabetes were 30.2 vs. 37.2 (P less than .001), and of having kidney disease was 31.1 vs. 34.1 (P less than .001), respectively.

“This retrospective cohort study provides valuable information to physicians,” Noel Deep, MD, chief medical officer at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wis., said, in an interview.

The study’s size helps confirm DAAs’ safety and benefit, and previously unknown added benefits, in treating CHC, he continued.
 

Large study confirms, introduces DAA benefits

Dr. Deep, who was not part of the study, noted that DAAs now show much promise in efficacy and tolerability in most people with chronic hepatitis C, including those with concomitant conditions such as CKD.

“Previous studies did not have such large-scale nationwide data. [The findings of the new study] greatly enhance our knowledge of DAA treatment for chronic hepatitis C patients across the spectrum from noncirrhotic to compensated cirrhotic to decompensated cirrhotic,” Dr. Deep said. “The added benefit of improved outcomes for diabetes, CVD, CKD, and nonliver cancers truly surprised me.”

Dr. Deep pointed out some limitations of the study, including that, as the authors acknowledge, only privately insured patients were included so results may not be generalizable to the underinsured/uninsured “who might have other risk factors, poorer health, and fewer resources.”

He added: “The data also may not be reflective of the outcomes in Asians who were, in my opinion, also underrepresented in this study.”

The authors cited the insurance claims database they used as a strength of the study, due to it containing information on 61 million people from across all regions of the United States.

Dr. Ogawa reports grants from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Nguyen reports institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reports speaking/consulting fees from Gilead and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

The Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences (PHS) supported this study by providing access to the PHS Data Core.

Dr. Deep reports no relevant financial relationships. He serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
 

Treating adults who have chronic hepatitis C (CHC) with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) was linked with a lower risk of death and poor liver outcomes, in a new study.

Eiichi Ogawa, MD, PhD, with the department of general internal medicine, Kyushu University Hospital in Fukuoka, Japan, led the retrospective study of 245,596 adults with CHC. In the new research, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors analyzed data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (CDM) database, 2010-2021.

It was important to do the study because of limited and conflicting information – mostly from case reports – on safety of the DAAs when they were approved for CHC in 2014, said coauthor Mindie H. Nguyen, MD, in an interview.
 

‘DAA treatment is safe’

“The main message is that DAA treatment is safe,” said Dr. Nguyen, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center in Palo Alto. In the early days of treatment, physicians were treating the sickest patients with the DAAs, which may have introduced patient selection bias and caused lasting misperceptions about poor safety, she noted.

“I really hope to dispel this myth,” she said, adding that this study also shows improved liver and nonliver outcomes.

Of the total cohort in this study, 40,654 patients had one or more prescriptions for a DAA (without interferon) and 204,942 patients had not been treated.
 

All-cause mortality reduced by 57%

DAA treatment, vs. no treatment, was linked with a large and significant reduction (57%) in all-cause mortality. That finding was particularly notable, because it was seen regardless of age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidities, alcohol use, and presence of hepatocellular carcinoma or cirrhosis.

The authors noted that patients without cirrhosis are a population previously considered to receive less benefit from an HCV cure than patients with cirrhosis.

DAAs were associated with lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and decompensation as well as risk of nonliver outcomes, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
 

Lower risk of poor nonliver outcomes

The researchers found that when they compared DAA-treated patients with untreated patients, the incidences per 1,000 person-years of having diabetes were 30.2 vs. 37.2 (P less than .001), and of having kidney disease was 31.1 vs. 34.1 (P less than .001), respectively.

“This retrospective cohort study provides valuable information to physicians,” Noel Deep, MD, chief medical officer at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wis., said, in an interview.

The study’s size helps confirm DAAs’ safety and benefit, and previously unknown added benefits, in treating CHC, he continued.
 

Large study confirms, introduces DAA benefits

Dr. Deep, who was not part of the study, noted that DAAs now show much promise in efficacy and tolerability in most people with chronic hepatitis C, including those with concomitant conditions such as CKD.

“Previous studies did not have such large-scale nationwide data. [The findings of the new study] greatly enhance our knowledge of DAA treatment for chronic hepatitis C patients across the spectrum from noncirrhotic to compensated cirrhotic to decompensated cirrhotic,” Dr. Deep said. “The added benefit of improved outcomes for diabetes, CVD, CKD, and nonliver cancers truly surprised me.”

Dr. Deep pointed out some limitations of the study, including that, as the authors acknowledge, only privately insured patients were included so results may not be generalizable to the underinsured/uninsured “who might have other risk factors, poorer health, and fewer resources.”

He added: “The data also may not be reflective of the outcomes in Asians who were, in my opinion, also underrepresented in this study.”

The authors cited the insurance claims database they used as a strength of the study, due to it containing information on 61 million people from across all regions of the United States.

Dr. Ogawa reports grants from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Nguyen reports institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reports speaking/consulting fees from Gilead and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

The Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences (PHS) supported this study by providing access to the PHS Data Core.

Dr. Deep reports no relevant financial relationships. He serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
 

Treating adults who have chronic hepatitis C (CHC) with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) was linked with a lower risk of death and poor liver outcomes, in a new study.

Eiichi Ogawa, MD, PhD, with the department of general internal medicine, Kyushu University Hospital in Fukuoka, Japan, led the retrospective study of 245,596 adults with CHC. In the new research, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors analyzed data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (CDM) database, 2010-2021.

It was important to do the study because of limited and conflicting information – mostly from case reports – on safety of the DAAs when they were approved for CHC in 2014, said coauthor Mindie H. Nguyen, MD, in an interview.
 

‘DAA treatment is safe’

“The main message is that DAA treatment is safe,” said Dr. Nguyen, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center in Palo Alto. In the early days of treatment, physicians were treating the sickest patients with the DAAs, which may have introduced patient selection bias and caused lasting misperceptions about poor safety, she noted.

“I really hope to dispel this myth,” she said, adding that this study also shows improved liver and nonliver outcomes.

Of the total cohort in this study, 40,654 patients had one or more prescriptions for a DAA (without interferon) and 204,942 patients had not been treated.
 

All-cause mortality reduced by 57%

DAA treatment, vs. no treatment, was linked with a large and significant reduction (57%) in all-cause mortality. That finding was particularly notable, because it was seen regardless of age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidities, alcohol use, and presence of hepatocellular carcinoma or cirrhosis.

The authors noted that patients without cirrhosis are a population previously considered to receive less benefit from an HCV cure than patients with cirrhosis.

DAAs were associated with lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and decompensation as well as risk of nonliver outcomes, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
 

Lower risk of poor nonliver outcomes

The researchers found that when they compared DAA-treated patients with untreated patients, the incidences per 1,000 person-years of having diabetes were 30.2 vs. 37.2 (P less than .001), and of having kidney disease was 31.1 vs. 34.1 (P less than .001), respectively.

“This retrospective cohort study provides valuable information to physicians,” Noel Deep, MD, chief medical officer at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wis., said, in an interview.

The study’s size helps confirm DAAs’ safety and benefit, and previously unknown added benefits, in treating CHC, he continued.
 

Large study confirms, introduces DAA benefits

Dr. Deep, who was not part of the study, noted that DAAs now show much promise in efficacy and tolerability in most people with chronic hepatitis C, including those with concomitant conditions such as CKD.

“Previous studies did not have such large-scale nationwide data. [The findings of the new study] greatly enhance our knowledge of DAA treatment for chronic hepatitis C patients across the spectrum from noncirrhotic to compensated cirrhotic to decompensated cirrhotic,” Dr. Deep said. “The added benefit of improved outcomes for diabetes, CVD, CKD, and nonliver cancers truly surprised me.”

Dr. Deep pointed out some limitations of the study, including that, as the authors acknowledge, only privately insured patients were included so results may not be generalizable to the underinsured/uninsured “who might have other risk factors, poorer health, and fewer resources.”

He added: “The data also may not be reflective of the outcomes in Asians who were, in my opinion, also underrepresented in this study.”

The authors cited the insurance claims database they used as a strength of the study, due to it containing information on 61 million people from across all regions of the United States.

Dr. Ogawa reports grants from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Nguyen reports institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reports speaking/consulting fees from Gilead and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

The Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences (PHS) supported this study by providing access to the PHS Data Core.

Dr. Deep reports no relevant financial relationships. He serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
 

WASHINGTON – “We don’t get to use the ‘eliminate’ word all that often with a disease that’s taking thousands or tens of thousands – or worldwide, hundreds of thousands – of lives every year, but we have that opportunity with hepatitis C.”

So said Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, special projects advisor to the Executive Office of the President of the United States, and former director of the National Institutes of Health, speaking at a special session outlining ambitious goals for a national plan to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections by the year 2050.

The session was held at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
 

A public health crisis

Dr. Collins labeled HCV a public health crisis, citing statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that show that the rate of reported acute HCV infection cases increased 400% between 2010 and 2020, with the highest rates among young adults aged 20-39 years.

In addition, an estimated 2.4 million people in the United States are living with chronic HCV infections, but as many as 40% of these people are unaware of their infection, despite broad recommendations for the screening of all adults aged 18 years and older, he said.

“Our goal is to try to do something to change this,” Dr. Collins said. He noted that for the past 8 years we have had highly effective oral agents that don’t just treat the disease but cure it – 95%-97% of the time, with only 8-12 weeks of oral therapy and relatively few side effects.

“A wonderful story, one of the most exciting stories that’s come out of biomedical research in the last couple of decades,” he said.

Yet Dr. Collins also acknowledged that the task of developing a national plan is daunting, despite that pharmaceutical triumph.

National pharmacy claims data show that the number of persons treated for HCV with direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) in the United States declined from a high of 164,247 in 2015 to 83,740 in 2020.

Furthermore, CDC data from 2019 and 2020 show that, of persons with a diagnosis of HCV infection, only 23% of those on Medicaid, 28% of those on Medicare, and 35% of those with private insurance were treated for their infections.

“We have a huge gap here between the ability to know you have the disease and to get treatment, and we don’t see the numbers here for the uninsured, or people in prisons, but they’re probably much worse,” he said.
 

Obstacles abound, as do ways to overcome them

Current barriers to treatment include the aforementioned lack of awareness of infection, a “clunky” two-step diagnosis requiring an antibody test followed by an RNA or core antigen test necessitating three visits often separated by several weeks, and the high cost of treatment (around $90,000 per patient).

In addition, insurers commonly require proof that patients remain sober for extended periods, insist that treatment monitoring be performed by specialists only, and often approve treatment only for those patients who have documented evidence of liver damage.

“Does that make sense to you?” Dr. Collins asked. “You’ve got a cure for a liver disease, and you have to wait and show that the liver’s been damaged before you receive it? That just doesn’t fit,” he said.

Dr. Collins also pointed out that we’re dealing with hard-to-reach populations (underserved, uninsured, justice-involved), and people who are in tough times. “Anything that you put in the way as a barrier is going to make this worse in terms of its ability to be implemented,” he said.

To demonstrate how a coordinated HCV-elimination program could work, Dr. Collins pointed to a Medicaid cohort study in Louisiana conducted from July 2019 through December 2021, in which 8,867 patients started on therapy, 7,763 (88%) completed therapy, and 5,882 (66%) returned for testing. Of those tested, 5,285 (90%) had sustained virologic responses.

Another model of a hepatitis C elimination program was provided by the Veterans Health Administration. They received funding for an effort for all veterans, and in the space of 7 years were able to reach out even to some of their difficult-to-reach populations and achieve high diagnosis and treatment rates in a way that could be a model for what we would want to do across the nation, Dr. Collins noted.
 

Doing the math

Also at the session, Jagpreet Chhatwal, PhD, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment and associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, described outcomes projected by a mathematical simulation model of the HCV epidemic that he and his colleagues developed.

The HEP-SIM (Hepatitis C Disease Burden Simulation) model evaluates HCV prevalence trends, the number needed to screen and treat to eliminate HCV, HCV-associated clinical outcomes, the cost of an elimination program, and the cost savings that could be realized from preventing long-term complications.

The model seeks to determine whether the upfront costs of a national HCV elimination program could be offset by savings down the road. Specifically, it assumes that within the next 5 years 1.31 million individuals would be diagnosed with HCV and projects that within that time frame 1.52 million would need to be treated to meet HCV elimination goals.

The model shows that, compared with the status quo, a concerted campaign of screening and treatment would prevent more than 10,000 HCV-related deaths by 2030, and 91,000 deaths by 2050.

A coordinated screening program is also projected to prevent 17,000 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma by 2030 and 108,000 cases by 2050, as well as avert 29,000 cases of decompensated cirrhosis by 2030 and 93,000 such cases by 2050.

The cost savings associated with an HCV elimination plan would also be substantial, Dr. Chhatwal said.

According to the model, over the next decade the cumulative costs associated with HCV would decline by $14.2 billion, compared with the status quo. Nearly 80% of those savings ($11.2 billion) would be in Medicare and Medicaid.

The total projected savings from 2024 through 2050 – in disease management, testing, treatment, and pragmatic costs – are estimated at $59.3 billion, Dr. Chhatwal said.

“This is unprecedented,” he said. “We’re not just eliminating a disease as a public health threat but also saving money, which is not a common thing. That gives us a lot of impetus to implement such a program.”
 

Getting it done

Rachael L. Fleurence, PhD, MSc, a health economist currently serving as a senior advisor in the Executive Office of the President, summarized efforts to build a national HCV elimination program with input from federal health care agencies, state health leaders, patients, advocacy groups, drug manufacturers, and insurers.

She noted that a large component and focus of the program will be working on diagnostic test development but also accelerating bringing tests into the United States that are currently unavailable here. “These include point-of-care RNA diagnostic tests, as well as core antigen laboratory tests,” she said.

The program will be designed to offer broad access to curative anti-HCV drugs through a national subscription model that would make DAAs available to Medicaid recipients, justice-involved populations, the uninsured, and American Indians and Alaskan Natives who receive care through the Indian Health Service.

“On the Medicare and commercial insurance fronts, we’re still exploring different approaches, including potentially a co-pay assistance for Medicare beneficiaries, as well as working with commercial insurers to reduce barriers to access,” she said.

The program would also involve screening strategies extending to more settings, especially for high-risk populations, expanding the number of providers allowed to screen and treat HCV infections through telehealth, ensuring incentives for providers, and increasing the number of community health workers and case workers to improve linkage to care.

The next steps for the program would include funding to support the NIH’s RADx diagnostics program to accelerate access to testing, planning for the subscription model for DAA purchase, and launching pilot programs with the CDC, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Indian Health Service.
 

A call to action

Dr. Collins ended this portion of the program with an exhortation to AASLD members to do their part.

“We need your help,” Dr. Collins said. “This is a bold initiative, but it’s an opportunity. It’s even a responsibility. If we can actually succeed at this kind of outreach and save lives, and at the same time save money, how can we not do that?”

Dr. Collins, Dr. Chhatwal, and Dr. Fleurence each reported having no financial conflicts.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – “We don’t get to use the ‘eliminate’ word all that often with a disease that’s taking thousands or tens of thousands – or worldwide, hundreds of thousands – of lives every year, but we have that opportunity with hepatitis C.”

So said Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, special projects advisor to the Executive Office of the President of the United States, and former director of the National Institutes of Health, speaking at a special session outlining ambitious goals for a national plan to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections by the year 2050.

The session was held at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
 

A public health crisis

Dr. Collins labeled HCV a public health crisis, citing statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that show that the rate of reported acute HCV infection cases increased 400% between 2010 and 2020, with the highest rates among young adults aged 20-39 years.

In addition, an estimated 2.4 million people in the United States are living with chronic HCV infections, but as many as 40% of these people are unaware of their infection, despite broad recommendations for the screening of all adults aged 18 years and older, he said.

“Our goal is to try to do something to change this,” Dr. Collins said. He noted that for the past 8 years we have had highly effective oral agents that don’t just treat the disease but cure it – 95%-97% of the time, with only 8-12 weeks of oral therapy and relatively few side effects.

“A wonderful story, one of the most exciting stories that’s come out of biomedical research in the last couple of decades,” he said.

Yet Dr. Collins also acknowledged that the task of developing a national plan is daunting, despite that pharmaceutical triumph.

National pharmacy claims data show that the number of persons treated for HCV with direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) in the United States declined from a high of 164,247 in 2015 to 83,740 in 2020.

Furthermore, CDC data from 2019 and 2020 show that, of persons with a diagnosis of HCV infection, only 23% of those on Medicaid, 28% of those on Medicare, and 35% of those with private insurance were treated for their infections.

“We have a huge gap here between the ability to know you have the disease and to get treatment, and we don’t see the numbers here for the uninsured, or people in prisons, but they’re probably much worse,” he said.
 

Obstacles abound, as do ways to overcome them

Current barriers to treatment include the aforementioned lack of awareness of infection, a “clunky” two-step diagnosis requiring an antibody test followed by an RNA or core antigen test necessitating three visits often separated by several weeks, and the high cost of treatment (around $90,000 per patient).

In addition, insurers commonly require proof that patients remain sober for extended periods, insist that treatment monitoring be performed by specialists only, and often approve treatment only for those patients who have documented evidence of liver damage.

“Does that make sense to you?” Dr. Collins asked. “You’ve got a cure for a liver disease, and you have to wait and show that the liver’s been damaged before you receive it? That just doesn’t fit,” he said.

Dr. Collins also pointed out that we’re dealing with hard-to-reach populations (underserved, uninsured, justice-involved), and people who are in tough times. “Anything that you put in the way as a barrier is going to make this worse in terms of its ability to be implemented,” he said.

To demonstrate how a coordinated HCV-elimination program could work, Dr. Collins pointed to a Medicaid cohort study in Louisiana conducted from July 2019 through December 2021, in which 8,867 patients started on therapy, 7,763 (88%) completed therapy, and 5,882 (66%) returned for testing. Of those tested, 5,285 (90%) had sustained virologic responses.

Another model of a hepatitis C elimination program was provided by the Veterans Health Administration. They received funding for an effort for all veterans, and in the space of 7 years were able to reach out even to some of their difficult-to-reach populations and achieve high diagnosis and treatment rates in a way that could be a model for what we would want to do across the nation, Dr. Collins noted.
 

Doing the math

Also at the session, Jagpreet Chhatwal, PhD, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment and associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, described outcomes projected by a mathematical simulation model of the HCV epidemic that he and his colleagues developed.

The HEP-SIM (Hepatitis C Disease Burden Simulation) model evaluates HCV prevalence trends, the number needed to screen and treat to eliminate HCV, HCV-associated clinical outcomes, the cost of an elimination program, and the cost savings that could be realized from preventing long-term complications.

The model seeks to determine whether the upfront costs of a national HCV elimination program could be offset by savings down the road. Specifically, it assumes that within the next 5 years 1.31 million individuals would be diagnosed with HCV and projects that within that time frame 1.52 million would need to be treated to meet HCV elimination goals.

The model shows that, compared with the status quo, a concerted campaign of screening and treatment would prevent more than 10,000 HCV-related deaths by 2030, and 91,000 deaths by 2050.

A coordinated screening program is also projected to prevent 17,000 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma by 2030 and 108,000 cases by 2050, as well as avert 29,000 cases of decompensated cirrhosis by 2030 and 93,000 such cases by 2050.

The cost savings associated with an HCV elimination plan would also be substantial, Dr. Chhatwal said.

According to the model, over the next decade the cumulative costs associated with HCV would decline by $14.2 billion, compared with the status quo. Nearly 80% of those savings ($11.2 billion) would be in Medicare and Medicaid.

The total projected savings from 2024 through 2050 – in disease management, testing, treatment, and pragmatic costs – are estimated at $59.3 billion, Dr. Chhatwal said.

“This is unprecedented,” he said. “We’re not just eliminating a disease as a public health threat but also saving money, which is not a common thing. That gives us a lot of impetus to implement such a program.”
 

Getting it done

Rachael L. Fleurence, PhD, MSc, a health economist currently serving as a senior advisor in the Executive Office of the President, summarized efforts to build a national HCV elimination program with input from federal health care agencies, state health leaders, patients, advocacy groups, drug manufacturers, and insurers.

She noted that a large component and focus of the program will be working on diagnostic test development but also accelerating bringing tests into the United States that are currently unavailable here. “These include point-of-care RNA diagnostic tests, as well as core antigen laboratory tests,” she said.

The program will be designed to offer broad access to curative anti-HCV drugs through a national subscription model that would make DAAs available to Medicaid recipients, justice-involved populations, the uninsured, and American Indians and Alaskan Natives who receive care through the Indian Health Service.

“On the Medicare and commercial insurance fronts, we’re still exploring different approaches, including potentially a co-pay assistance for Medicare beneficiaries, as well as working with commercial insurers to reduce barriers to access,” she said.

The program would also involve screening strategies extending to more settings, especially for high-risk populations, expanding the number of providers allowed to screen and treat HCV infections through telehealth, ensuring incentives for providers, and increasing the number of community health workers and case workers to improve linkage to care.

The next steps for the program would include funding to support the NIH’s RADx diagnostics program to accelerate access to testing, planning for the subscription model for DAA purchase, and launching pilot programs with the CDC, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Indian Health Service.
 

A call to action

Dr. Collins ended this portion of the program with an exhortation to AASLD members to do their part.

“We need your help,” Dr. Collins said. “This is a bold initiative, but it’s an opportunity. It’s even a responsibility. If we can actually succeed at this kind of outreach and save lives, and at the same time save money, how can we not do that?”

Dr. Collins, Dr. Chhatwal, and Dr. Fleurence each reported having no financial conflicts.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – “We don’t get to use the ‘eliminate’ word all that often with a disease that’s taking thousands or tens of thousands – or worldwide, hundreds of thousands – of lives every year, but we have that opportunity with hepatitis C.”

So said Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, special projects advisor to the Executive Office of the President of the United States, and former director of the National Institutes of Health, speaking at a special session outlining ambitious goals for a national plan to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections by the year 2050.

The session was held at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
 

A public health crisis

Dr. Collins labeled HCV a public health crisis, citing statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that show that the rate of reported acute HCV infection cases increased 400% between 2010 and 2020, with the highest rates among young adults aged 20-39 years.

In addition, an estimated 2.4 million people in the United States are living with chronic HCV infections, but as many as 40% of these people are unaware of their infection, despite broad recommendations for the screening of all adults aged 18 years and older, he said.

“Our goal is to try to do something to change this,” Dr. Collins said. He noted that for the past 8 years we have had highly effective oral agents that don’t just treat the disease but cure it – 95%-97% of the time, with only 8-12 weeks of oral therapy and relatively few side effects.

“A wonderful story, one of the most exciting stories that’s come out of biomedical research in the last couple of decades,” he said.

Yet Dr. Collins also acknowledged that the task of developing a national plan is daunting, despite that pharmaceutical triumph.

National pharmacy claims data show that the number of persons treated for HCV with direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) in the United States declined from a high of 164,247 in 2015 to 83,740 in 2020.

Furthermore, CDC data from 2019 and 2020 show that, of persons with a diagnosis of HCV infection, only 23% of those on Medicaid, 28% of those on Medicare, and 35% of those with private insurance were treated for their infections.

“We have a huge gap here between the ability to know you have the disease and to get treatment, and we don’t see the numbers here for the uninsured, or people in prisons, but they’re probably much worse,” he said.
 

Obstacles abound, as do ways to overcome them

Current barriers to treatment include the aforementioned lack of awareness of infection, a “clunky” two-step diagnosis requiring an antibody test followed by an RNA or core antigen test necessitating three visits often separated by several weeks, and the high cost of treatment (around $90,000 per patient).

In addition, insurers commonly require proof that patients remain sober for extended periods, insist that treatment monitoring be performed by specialists only, and often approve treatment only for those patients who have documented evidence of liver damage.

“Does that make sense to you?” Dr. Collins asked. “You’ve got a cure for a liver disease, and you have to wait and show that the liver’s been damaged before you receive it? That just doesn’t fit,” he said.

Dr. Collins also pointed out that we’re dealing with hard-to-reach populations (underserved, uninsured, justice-involved), and people who are in tough times. “Anything that you put in the way as a barrier is going to make this worse in terms of its ability to be implemented,” he said.

To demonstrate how a coordinated HCV-elimination program could work, Dr. Collins pointed to a Medicaid cohort study in Louisiana conducted from July 2019 through December 2021, in which 8,867 patients started on therapy, 7,763 (88%) completed therapy, and 5,882 (66%) returned for testing. Of those tested, 5,285 (90%) had sustained virologic responses.

Another model of a hepatitis C elimination program was provided by the Veterans Health Administration. They received funding for an effort for all veterans, and in the space of 7 years were able to reach out even to some of their difficult-to-reach populations and achieve high diagnosis and treatment rates in a way that could be a model for what we would want to do across the nation, Dr. Collins noted.
 

Doing the math

Also at the session, Jagpreet Chhatwal, PhD, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment and associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, described outcomes projected by a mathematical simulation model of the HCV epidemic that he and his colleagues developed.

The HEP-SIM (Hepatitis C Disease Burden Simulation) model evaluates HCV prevalence trends, the number needed to screen and treat to eliminate HCV, HCV-associated clinical outcomes, the cost of an elimination program, and the cost savings that could be realized from preventing long-term complications.

The model seeks to determine whether the upfront costs of a national HCV elimination program could be offset by savings down the road. Specifically, it assumes that within the next 5 years 1.31 million individuals would be diagnosed with HCV and projects that within that time frame 1.52 million would need to be treated to meet HCV elimination goals.

The model shows that, compared with the status quo, a concerted campaign of screening and treatment would prevent more than 10,000 HCV-related deaths by 2030, and 91,000 deaths by 2050.

A coordinated screening program is also projected to prevent 17,000 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma by 2030 and 108,000 cases by 2050, as well as avert 29,000 cases of decompensated cirrhosis by 2030 and 93,000 such cases by 2050.

The cost savings associated with an HCV elimination plan would also be substantial, Dr. Chhatwal said.

According to the model, over the next decade the cumulative costs associated with HCV would decline by $14.2 billion, compared with the status quo. Nearly 80% of those savings ($11.2 billion) would be in Medicare and Medicaid.

The total projected savings from 2024 through 2050 – in disease management, testing, treatment, and pragmatic costs – are estimated at $59.3 billion, Dr. Chhatwal said.

“This is unprecedented,” he said. “We’re not just eliminating a disease as a public health threat but also saving money, which is not a common thing. That gives us a lot of impetus to implement such a program.”
 

Getting it done

Rachael L. Fleurence, PhD, MSc, a health economist currently serving as a senior advisor in the Executive Office of the President, summarized efforts to build a national HCV elimination program with input from federal health care agencies, state health leaders, patients, advocacy groups, drug manufacturers, and insurers.

She noted that a large component and focus of the program will be working on diagnostic test development but also accelerating bringing tests into the United States that are currently unavailable here. “These include point-of-care RNA diagnostic tests, as well as core antigen laboratory tests,” she said.

The program will be designed to offer broad access to curative anti-HCV drugs through a national subscription model that would make DAAs available to Medicaid recipients, justice-involved populations, the uninsured, and American Indians and Alaskan Natives who receive care through the Indian Health Service.

“On the Medicare and commercial insurance fronts, we’re still exploring different approaches, including potentially a co-pay assistance for Medicare beneficiaries, as well as working with commercial insurers to reduce barriers to access,” she said.

The program would also involve screening strategies extending to more settings, especially for high-risk populations, expanding the number of providers allowed to screen and treat HCV infections through telehealth, ensuring incentives for providers, and increasing the number of community health workers and case workers to improve linkage to care.

The next steps for the program would include funding to support the NIH’s RADx diagnostics program to accelerate access to testing, planning for the subscription model for DAA purchase, and launching pilot programs with the CDC, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Indian Health Service.
 

A call to action

Dr. Collins ended this portion of the program with an exhortation to AASLD members to do their part.

“We need your help,” Dr. Collins said. “This is a bold initiative, but it’s an opportunity. It’s even a responsibility. If we can actually succeed at this kind of outreach and save lives, and at the same time save money, how can we not do that?”

Dr. Collins, Dr. Chhatwal, and Dr. Fleurence each reported having no financial conflicts.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.