Liver Disease

Pain is common in patients with cirrhosis, and its management presents significant challenges to health care providers, such as worries about GI bleeding, renal injury, falls, and hepatic encephalopathy.

To address those issues, researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, authored a review, published in Hepatology, that describes the pain syndromes experienced by patients, as well as pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical treatment options.

“I think it’s a very pragmatic approach to a very common problem. Health care providers are concerned about prescribing analgesia for people with cirrhosis for a number of different reasons. One of them is acetaminophen can be toxic to the liver, but generally only in pretty large doses. It’s actually a pretty good option in a dose of less than about 2 g/day because it doesn’t have some of the side effects that other painkillers such as the NSAIDs have. It doesn’t irritate the stomach, and it doesn’t affect kidney function,” said Paul Martin, MD, who was asked to comment on the review. He is chief of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami.

He appreciated the discussion of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, including diet and psychological interventions. “And I think it provides a useful overview of the pharmacological agents we can use in patients with cirrhosis, so I think it’s a very useful contribution to the literature,” said Dr. Martin.

An estimated 40%-79% of cirrhosis patients experience chronic pain, and it can be a key factor in worsening functional status and quality of life. The authors noted that, although recent practice guidance had recommended involving palliative care providers, psychiatry, and physical therapy in for patients with decompensated cirrhosis, this is not always feasible. The authors also pointed out that there are different pain phenotypes in cirrhosis, and these require different management strategies.

They described three mechanistic categories of chronic pain: Nociceptive pain involves tissue damage and inflammation; neuropathic pain results from nerve damage; and nociplastic pain describes situations in which there is no evidence of tissue or nerve damage, but clinical or psychophysical signs suggest changes to nociception.

The different pain types are best assessed using different tools: The 2016 Fibromyalgia Survey Criteria is useful for nociplastic pain, the Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire and painDETECT can be useful for neuropathic pain, and a physical examination can pinpoint nociceptive pain.

When managing chronic pain, the initial patient workup should include a complete evaluation of the location, quality, and severity of pain, along with any functional interference or associated symptoms like fatigue, mood disturbance, or sensory sensitivity. One option is to use a body map to assess how widespread the pain is. Multisite pain is often a signal that it could be nociplastic. Any comorbid psychiatric disorders should be identified and treated.

The first treatment option for any pain should be self-directed, nonpharmacologic interventions. This is because most analgesics are only modestly effective in the treatment of chronic pain, leading to improvement in only about one in three cases, the authors noted. Opioids have poor efficacy against chronic pain, particularly nociplastic pain, which may even be worsened by opioid use.

Mladen Zivkovic/iStock/Getty Images

Although there is evidence that patients are motivated to seek out nonpharmacologic pain treatment, they have reported frustration by a dearth of simple, evidence-based therapies. The authors noted that digital self-management tools for pain have been developed, including their own PainGuide, which focuses on exercise and behavioral interventions for chronic pain. Other nonpharmacologic approaches include diet modification and sleep hygiene. Patients should be allowed to choose the approach that interests them most, with the physician emphasizing the importance of self-directed management.

Pharmacologic therapy may be added to these approaches, but they have limited utility and are associated with adverse effects. For nociceptive pain, topical NSAIDs like diclofenac gel can be used, as can acetaminophen (500 mg every 6 hours, maximum dose of 2 g/day). Opioids can be employed for short-term treatment of acute pain (for example: hydromorphone 1 mg every 6 hours as needed, oxycodone 2.5 mg by mouth every 6-8 hours as needed, or fentanyl patch in select patients). Tricyclic antidepressants may be used for multiple symptoms or neuropathic pain, but with caution. Neuropathic pain, as well as associated depression or fatigue, can be treated with low-dose serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, though there is a small risk of hepatotoxicity. Neuropathic pain, sleep difficulties, or anxiety can be treated with gabapentin at low starting doses (for example, 300 mg/day) or pregabalin (for example, 50 mg twice a day). Lidocaine patches are an option for peripheral neuropathic pain or postherpetic neuralgia, and topical capsaicin may be used for peripheral neuropathic pain.

“Since all pain types can co-occur, interventions to address nociplastic pain may be broadly therapeutic,” the authors concluded. “The treatment of nociplastic pain emphasizes nonpharmacologic management, including self-management techniques addressing mood, cognitions, behaviors, sleep, and environment. Future research should continue to explore methods of pain phenotyping, as well as self-management therapies, including implementation tools.”

The authors and Dr. Martin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Pain is common in patients with cirrhosis, and its management presents significant challenges to health care providers, such as worries about GI bleeding, renal injury, falls, and hepatic encephalopathy.

To address those issues, researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, authored a review, published in Hepatology, that describes the pain syndromes experienced by patients, as well as pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical treatment options.

“I think it’s a very pragmatic approach to a very common problem. Health care providers are concerned about prescribing analgesia for people with cirrhosis for a number of different reasons. One of them is acetaminophen can be toxic to the liver, but generally only in pretty large doses. It’s actually a pretty good option in a dose of less than about 2 g/day because it doesn’t have some of the side effects that other painkillers such as the NSAIDs have. It doesn’t irritate the stomach, and it doesn’t affect kidney function,” said Paul Martin, MD, who was asked to comment on the review. He is chief of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami.

He appreciated the discussion of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, including diet and psychological interventions. “And I think it provides a useful overview of the pharmacological agents we can use in patients with cirrhosis, so I think it’s a very useful contribution to the literature,” said Dr. Martin.

An estimated 40%-79% of cirrhosis patients experience chronic pain, and it can be a key factor in worsening functional status and quality of life. The authors noted that, although recent practice guidance had recommended involving palliative care providers, psychiatry, and physical therapy in for patients with decompensated cirrhosis, this is not always feasible. The authors also pointed out that there are different pain phenotypes in cirrhosis, and these require different management strategies.

They described three mechanistic categories of chronic pain: Nociceptive pain involves tissue damage and inflammation; neuropathic pain results from nerve damage; and nociplastic pain describes situations in which there is no evidence of tissue or nerve damage, but clinical or psychophysical signs suggest changes to nociception.

The different pain types are best assessed using different tools: The 2016 Fibromyalgia Survey Criteria is useful for nociplastic pain, the Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire and painDETECT can be useful for neuropathic pain, and a physical examination can pinpoint nociceptive pain.

When managing chronic pain, the initial patient workup should include a complete evaluation of the location, quality, and severity of pain, along with any functional interference or associated symptoms like fatigue, mood disturbance, or sensory sensitivity. One option is to use a body map to assess how widespread the pain is. Multisite pain is often a signal that it could be nociplastic. Any comorbid psychiatric disorders should be identified and treated.

The first treatment option for any pain should be self-directed, nonpharmacologic interventions. This is because most analgesics are only modestly effective in the treatment of chronic pain, leading to improvement in only about one in three cases, the authors noted. Opioids have poor efficacy against chronic pain, particularly nociplastic pain, which may even be worsened by opioid use.

Mladen Zivkovic/iStock/Getty Images

Although there is evidence that patients are motivated to seek out nonpharmacologic pain treatment, they have reported frustration by a dearth of simple, evidence-based therapies. The authors noted that digital self-management tools for pain have been developed, including their own PainGuide, which focuses on exercise and behavioral interventions for chronic pain. Other nonpharmacologic approaches include diet modification and sleep hygiene. Patients should be allowed to choose the approach that interests them most, with the physician emphasizing the importance of self-directed management.

Pharmacologic therapy may be added to these approaches, but they have limited utility and are associated with adverse effects. For nociceptive pain, topical NSAIDs like diclofenac gel can be used, as can acetaminophen (500 mg every 6 hours, maximum dose of 2 g/day). Opioids can be employed for short-term treatment of acute pain (for example: hydromorphone 1 mg every 6 hours as needed, oxycodone 2.5 mg by mouth every 6-8 hours as needed, or fentanyl patch in select patients). Tricyclic antidepressants may be used for multiple symptoms or neuropathic pain, but with caution. Neuropathic pain, as well as associated depression or fatigue, can be treated with low-dose serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, though there is a small risk of hepatotoxicity. Neuropathic pain, sleep difficulties, or anxiety can be treated with gabapentin at low starting doses (for example, 300 mg/day) or pregabalin (for example, 50 mg twice a day). Lidocaine patches are an option for peripheral neuropathic pain or postherpetic neuralgia, and topical capsaicin may be used for peripheral neuropathic pain.

“Since all pain types can co-occur, interventions to address nociplastic pain may be broadly therapeutic,” the authors concluded. “The treatment of nociplastic pain emphasizes nonpharmacologic management, including self-management techniques addressing mood, cognitions, behaviors, sleep, and environment. Future research should continue to explore methods of pain phenotyping, as well as self-management therapies, including implementation tools.”

The authors and Dr. Martin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Pain is common in patients with cirrhosis, and its management presents significant challenges to health care providers, such as worries about GI bleeding, renal injury, falls, and hepatic encephalopathy.

To address those issues, researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, authored a review, published in Hepatology, that describes the pain syndromes experienced by patients, as well as pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical treatment options.

“I think it’s a very pragmatic approach to a very common problem. Health care providers are concerned about prescribing analgesia for people with cirrhosis for a number of different reasons. One of them is acetaminophen can be toxic to the liver, but generally only in pretty large doses. It’s actually a pretty good option in a dose of less than about 2 g/day because it doesn’t have some of the side effects that other painkillers such as the NSAIDs have. It doesn’t irritate the stomach, and it doesn’t affect kidney function,” said Paul Martin, MD, who was asked to comment on the review. He is chief of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami.

He appreciated the discussion of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, including diet and psychological interventions. “And I think it provides a useful overview of the pharmacological agents we can use in patients with cirrhosis, so I think it’s a very useful contribution to the literature,” said Dr. Martin.

An estimated 40%-79% of cirrhosis patients experience chronic pain, and it can be a key factor in worsening functional status and quality of life. The authors noted that, although recent practice guidance had recommended involving palliative care providers, psychiatry, and physical therapy in for patients with decompensated cirrhosis, this is not always feasible. The authors also pointed out that there are different pain phenotypes in cirrhosis, and these require different management strategies.

They described three mechanistic categories of chronic pain: Nociceptive pain involves tissue damage and inflammation; neuropathic pain results from nerve damage; and nociplastic pain describes situations in which there is no evidence of tissue or nerve damage, but clinical or psychophysical signs suggest changes to nociception.

The different pain types are best assessed using different tools: The 2016 Fibromyalgia Survey Criteria is useful for nociplastic pain, the Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire and painDETECT can be useful for neuropathic pain, and a physical examination can pinpoint nociceptive pain.

When managing chronic pain, the initial patient workup should include a complete evaluation of the location, quality, and severity of pain, along with any functional interference or associated symptoms like fatigue, mood disturbance, or sensory sensitivity. One option is to use a body map to assess how widespread the pain is. Multisite pain is often a signal that it could be nociplastic. Any comorbid psychiatric disorders should be identified and treated.

The first treatment option for any pain should be self-directed, nonpharmacologic interventions. This is because most analgesics are only modestly effective in the treatment of chronic pain, leading to improvement in only about one in three cases, the authors noted. Opioids have poor efficacy against chronic pain, particularly nociplastic pain, which may even be worsened by opioid use.

Mladen Zivkovic/iStock/Getty Images

Although there is evidence that patients are motivated to seek out nonpharmacologic pain treatment, they have reported frustration by a dearth of simple, evidence-based therapies. The authors noted that digital self-management tools for pain have been developed, including their own PainGuide, which focuses on exercise and behavioral interventions for chronic pain. Other nonpharmacologic approaches include diet modification and sleep hygiene. Patients should be allowed to choose the approach that interests them most, with the physician emphasizing the importance of self-directed management.

Pharmacologic therapy may be added to these approaches, but they have limited utility and are associated with adverse effects. For nociceptive pain, topical NSAIDs like diclofenac gel can be used, as can acetaminophen (500 mg every 6 hours, maximum dose of 2 g/day). Opioids can be employed for short-term treatment of acute pain (for example: hydromorphone 1 mg every 6 hours as needed, oxycodone 2.5 mg by mouth every 6-8 hours as needed, or fentanyl patch in select patients). Tricyclic antidepressants may be used for multiple symptoms or neuropathic pain, but with caution. Neuropathic pain, as well as associated depression or fatigue, can be treated with low-dose serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, though there is a small risk of hepatotoxicity. Neuropathic pain, sleep difficulties, or anxiety can be treated with gabapentin at low starting doses (for example, 300 mg/day) or pregabalin (for example, 50 mg twice a day). Lidocaine patches are an option for peripheral neuropathic pain or postherpetic neuralgia, and topical capsaicin may be used for peripheral neuropathic pain.

“Since all pain types can co-occur, interventions to address nociplastic pain may be broadly therapeutic,” the authors concluded. “The treatment of nociplastic pain emphasizes nonpharmacologic management, including self-management techniques addressing mood, cognitions, behaviors, sleep, and environment. Future research should continue to explore methods of pain phenotyping, as well as self-management therapies, including implementation tools.”

The authors and Dr. Martin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Telemedicine for patients with liver disease has made progress in recent years, but some key hurdles remain. Strategies that rely on patient ownership of mobile devices or reliable internet access will likely miss patients who have the greatest need for remote access.

This is one of the conclusions from a county-by-county study of access to liver specialty care and mortality, using data drawn from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiological Research (WONDER). The study was led by Jacqueline B. Henson, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology, department of medicine, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and published in Hepatology.
 

Low-access areas

“Ultimately, no single telehealth strategy will be successful in all areas, and these will need to be tailored at the local and state level,” the authors wrote. “They will also depend on the persistence of policy changes enacted during the pandemic which made use and reimbursement for telehealth less restrictive.”

The researchers found that 69.5% of American counties had no gastrointestinal physicians. Moreover, 41.1% of counties were more than 100 miles away from a liver transplant (LT) center; 33.7% had no GI physicians and were more than 100 miles from a LT center. These categories represented populations of 48.8 million, 53.7 million, and 17.8 million. These counties had higher poverty rates, more unemployment, and lower educational attainment than did those that had GI physicians or were closer to LT centers. Distance from LT centers was associated with higher liver-related mortality (r = 0.24; P < .001) and density of GI providers (r = –0.12; P < .001).

Reduced access to specialty care for liver disease was also associated with decreased access to technology, including cell phones, smart phones, and internet service. Among counties in the highest death quartile and lowest access to care, 35.5% of households had no computer, 43.1% had no home internet, and only 19.2% of these had internet at broadband speeds.

“Use of platforms with lower internet speed requirements and that are compatible with mobile devices may help extend access, as could partnerships with local primary care and GI clinics,” they concluded. Further work should be done at the local and state levels to better understand the optimal strategies to reach their populations of need.
 

Missing ‘baseline ingredients’

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, professor of medicine and chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said that “anyone who takes care of vulnerable populations, whether elderly individuals or those who may be socioeconomically disadvantaged, realizes that we have to improve access to medical resources, and telehealth is certainly an attractive way of doing that.”

She added that a key message from the study is that attempts to improve access to disadvantaged populations, no matter how well-intentioned, are likely to provide the most benefit to those who have more resources than others. For example, not everyone has access to a smart phone or tablet: “Even if you have a tablet [or cell phone], you might have to go to the public library to get high speed internet, or you may not even have a public library. So, when something sounds like a great idea, such as expanding the academic footprint or access to integrative medicine through something like a virtual option, a lot of the individuals that you are targeting may not be able to engage,” said Dr. Reau.

For those working to expand access, it’s critical to get the perspective of underserved communities and remember that every patient is unique. Physicians may treat patients who are poor, or from disadvantaged areas, who nevertheless have successful telehealth visits. But that doesn’t mean everyone’s experience will be similar. “You can’t use those who have been successful in accessing telemedicine as an example for everyone else. Just because one person can do it doesn’t mean that everyone else can. Involving a practitioner or an advocate from the area that you’re trying to reach is imperative,” she explained.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a big push for telehealth, and it may be tempting to believe that the transition to telehealth has been smooth. This study “demonstrates in a very granular way that a large number of Americans have no access to high-speed internet, or if they do, many don’t have access to the tools that would let them engage this way. You can’t make assumptions and use them to build a product,” continued Dr. Reau.

Innovative options are needed, such as working with primary care providers in rural or disadvantaged areas to setup pop-up hot spots where e-consultations could be performed. Working directly with broadband internet providers to set up access in specific locations for telehealth, or using products like Amazon Echo Show as a portal for telehealth, can also be tried. “Think about being innovative and recognize that these areas probably don’t have the baseline ingredients we thought they had,” suggested Dr. Reau.

The authors reported having no financial support. Dr. Reau has no relevant financial disclosures.

Telemedicine for patients with liver disease has made progress in recent years, but some key hurdles remain. Strategies that rely on patient ownership of mobile devices or reliable internet access will likely miss patients who have the greatest need for remote access.

This is one of the conclusions from a county-by-county study of access to liver specialty care and mortality, using data drawn from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiological Research (WONDER). The study was led by Jacqueline B. Henson, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology, department of medicine, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and published in Hepatology.
 

Low-access areas

“Ultimately, no single telehealth strategy will be successful in all areas, and these will need to be tailored at the local and state level,” the authors wrote. “They will also depend on the persistence of policy changes enacted during the pandemic which made use and reimbursement for telehealth less restrictive.”

The researchers found that 69.5% of American counties had no gastrointestinal physicians. Moreover, 41.1% of counties were more than 100 miles away from a liver transplant (LT) center; 33.7% had no GI physicians and were more than 100 miles from a LT center. These categories represented populations of 48.8 million, 53.7 million, and 17.8 million. These counties had higher poverty rates, more unemployment, and lower educational attainment than did those that had GI physicians or were closer to LT centers. Distance from LT centers was associated with higher liver-related mortality (r = 0.24; P < .001) and density of GI providers (r = –0.12; P < .001).

Reduced access to specialty care for liver disease was also associated with decreased access to technology, including cell phones, smart phones, and internet service. Among counties in the highest death quartile and lowest access to care, 35.5% of households had no computer, 43.1% had no home internet, and only 19.2% of these had internet at broadband speeds.

“Use of platforms with lower internet speed requirements and that are compatible with mobile devices may help extend access, as could partnerships with local primary care and GI clinics,” they concluded. Further work should be done at the local and state levels to better understand the optimal strategies to reach their populations of need.
 

Missing ‘baseline ingredients’

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, professor of medicine and chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said that “anyone who takes care of vulnerable populations, whether elderly individuals or those who may be socioeconomically disadvantaged, realizes that we have to improve access to medical resources, and telehealth is certainly an attractive way of doing that.”

She added that a key message from the study is that attempts to improve access to disadvantaged populations, no matter how well-intentioned, are likely to provide the most benefit to those who have more resources than others. For example, not everyone has access to a smart phone or tablet: “Even if you have a tablet [or cell phone], you might have to go to the public library to get high speed internet, or you may not even have a public library. So, when something sounds like a great idea, such as expanding the academic footprint or access to integrative medicine through something like a virtual option, a lot of the individuals that you are targeting may not be able to engage,” said Dr. Reau.

For those working to expand access, it’s critical to get the perspective of underserved communities and remember that every patient is unique. Physicians may treat patients who are poor, or from disadvantaged areas, who nevertheless have successful telehealth visits. But that doesn’t mean everyone’s experience will be similar. “You can’t use those who have been successful in accessing telemedicine as an example for everyone else. Just because one person can do it doesn’t mean that everyone else can. Involving a practitioner or an advocate from the area that you’re trying to reach is imperative,” she explained.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a big push for telehealth, and it may be tempting to believe that the transition to telehealth has been smooth. This study “demonstrates in a very granular way that a large number of Americans have no access to high-speed internet, or if they do, many don’t have access to the tools that would let them engage this way. You can’t make assumptions and use them to build a product,” continued Dr. Reau.

Innovative options are needed, such as working with primary care providers in rural or disadvantaged areas to setup pop-up hot spots where e-consultations could be performed. Working directly with broadband internet providers to set up access in specific locations for telehealth, or using products like Amazon Echo Show as a portal for telehealth, can also be tried. “Think about being innovative and recognize that these areas probably don’t have the baseline ingredients we thought they had,” suggested Dr. Reau.

The authors reported having no financial support. Dr. Reau has no relevant financial disclosures.

Telemedicine for patients with liver disease has made progress in recent years, but some key hurdles remain. Strategies that rely on patient ownership of mobile devices or reliable internet access will likely miss patients who have the greatest need for remote access.

This is one of the conclusions from a county-by-county study of access to liver specialty care and mortality, using data drawn from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiological Research (WONDER). The study was led by Jacqueline B. Henson, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology, department of medicine, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and published in Hepatology.
 

Low-access areas

“Ultimately, no single telehealth strategy will be successful in all areas, and these will need to be tailored at the local and state level,” the authors wrote. “They will also depend on the persistence of policy changes enacted during the pandemic which made use and reimbursement for telehealth less restrictive.”

The researchers found that 69.5% of American counties had no gastrointestinal physicians. Moreover, 41.1% of counties were more than 100 miles away from a liver transplant (LT) center; 33.7% had no GI physicians and were more than 100 miles from a LT center. These categories represented populations of 48.8 million, 53.7 million, and 17.8 million. These counties had higher poverty rates, more unemployment, and lower educational attainment than did those that had GI physicians or were closer to LT centers. Distance from LT centers was associated with higher liver-related mortality (r = 0.24; P < .001) and density of GI providers (r = –0.12; P < .001).

Reduced access to specialty care for liver disease was also associated with decreased access to technology, including cell phones, smart phones, and internet service. Among counties in the highest death quartile and lowest access to care, 35.5% of households had no computer, 43.1% had no home internet, and only 19.2% of these had internet at broadband speeds.

“Use of platforms with lower internet speed requirements and that are compatible with mobile devices may help extend access, as could partnerships with local primary care and GI clinics,” they concluded. Further work should be done at the local and state levels to better understand the optimal strategies to reach their populations of need.
 

Missing ‘baseline ingredients’

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, professor of medicine and chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said that “anyone who takes care of vulnerable populations, whether elderly individuals or those who may be socioeconomically disadvantaged, realizes that we have to improve access to medical resources, and telehealth is certainly an attractive way of doing that.”

She added that a key message from the study is that attempts to improve access to disadvantaged populations, no matter how well-intentioned, are likely to provide the most benefit to those who have more resources than others. For example, not everyone has access to a smart phone or tablet: “Even if you have a tablet [or cell phone], you might have to go to the public library to get high speed internet, or you may not even have a public library. So, when something sounds like a great idea, such as expanding the academic footprint or access to integrative medicine through something like a virtual option, a lot of the individuals that you are targeting may not be able to engage,” said Dr. Reau.

For those working to expand access, it’s critical to get the perspective of underserved communities and remember that every patient is unique. Physicians may treat patients who are poor, or from disadvantaged areas, who nevertheless have successful telehealth visits. But that doesn’t mean everyone’s experience will be similar. “You can’t use those who have been successful in accessing telemedicine as an example for everyone else. Just because one person can do it doesn’t mean that everyone else can. Involving a practitioner or an advocate from the area that you’re trying to reach is imperative,” she explained.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a big push for telehealth, and it may be tempting to believe that the transition to telehealth has been smooth. This study “demonstrates in a very granular way that a large number of Americans have no access to high-speed internet, or if they do, many don’t have access to the tools that would let them engage this way. You can’t make assumptions and use them to build a product,” continued Dr. Reau.

Innovative options are needed, such as working with primary care providers in rural or disadvantaged areas to setup pop-up hot spots where e-consultations could be performed. Working directly with broadband internet providers to set up access in specific locations for telehealth, or using products like Amazon Echo Show as a portal for telehealth, can also be tried. “Think about being innovative and recognize that these areas probably don’t have the baseline ingredients we thought they had,” suggested Dr. Reau.

The authors reported having no financial support. Dr. Reau has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – An analysis of a large, international cohort suggests that treatment with protease-inhibitor (PI)–based direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) may be safe for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) with cirrhosis and early-stage liver decompensation.

The study relied on data from the REAL-C registry, including 935 patients treated with oral DAAs at 27 centers in the U.S., Europe, and Asia Pacific countries. The researchers compared efficacy and tolerability outcomes from PI-based and non PI-based DAA regimens in patients deemed to have decompensated HCV cirrhosis.

The findings were encouraging. “It is something important because currently we are short of treatments for decompensated HCV patients. If the tolerability is similar, we perhaps should not withhold [PI] treatment for these patients that sometimes need them the most,” said Yu Jun Wong, MD, who presented the study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). Dr. Wong is a second-year consultant at Changchi General Hospital in Singapore.

“I think it was a very interesting study and something that needed to be done. It was encouraging that patients who did have some level of decompensated cirrhosis did not worsen compared to those who were on a non PI-based therapy,” said Meena Bansal, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented.

However, the study was limited by some uncertainty around the definition of decompensation among the study participants. During the Q&A session, audience members questioned whether patients categorized as decompensated were truly decompensated at the time of treatment initiation. Dr. Bansal noted, for example, that a patient might experience a variceal bleed in the context of heavy alcohol consumption, and therefore be considered decompensated, but might stop drinking afterward with a reduction in portal hypertension and recovery of liver function. “So it would be important to know if they were still decompensated at the time they initiated therapy. If that was the case, then these results are more promising,” said Dr. Bansal.

Despite these limitations, the study is good news. “If you do not have access to non-PI based therapy, you might feel a little bit more secure starting a PI-based therapy, particularly the second generation PI-based therapies, if they’re at least on the earlier side of that decompensation scale. But it’s still unclear in true decompensated Child’s B or C whether or not PI-based therapy would have the same results,” said Dr. Bansal.

Dr. Wong acknowledged the limitation that the study doesn’t apply to more severely decompensated patients. “Whether it remains safe in patients with higher Child-Pugh scores is hard to extrapolate at this point of time. We still need to look further into the data,” said Dr. Wong.

Still, the results offer hope to physicians and patients who might find themselves in difficult circumstances. “If you’re resource limited, and you don’t even have access to transplant, these findings suggest that early decompensated patients may benefit from PI-based therapy. If I say to the patient, there’s a chance this could make you worse, but there’s a chance this could make you better, [this is an option] as long as the patient is aware of the possible outcomes,” said Dr. Bansal.

The study included patients with a history of ascites, variceal bleeding, jaundice, or hepatic encephalopathy 6 months before treatment with DAA, or baseline measures of Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score ≥7 or Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score >10. The analysis included data between 2014 and 2021.

The mean age was 64, and 59.6% of participants were male. Overall, 70.8% had genotype 1, and 32% were treatment experienced. In total, 45.2% were treated with PI-based DAAs.

The PI cohort was older (64.6 versus 62.7; P = .01), and more likely to have genotype 1 (87.2% versus 56.3%; P < .001) and chronic renal disease (64.0% vs. 53.9%; P = .001).

The two groups had similar rates of sustained virologic response at 12 and 24 weeks, as well as similar rates of significant improvement or significant worsening, suggesting similar tolerability. There was a lower frequency of liver decompensation in the PI group at 12 weeks (4.4% vs. 7.9%; P = .04) and a trend at 24 weeks (8.8% versus 12.6%; P = .08).

Another limitation of the study is the potential for bias due to its retrospective nature.

Dr. Wong has been an invited speaker for AbbVie and Gilead. Dr. Bansal has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – An analysis of a large, international cohort suggests that treatment with protease-inhibitor (PI)–based direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) may be safe for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) with cirrhosis and early-stage liver decompensation.

The study relied on data from the REAL-C registry, including 935 patients treated with oral DAAs at 27 centers in the U.S., Europe, and Asia Pacific countries. The researchers compared efficacy and tolerability outcomes from PI-based and non PI-based DAA regimens in patients deemed to have decompensated HCV cirrhosis.

The findings were encouraging. “It is something important because currently we are short of treatments for decompensated HCV patients. If the tolerability is similar, we perhaps should not withhold [PI] treatment for these patients that sometimes need them the most,” said Yu Jun Wong, MD, who presented the study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). Dr. Wong is a second-year consultant at Changchi General Hospital in Singapore.

“I think it was a very interesting study and something that needed to be done. It was encouraging that patients who did have some level of decompensated cirrhosis did not worsen compared to those who were on a non PI-based therapy,” said Meena Bansal, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented.

However, the study was limited by some uncertainty around the definition of decompensation among the study participants. During the Q&A session, audience members questioned whether patients categorized as decompensated were truly decompensated at the time of treatment initiation. Dr. Bansal noted, for example, that a patient might experience a variceal bleed in the context of heavy alcohol consumption, and therefore be considered decompensated, but might stop drinking afterward with a reduction in portal hypertension and recovery of liver function. “So it would be important to know if they were still decompensated at the time they initiated therapy. If that was the case, then these results are more promising,” said Dr. Bansal.

Despite these limitations, the study is good news. “If you do not have access to non-PI based therapy, you might feel a little bit more secure starting a PI-based therapy, particularly the second generation PI-based therapies, if they’re at least on the earlier side of that decompensation scale. But it’s still unclear in true decompensated Child’s B or C whether or not PI-based therapy would have the same results,” said Dr. Bansal.

Dr. Wong acknowledged the limitation that the study doesn’t apply to more severely decompensated patients. “Whether it remains safe in patients with higher Child-Pugh scores is hard to extrapolate at this point of time. We still need to look further into the data,” said Dr. Wong.

Still, the results offer hope to physicians and patients who might find themselves in difficult circumstances. “If you’re resource limited, and you don’t even have access to transplant, these findings suggest that early decompensated patients may benefit from PI-based therapy. If I say to the patient, there’s a chance this could make you worse, but there’s a chance this could make you better, [this is an option] as long as the patient is aware of the possible outcomes,” said Dr. Bansal.

The study included patients with a history of ascites, variceal bleeding, jaundice, or hepatic encephalopathy 6 months before treatment with DAA, or baseline measures of Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score ≥7 or Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score >10. The analysis included data between 2014 and 2021.

The mean age was 64, and 59.6% of participants were male. Overall, 70.8% had genotype 1, and 32% were treatment experienced. In total, 45.2% were treated with PI-based DAAs.

The PI cohort was older (64.6 versus 62.7; P = .01), and more likely to have genotype 1 (87.2% versus 56.3%; P < .001) and chronic renal disease (64.0% vs. 53.9%; P = .001).

The two groups had similar rates of sustained virologic response at 12 and 24 weeks, as well as similar rates of significant improvement or significant worsening, suggesting similar tolerability. There was a lower frequency of liver decompensation in the PI group at 12 weeks (4.4% vs. 7.9%; P = .04) and a trend at 24 weeks (8.8% versus 12.6%; P = .08).

Another limitation of the study is the potential for bias due to its retrospective nature.

Dr. Wong has been an invited speaker for AbbVie and Gilead. Dr. Bansal has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – An analysis of a large, international cohort suggests that treatment with protease-inhibitor (PI)–based direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) may be safe for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) with cirrhosis and early-stage liver decompensation.

The study relied on data from the REAL-C registry, including 935 patients treated with oral DAAs at 27 centers in the U.S., Europe, and Asia Pacific countries. The researchers compared efficacy and tolerability outcomes from PI-based and non PI-based DAA regimens in patients deemed to have decompensated HCV cirrhosis.

The findings were encouraging. “It is something important because currently we are short of treatments for decompensated HCV patients. If the tolerability is similar, we perhaps should not withhold [PI] treatment for these patients that sometimes need them the most,” said Yu Jun Wong, MD, who presented the study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). Dr. Wong is a second-year consultant at Changchi General Hospital in Singapore.

“I think it was a very interesting study and something that needed to be done. It was encouraging that patients who did have some level of decompensated cirrhosis did not worsen compared to those who were on a non PI-based therapy,” said Meena Bansal, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented.

However, the study was limited by some uncertainty around the definition of decompensation among the study participants. During the Q&A session, audience members questioned whether patients categorized as decompensated were truly decompensated at the time of treatment initiation. Dr. Bansal noted, for example, that a patient might experience a variceal bleed in the context of heavy alcohol consumption, and therefore be considered decompensated, but might stop drinking afterward with a reduction in portal hypertension and recovery of liver function. “So it would be important to know if they were still decompensated at the time they initiated therapy. If that was the case, then these results are more promising,” said Dr. Bansal.

Despite these limitations, the study is good news. “If you do not have access to non-PI based therapy, you might feel a little bit more secure starting a PI-based therapy, particularly the second generation PI-based therapies, if they’re at least on the earlier side of that decompensation scale. But it’s still unclear in true decompensated Child’s B or C whether or not PI-based therapy would have the same results,” said Dr. Bansal.

Dr. Wong acknowledged the limitation that the study doesn’t apply to more severely decompensated patients. “Whether it remains safe in patients with higher Child-Pugh scores is hard to extrapolate at this point of time. We still need to look further into the data,” said Dr. Wong.

Still, the results offer hope to physicians and patients who might find themselves in difficult circumstances. “If you’re resource limited, and you don’t even have access to transplant, these findings suggest that early decompensated patients may benefit from PI-based therapy. If I say to the patient, there’s a chance this could make you worse, but there’s a chance this could make you better, [this is an option] as long as the patient is aware of the possible outcomes,” said Dr. Bansal.

The study included patients with a history of ascites, variceal bleeding, jaundice, or hepatic encephalopathy 6 months before treatment with DAA, or baseline measures of Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score ≥7 or Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score >10. The analysis included data between 2014 and 2021.

The mean age was 64, and 59.6% of participants were male. Overall, 70.8% had genotype 1, and 32% were treatment experienced. In total, 45.2% were treated with PI-based DAAs.

The PI cohort was older (64.6 versus 62.7; P = .01), and more likely to have genotype 1 (87.2% versus 56.3%; P < .001) and chronic renal disease (64.0% vs. 53.9%; P = .001).

The two groups had similar rates of sustained virologic response at 12 and 24 weeks, as well as similar rates of significant improvement or significant worsening, suggesting similar tolerability. There was a lower frequency of liver decompensation in the PI group at 12 weeks (4.4% vs. 7.9%; P = .04) and a trend at 24 weeks (8.8% versus 12.6%; P = .08).

Another limitation of the study is the potential for bias due to its retrospective nature.

Dr. Wong has been an invited speaker for AbbVie and Gilead. Dr. Bansal has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Treating people with alcoholic hepatitis for alcohol abuse may reduce their risk of hospital readmission, researchers reported.

In a retrospective analysis of nationwide data, 7.83% of those patients who received psychotherapy, counseling, or drug treatment for alcohol abuse were readmitted within 30 days, versus 11.67% of those who did not receive these kinds of treatment.

The finding lends support to the argument that hospitals should invest more in the treatments, despite the complexities involved.

“It takes a multidisciplinary approach, starting from the physician or the health care provider along with the pharmacists, the behavioral health specialists, or a psychiatrist or psychologist, along with case management as well,” said Harleen Chela, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Missouri in Columbia. She presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

The researchers started with the premise that patients with alcoholic hepatitis can prevent the condition from worsening by abstaining from alcohol. To see whether interventions aimed at encouraging that abstention could prevent readmissions, Dr. Chela and colleagues analyzed data on readmissions for the first 11 months of the year 2018.

They included patients who were at least 18 years of age and who had a nonelective admission with a principal diagnosis of alcohol abuse.

Using procedure codes, they compared those patients given psychotherapy (including cognitive behavioral therapy), formal inpatient counseling, and drug treatment for alcohol abuse to those who didn’t. Then they counted how many patients were readmitted within 30 days.

They found records of 45,617 patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis of whom 1,552 received treatment for alcohol abuse and 44,065 did not.

They did not find any significant difference between the two groups in demographics, income, or insurance status.

Adjusting for such factors, the researchers found that people who received alcohol abuse treatment were 64% as likely to be readmitted as were those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01).

If alcohol abuse treatment is so effective, why isn’t it routine? “It’s not always feasible to implement this, on the inpatient side, because it takes more than a day or two just to get some of these things put in place,” Dr. Chela told this news organization.

They did find that people were more likely to get treatment for alcohol abuse if they were admitted to a hospital in a big city rather than a small town and if their hospital was owned by private investors rather than by a not-for-profit organization or the government.

“Larger hospitals and private sector institutions have more access to resources and money to have those kinds of systems in place for the patients,” said Dr. Chela.

She became interested in the issue at her hospital when she noticed that patients with alcoholic hepatitis were not getting behavioral counseling. “The inpatient load in the behavioral health side is so much that they don’t have time for these kinds of consults,” she said. “That’s one of the challenges: A shortage of behavioral specialists like psychiatrists.”

And hospitals tend to focus on treating conditions that threaten their patients’ lives in the short term. “Someone who has a heart attack or a gastrointestinal bleed – there’s more focus on resources for those kinds of patients,” she said.

Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond provides alcohol abuse treatment to patients with alcoholic hepatitis partly using telehealth, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, chief of hepatology, who was not involved in the study. “For people who live too far away, don’t have transportation, or have other health disparities, we now have technology and mechanisms to keep them engaged in care,” he told this news organization. “We’re doing a lot of Zoom visits.”

Dr. Chela and colleagues also found that those who got alcohol abuse treatment were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility or to home health. The data couldn’t give the researchers a definitive reason for this, but Dr. Chela speculated that the patients who received treatment for alcohol abuse stayed longer in the hospital and may have been in better shape when they were discharged.

The U.S. health care system doesn’t necessarily provide incentives to keep patients healthy, Dr. Sterling said. “Hospital systems make money off of filling beds, and providing a lot of inpatient care and hospital days,” he said. “That may be not necessarily congruent with a health system that is supposed to provide health for these covered lives.”

Neither Dr. Chela nor Dr. Sterling reported any relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Treating people with alcoholic hepatitis for alcohol abuse may reduce their risk of hospital readmission, researchers reported.

In a retrospective analysis of nationwide data, 7.83% of those patients who received psychotherapy, counseling, or drug treatment for alcohol abuse were readmitted within 30 days, versus 11.67% of those who did not receive these kinds of treatment.

The finding lends support to the argument that hospitals should invest more in the treatments, despite the complexities involved.

“It takes a multidisciplinary approach, starting from the physician or the health care provider along with the pharmacists, the behavioral health specialists, or a psychiatrist or psychologist, along with case management as well,” said Harleen Chela, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Missouri in Columbia. She presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

The researchers started with the premise that patients with alcoholic hepatitis can prevent the condition from worsening by abstaining from alcohol. To see whether interventions aimed at encouraging that abstention could prevent readmissions, Dr. Chela and colleagues analyzed data on readmissions for the first 11 months of the year 2018.

They included patients who were at least 18 years of age and who had a nonelective admission with a principal diagnosis of alcohol abuse.

Using procedure codes, they compared those patients given psychotherapy (including cognitive behavioral therapy), formal inpatient counseling, and drug treatment for alcohol abuse to those who didn’t. Then they counted how many patients were readmitted within 30 days.

They found records of 45,617 patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis of whom 1,552 received treatment for alcohol abuse and 44,065 did not.

They did not find any significant difference between the two groups in demographics, income, or insurance status.

Adjusting for such factors, the researchers found that people who received alcohol abuse treatment were 64% as likely to be readmitted as were those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01).

If alcohol abuse treatment is so effective, why isn’t it routine? “It’s not always feasible to implement this, on the inpatient side, because it takes more than a day or two just to get some of these things put in place,” Dr. Chela told this news organization.

They did find that people were more likely to get treatment for alcohol abuse if they were admitted to a hospital in a big city rather than a small town and if their hospital was owned by private investors rather than by a not-for-profit organization or the government.

“Larger hospitals and private sector institutions have more access to resources and money to have those kinds of systems in place for the patients,” said Dr. Chela.

She became interested in the issue at her hospital when she noticed that patients with alcoholic hepatitis were not getting behavioral counseling. “The inpatient load in the behavioral health side is so much that they don’t have time for these kinds of consults,” she said. “That’s one of the challenges: A shortage of behavioral specialists like psychiatrists.”

And hospitals tend to focus on treating conditions that threaten their patients’ lives in the short term. “Someone who has a heart attack or a gastrointestinal bleed – there’s more focus on resources for those kinds of patients,” she said.

Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond provides alcohol abuse treatment to patients with alcoholic hepatitis partly using telehealth, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, chief of hepatology, who was not involved in the study. “For people who live too far away, don’t have transportation, or have other health disparities, we now have technology and mechanisms to keep them engaged in care,” he told this news organization. “We’re doing a lot of Zoom visits.”

Dr. Chela and colleagues also found that those who got alcohol abuse treatment were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility or to home health. The data couldn’t give the researchers a definitive reason for this, but Dr. Chela speculated that the patients who received treatment for alcohol abuse stayed longer in the hospital and may have been in better shape when they were discharged.

The U.S. health care system doesn’t necessarily provide incentives to keep patients healthy, Dr. Sterling said. “Hospital systems make money off of filling beds, and providing a lot of inpatient care and hospital days,” he said. “That may be not necessarily congruent with a health system that is supposed to provide health for these covered lives.”

Neither Dr. Chela nor Dr. Sterling reported any relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Treating people with alcoholic hepatitis for alcohol abuse may reduce their risk of hospital readmission, researchers reported.

In a retrospective analysis of nationwide data, 7.83% of those patients who received psychotherapy, counseling, or drug treatment for alcohol abuse were readmitted within 30 days, versus 11.67% of those who did not receive these kinds of treatment.

The finding lends support to the argument that hospitals should invest more in the treatments, despite the complexities involved.

“It takes a multidisciplinary approach, starting from the physician or the health care provider along with the pharmacists, the behavioral health specialists, or a psychiatrist or psychologist, along with case management as well,” said Harleen Chela, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Missouri in Columbia. She presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

The researchers started with the premise that patients with alcoholic hepatitis can prevent the condition from worsening by abstaining from alcohol. To see whether interventions aimed at encouraging that abstention could prevent readmissions, Dr. Chela and colleagues analyzed data on readmissions for the first 11 months of the year 2018.

They included patients who were at least 18 years of age and who had a nonelective admission with a principal diagnosis of alcohol abuse.

Using procedure codes, they compared those patients given psychotherapy (including cognitive behavioral therapy), formal inpatient counseling, and drug treatment for alcohol abuse to those who didn’t. Then they counted how many patients were readmitted within 30 days.

They found records of 45,617 patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis of whom 1,552 received treatment for alcohol abuse and 44,065 did not.

They did not find any significant difference between the two groups in demographics, income, or insurance status.

Adjusting for such factors, the researchers found that people who received alcohol abuse treatment were 64% as likely to be readmitted as were those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01).

If alcohol abuse treatment is so effective, why isn’t it routine? “It’s not always feasible to implement this, on the inpatient side, because it takes more than a day or two just to get some of these things put in place,” Dr. Chela told this news organization.

They did find that people were more likely to get treatment for alcohol abuse if they were admitted to a hospital in a big city rather than a small town and if their hospital was owned by private investors rather than by a not-for-profit organization or the government.

“Larger hospitals and private sector institutions have more access to resources and money to have those kinds of systems in place for the patients,” said Dr. Chela.

She became interested in the issue at her hospital when she noticed that patients with alcoholic hepatitis were not getting behavioral counseling. “The inpatient load in the behavioral health side is so much that they don’t have time for these kinds of consults,” she said. “That’s one of the challenges: A shortage of behavioral specialists like psychiatrists.”

And hospitals tend to focus on treating conditions that threaten their patients’ lives in the short term. “Someone who has a heart attack or a gastrointestinal bleed – there’s more focus on resources for those kinds of patients,” she said.

Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond provides alcohol abuse treatment to patients with alcoholic hepatitis partly using telehealth, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, chief of hepatology, who was not involved in the study. “For people who live too far away, don’t have transportation, or have other health disparities, we now have technology and mechanisms to keep them engaged in care,” he told this news organization. “We’re doing a lot of Zoom visits.”

Dr. Chela and colleagues also found that those who got alcohol abuse treatment were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility or to home health. The data couldn’t give the researchers a definitive reason for this, but Dr. Chela speculated that the patients who received treatment for alcohol abuse stayed longer in the hospital and may have been in better shape when they were discharged.

The U.S. health care system doesn’t necessarily provide incentives to keep patients healthy, Dr. Sterling said. “Hospital systems make money off of filling beds, and providing a lot of inpatient care and hospital days,” he said. “That may be not necessarily congruent with a health system that is supposed to provide health for these covered lives.”

Neither Dr. Chela nor Dr. Sterling reported any relevant financial relationships.

Patients with greater changes in serum creatinine are more likely to have worse pre- and post–liver transplant outcomes. Moreover, underserved patients may be most frequently affected, according to a retrospective analysis of UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) data.

These results should drive further development of serum creatinine coefficient of variation (sCr CoV) as an independent predictor of renal-related mortality risk, according to lead author Giuseppe Cullaro, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

“Intra-individual clinical and laboratory parameter dynamics often provide additional prognostic information – added information that goes beyond what can be found with cross-sectional data,” the researchers wrote in Hepatology. “This finding has been seen in several scenarios in the general population – intra-individual variability in blood pressure, weight, hemoglobin, and kidney function, have all been associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, in cirrhosis patients, and more specifically in patients awaiting a liver transplant, kidney function dynamics as a predictor of clinical outcomes has yet to be investigated.”

To gauge the predictive power of shifting kidney values, Dr. Cullaro and colleagues analyzed UNOS/OPTN (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) registry data from 2011 through 2019. Exclusion criteria included patients who were aged younger than 18 years, were listed as status 1, received a living donor liver transplantation, were on hemodialysis, or had fewer than three updates. The final dataset included 25,204 patients.

After the researchers sorted patients into low, intermediate, and high sCr CoV tertiles, they used logistic regression to determine relationships between higher sCr and a variety of covariates, such as age, sex, diagnosis, presence of acute kidney injury, or chronic kidney disease. A competing risk regression was then done to look for associations between wait list mortality and the covariables, with liver transplant used as the competing risk.

The median sCr CoV was 17.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 10.8%-29.5%). Patients in the bottom sCr CoV tertile had a median value of 8.8% (IQR, 6.6%-10.8%), compared with 17.4% (IQR, 14.8%-20.4%) in the intermediate variability group and 36.8% (IQR, 29.5%-48.8%) in the high variability group. High variability was associated with female sex, Hispanic ethnicity, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy as well as higher body mass index, MELDNa score, and serum creatinine.

Of note, each decreasing serum creatinine variability tertile was associated with a significantly lower rate of wait list mortality (34.7% vs. 19.6% vs. 11.7%; P < .001). The creatinine variability profiles were similarly associated with the likelihood of receiving a liver transplant (52.3% vs. 48.9% vs. 43.7%; P < .001) and posttransplant mortality (7.5% vs. 5.5% vs. 3.9%; P < .001).

A multivariate model showed that each 10% increase in sCr CoV predicted an 8% increased risk of a combined outcome comprising post–liver transplant death or post–liver transplant kidney transplant (KALT), independently of other variables (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.11).

“These data highlight that all fluctuations in sCr are associated with worse pre- and post–liver transplant outcomes,” the investigators concluded. “Moreover, the groups that are most underserved by sCr, specifically women, were most likely to have greater sCr CoVs. We believe our work lays the foundation for implementing the sCr CoV as an independent metric of renal-related mortality risk and may be most beneficial for those groups most underserved by sCr values alone.”

According to Brian P. Lee, MD, a hepatologist with Keck Medicine of USC and assistant professor of clinical medicine with the Keck School of Medicine of USC in Los Angeles, “this is a great study ... in an area of high need” that used “high quality data.”

Current liver allocation strategies depend on a snapshot of kidney function, but these new findings suggest that a more dynamic approach may be needed. “As a practicing liver specialist I see that creatinine numbers can fluctuate a lot. ... So which number do you use when you’re trying to calculate what a patient’s risk of death is on the wait list? This study gets toward that answer. If there is a lot of variability, these might be higher risk patients; these might be patients that we should put higher on the transplant waiting list,” said Dr. Lee.

He suggested that clinicians should account for creatinine fluctuations when considering mortality risk; however, the evidence is “not quite there yet ... in terms of changing transplant policy and allocation.” He pointed out three unanswered questions: Why are creatinine values fluctuating? How should fluctuations be scored for risk modeling? And, what impact would those risk scores have on transplant waitlist prioritization?

“I think that that’s the work that you would need to do before you could really change national transplant policy,” Dr. Lee concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the UCSF Liver Center. Dr. Cullaro and another author have disclosed relationships with Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and Axcella Health, respectively. Dr. Lee reported no conflicts of interest.

Patients with greater changes in serum creatinine are more likely to have worse pre- and post–liver transplant outcomes. Moreover, underserved patients may be most frequently affected, according to a retrospective analysis of UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) data.

These results should drive further development of serum creatinine coefficient of variation (sCr CoV) as an independent predictor of renal-related mortality risk, according to lead author Giuseppe Cullaro, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

“Intra-individual clinical and laboratory parameter dynamics often provide additional prognostic information – added information that goes beyond what can be found with cross-sectional data,” the researchers wrote in Hepatology. “This finding has been seen in several scenarios in the general population – intra-individual variability in blood pressure, weight, hemoglobin, and kidney function, have all been associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, in cirrhosis patients, and more specifically in patients awaiting a liver transplant, kidney function dynamics as a predictor of clinical outcomes has yet to be investigated.”

To gauge the predictive power of shifting kidney values, Dr. Cullaro and colleagues analyzed UNOS/OPTN (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) registry data from 2011 through 2019. Exclusion criteria included patients who were aged younger than 18 years, were listed as status 1, received a living donor liver transplantation, were on hemodialysis, or had fewer than three updates. The final dataset included 25,204 patients.

After the researchers sorted patients into low, intermediate, and high sCr CoV tertiles, they used logistic regression to determine relationships between higher sCr and a variety of covariates, such as age, sex, diagnosis, presence of acute kidney injury, or chronic kidney disease. A competing risk regression was then done to look for associations between wait list mortality and the covariables, with liver transplant used as the competing risk.

The median sCr CoV was 17.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 10.8%-29.5%). Patients in the bottom sCr CoV tertile had a median value of 8.8% (IQR, 6.6%-10.8%), compared with 17.4% (IQR, 14.8%-20.4%) in the intermediate variability group and 36.8% (IQR, 29.5%-48.8%) in the high variability group. High variability was associated with female sex, Hispanic ethnicity, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy as well as higher body mass index, MELDNa score, and serum creatinine.

Of note, each decreasing serum creatinine variability tertile was associated with a significantly lower rate of wait list mortality (34.7% vs. 19.6% vs. 11.7%; P < .001). The creatinine variability profiles were similarly associated with the likelihood of receiving a liver transplant (52.3% vs. 48.9% vs. 43.7%; P < .001) and posttransplant mortality (7.5% vs. 5.5% vs. 3.9%; P < .001).

A multivariate model showed that each 10% increase in sCr CoV predicted an 8% increased risk of a combined outcome comprising post–liver transplant death or post–liver transplant kidney transplant (KALT), independently of other variables (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.11).

“These data highlight that all fluctuations in sCr are associated with worse pre- and post–liver transplant outcomes,” the investigators concluded. “Moreover, the groups that are most underserved by sCr, specifically women, were most likely to have greater sCr CoVs. We believe our work lays the foundation for implementing the sCr CoV as an independent metric of renal-related mortality risk and may be most beneficial for those groups most underserved by sCr values alone.”

According to Brian P. Lee, MD, a hepatologist with Keck Medicine of USC and assistant professor of clinical medicine with the Keck School of Medicine of USC in Los Angeles, “this is a great study ... in an area of high need” that used “high quality data.”

Current liver allocation strategies depend on a snapshot of kidney function, but these new findings suggest that a more dynamic approach may be needed. “As a practicing liver specialist I see that creatinine numbers can fluctuate a lot. ... So which number do you use when you’re trying to calculate what a patient’s risk of death is on the wait list? This study gets toward that answer. If there is a lot of variability, these might be higher risk patients; these might be patients that we should put higher on the transplant waiting list,” said Dr. Lee.

He suggested that clinicians should account for creatinine fluctuations when considering mortality risk; however, the evidence is “not quite there yet ... in terms of changing transplant policy and allocation.” He pointed out three unanswered questions: Why are creatinine values fluctuating? How should fluctuations be scored for risk modeling? And, what impact would those risk scores have on transplant waitlist prioritization?

“I think that that’s the work that you would need to do before you could really change national transplant policy,” Dr. Lee concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the UCSF Liver Center. Dr. Cullaro and another author have disclosed relationships with Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and Axcella Health, respectively. Dr. Lee reported no conflicts of interest.

Patients with greater changes in serum creatinine are more likely to have worse pre- and post–liver transplant outcomes. Moreover, underserved patients may be most frequently affected, according to a retrospective analysis of UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) data.

These results should drive further development of serum creatinine coefficient of variation (sCr CoV) as an independent predictor of renal-related mortality risk, according to lead author Giuseppe Cullaro, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

“Intra-individual clinical and laboratory parameter dynamics often provide additional prognostic information – added information that goes beyond what can be found with cross-sectional data,” the researchers wrote in Hepatology. “This finding has been seen in several scenarios in the general population – intra-individual variability in blood pressure, weight, hemoglobin, and kidney function, have all been associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, in cirrhosis patients, and more specifically in patients awaiting a liver transplant, kidney function dynamics as a predictor of clinical outcomes has yet to be investigated.”

To gauge the predictive power of shifting kidney values, Dr. Cullaro and colleagues analyzed UNOS/OPTN (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) registry data from 2011 through 2019. Exclusion criteria included patients who were aged younger than 18 years, were listed as status 1, received a living donor liver transplantation, were on hemodialysis, or had fewer than three updates. The final dataset included 25,204 patients.

After the researchers sorted patients into low, intermediate, and high sCr CoV tertiles, they used logistic regression to determine relationships between higher sCr and a variety of covariates, such as age, sex, diagnosis, presence of acute kidney injury, or chronic kidney disease. A competing risk regression was then done to look for associations between wait list mortality and the covariables, with liver transplant used as the competing risk.

The median sCr CoV was 17.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 10.8%-29.5%). Patients in the bottom sCr CoV tertile had a median value of 8.8% (IQR, 6.6%-10.8%), compared with 17.4% (IQR, 14.8%-20.4%) in the intermediate variability group and 36.8% (IQR, 29.5%-48.8%) in the high variability group. High variability was associated with female sex, Hispanic ethnicity, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy as well as higher body mass index, MELDNa score, and serum creatinine.

Of note, each decreasing serum creatinine variability tertile was associated with a significantly lower rate of wait list mortality (34.7% vs. 19.6% vs. 11.7%; P < .001). The creatinine variability profiles were similarly associated with the likelihood of receiving a liver transplant (52.3% vs. 48.9% vs. 43.7%; P < .001) and posttransplant mortality (7.5% vs. 5.5% vs. 3.9%; P < .001).

A multivariate model showed that each 10% increase in sCr CoV predicted an 8% increased risk of a combined outcome comprising post–liver transplant death or post–liver transplant kidney transplant (KALT), independently of other variables (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.11).

“These data highlight that all fluctuations in sCr are associated with worse pre- and post–liver transplant outcomes,” the investigators concluded. “Moreover, the groups that are most underserved by sCr, specifically women, were most likely to have greater sCr CoVs. We believe our work lays the foundation for implementing the sCr CoV as an independent metric of renal-related mortality risk and may be most beneficial for those groups most underserved by sCr values alone.”

According to Brian P. Lee, MD, a hepatologist with Keck Medicine of USC and assistant professor of clinical medicine with the Keck School of Medicine of USC in Los Angeles, “this is a great study ... in an area of high need” that used “high quality data.”

Current liver allocation strategies depend on a snapshot of kidney function, but these new findings suggest that a more dynamic approach may be needed. “As a practicing liver specialist I see that creatinine numbers can fluctuate a lot. ... So which number do you use when you’re trying to calculate what a patient’s risk of death is on the wait list? This study gets toward that answer. If there is a lot of variability, these might be higher risk patients; these might be patients that we should put higher on the transplant waiting list,” said Dr. Lee.

He suggested that clinicians should account for creatinine fluctuations when considering mortality risk; however, the evidence is “not quite there yet ... in terms of changing transplant policy and allocation.” He pointed out three unanswered questions: Why are creatinine values fluctuating? How should fluctuations be scored for risk modeling? And, what impact would those risk scores have on transplant waitlist prioritization?

“I think that that’s the work that you would need to do before you could really change national transplant policy,” Dr. Lee concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the UCSF Liver Center. Dr. Cullaro and another author have disclosed relationships with Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and Axcella Health, respectively. Dr. Lee reported no conflicts of interest.

People with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a lean or healthy body mass index are at increased risk for peripheral vascular disease, stroke, and cardiovascular disease, a surprise finding from a new study reveals.

“Our team had expected to see that those with a normal BMI would have a lower prevalence of any metabolic or cardiovascular conditions,” lead researcher Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing that previewed select research for Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2022. “So, we were very surprised to find this link to cardiovascular disease.”

The investigators saw this increased risk of cardiovascular disease despite this group having a lower prevalence of atherosclerotic risk factors and metabolic disease.

This first study of its kind suggests physicians should consider the risk of cardiovascular disease in all patients with NAFLD, not just in those who are overweight or living with obesity – groups traditionally thought to carry more risk.

NAFLD in lean individuals is not a benign disease.

“NAFLD patients with a normal BMI are often overlooked because we assume that the risk for more serious conditions is lower than for those who are overweight or obese. But this way of thinking may be putting these patients at risk,” added Dr. Wijarnpreecha, who is a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Key findings

Approximately 25% of U.S. adults live with NAFLD, an umbrella term for liver conditions in people who drink little to no alcohol. It is characterized by too much fat stored in the liver. Although most people have no symptoms, the condition can lead to other dangerous conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cirrhosis of the liver, Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

The investigators retrospectively studied a cohort of 18,793 adults diagnosed with NAFLD at the University of Michigan Hospital from 2012-2021. One aim was to compare the prevalence of cirrhosis, cardiovascular disease, metabolic diseases, and chronic kidney disease in relation to BMI.

They also classified people into four BMI categories: lean, overweight, obesity class 1, and obesity class 2-3.

Compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a higher prevalence of peripheral arterial disease and stroke and a similar rate of cardiovascular disease based on identification of ICD codes.

Almost 6% of lean patients had peripheral arterial disease, compared with rates of approximately 4%-5% in overweight people and people with obesity. Similarly, more than 6% of the lean group experienced a stroke compared with 5% or less of the other BMI groups.

“We found that lean patients with NAFLD also had a significant higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease, independent of age, sex, race, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

At the same time, compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a lower prevalence of cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease in an analysis that adjusted for confounders.
 

Exploring the unknown

Researchers now have a mystery on their hands: What is causing this unexpected higher risk of cardiovascular disease in lean people with NAFLD?

Loren Laine, MD, chief of the section of digestive diseases at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., and moderator of the media briefing, asked Wijarnpreecha for his leading theory behind this connection.

“We think that could be from a difference in lifestyle, diet, exercise, genetics, or even gut microbiota,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha replied. “But these are factors that we did not capture from this current study.”

“We are preparing to conduct additional research with longitudinal data to better understand NAFLD in lean patients,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha added.

“It’s an interesting finding, but there are some questions from this retrospective study,” said Arun J. Sanyal, MD, when asked to comment on the study.

Identifying and quantifying any alcohol use, smoking, or hypertension that could also have contributed to increased cardiovascular risk would be useful. Another question relates to how the population with NAFLD was identified. Was NAFLD an incidental finding in their diagnosis, asked Dr. Sanyal, director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease & Metabolic Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“I’m not dissing the study,” he said, “But like all the observations like this, I think we have to kick the tires.”

It’s an “important new observation” that requires further study to fully understand what it means and what the therapeutic implications might be. It is also important to assess any possible confounders and any causal relationship among these factors, Dr. Sanyal added.

“There’s no question it is important to continue to do these types of studies,” he added. “Through this kind of research we find new things that lead to the science that can then significantly change how we approach these issues.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was updated on May 18, 2022.

People with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a lean or healthy body mass index are at increased risk for peripheral vascular disease, stroke, and cardiovascular disease, a surprise finding from a new study reveals.

“Our team had expected to see that those with a normal BMI would have a lower prevalence of any metabolic or cardiovascular conditions,” lead researcher Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing that previewed select research for Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2022. “So, we were very surprised to find this link to cardiovascular disease.”

The investigators saw this increased risk of cardiovascular disease despite this group having a lower prevalence of atherosclerotic risk factors and metabolic disease.

This first study of its kind suggests physicians should consider the risk of cardiovascular disease in all patients with NAFLD, not just in those who are overweight or living with obesity – groups traditionally thought to carry more risk.

NAFLD in lean individuals is not a benign disease.

“NAFLD patients with a normal BMI are often overlooked because we assume that the risk for more serious conditions is lower than for those who are overweight or obese. But this way of thinking may be putting these patients at risk,” added Dr. Wijarnpreecha, who is a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Key findings

Approximately 25% of U.S. adults live with NAFLD, an umbrella term for liver conditions in people who drink little to no alcohol. It is characterized by too much fat stored in the liver. Although most people have no symptoms, the condition can lead to other dangerous conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cirrhosis of the liver, Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

The investigators retrospectively studied a cohort of 18,793 adults diagnosed with NAFLD at the University of Michigan Hospital from 2012-2021. One aim was to compare the prevalence of cirrhosis, cardiovascular disease, metabolic diseases, and chronic kidney disease in relation to BMI.

They also classified people into four BMI categories: lean, overweight, obesity class 1, and obesity class 2-3.

Compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a higher prevalence of peripheral arterial disease and stroke and a similar rate of cardiovascular disease based on identification of ICD codes.

Almost 6% of lean patients had peripheral arterial disease, compared with rates of approximately 4%-5% in overweight people and people with obesity. Similarly, more than 6% of the lean group experienced a stroke compared with 5% or less of the other BMI groups.

“We found that lean patients with NAFLD also had a significant higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease, independent of age, sex, race, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

At the same time, compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a lower prevalence of cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease in an analysis that adjusted for confounders.
 

Exploring the unknown

Researchers now have a mystery on their hands: What is causing this unexpected higher risk of cardiovascular disease in lean people with NAFLD?

Loren Laine, MD, chief of the section of digestive diseases at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., and moderator of the media briefing, asked Wijarnpreecha for his leading theory behind this connection.

“We think that could be from a difference in lifestyle, diet, exercise, genetics, or even gut microbiota,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha replied. “But these are factors that we did not capture from this current study.”

“We are preparing to conduct additional research with longitudinal data to better understand NAFLD in lean patients,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha added.

“It’s an interesting finding, but there are some questions from this retrospective study,” said Arun J. Sanyal, MD, when asked to comment on the study.

Identifying and quantifying any alcohol use, smoking, or hypertension that could also have contributed to increased cardiovascular risk would be useful. Another question relates to how the population with NAFLD was identified. Was NAFLD an incidental finding in their diagnosis, asked Dr. Sanyal, director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease & Metabolic Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“I’m not dissing the study,” he said, “But like all the observations like this, I think we have to kick the tires.”

It’s an “important new observation” that requires further study to fully understand what it means and what the therapeutic implications might be. It is also important to assess any possible confounders and any causal relationship among these factors, Dr. Sanyal added.

“There’s no question it is important to continue to do these types of studies,” he added. “Through this kind of research we find new things that lead to the science that can then significantly change how we approach these issues.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was updated on May 18, 2022.

People with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a lean or healthy body mass index are at increased risk for peripheral vascular disease, stroke, and cardiovascular disease, a surprise finding from a new study reveals.

“Our team had expected to see that those with a normal BMI would have a lower prevalence of any metabolic or cardiovascular conditions,” lead researcher Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing that previewed select research for Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2022. “So, we were very surprised to find this link to cardiovascular disease.”

The investigators saw this increased risk of cardiovascular disease despite this group having a lower prevalence of atherosclerotic risk factors and metabolic disease.

This first study of its kind suggests physicians should consider the risk of cardiovascular disease in all patients with NAFLD, not just in those who are overweight or living with obesity – groups traditionally thought to carry more risk.

NAFLD in lean individuals is not a benign disease.

“NAFLD patients with a normal BMI are often overlooked because we assume that the risk for more serious conditions is lower than for those who are overweight or obese. But this way of thinking may be putting these patients at risk,” added Dr. Wijarnpreecha, who is a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Key findings

Approximately 25% of U.S. adults live with NAFLD, an umbrella term for liver conditions in people who drink little to no alcohol. It is characterized by too much fat stored in the liver. Although most people have no symptoms, the condition can lead to other dangerous conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cirrhosis of the liver, Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

The investigators retrospectively studied a cohort of 18,793 adults diagnosed with NAFLD at the University of Michigan Hospital from 2012-2021. One aim was to compare the prevalence of cirrhosis, cardiovascular disease, metabolic diseases, and chronic kidney disease in relation to BMI.

They also classified people into four BMI categories: lean, overweight, obesity class 1, and obesity class 2-3.

Compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a higher prevalence of peripheral arterial disease and stroke and a similar rate of cardiovascular disease based on identification of ICD codes.

Almost 6% of lean patients had peripheral arterial disease, compared with rates of approximately 4%-5% in overweight people and people with obesity. Similarly, more than 6% of the lean group experienced a stroke compared with 5% or less of the other BMI groups.

“We found that lean patients with NAFLD also had a significant higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease, independent of age, sex, race, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

At the same time, compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a lower prevalence of cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease in an analysis that adjusted for confounders.
 

Exploring the unknown

Researchers now have a mystery on their hands: What is causing this unexpected higher risk of cardiovascular disease in lean people with NAFLD?

Loren Laine, MD, chief of the section of digestive diseases at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., and moderator of the media briefing, asked Wijarnpreecha for his leading theory behind this connection.

“We think that could be from a difference in lifestyle, diet, exercise, genetics, or even gut microbiota,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha replied. “But these are factors that we did not capture from this current study.”

“We are preparing to conduct additional research with longitudinal data to better understand NAFLD in lean patients,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha added.

“It’s an interesting finding, but there are some questions from this retrospective study,” said Arun J. Sanyal, MD, when asked to comment on the study.

Identifying and quantifying any alcohol use, smoking, or hypertension that could also have contributed to increased cardiovascular risk would be useful. Another question relates to how the population with NAFLD was identified. Was NAFLD an incidental finding in their diagnosis, asked Dr. Sanyal, director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease & Metabolic Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“I’m not dissing the study,” he said, “But like all the observations like this, I think we have to kick the tires.”

It’s an “important new observation” that requires further study to fully understand what it means and what the therapeutic implications might be. It is also important to assess any possible confounders and any causal relationship among these factors, Dr. Sanyal added.

“There’s no question it is important to continue to do these types of studies,” he added. “Through this kind of research we find new things that lead to the science that can then significantly change how we approach these issues.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was updated on May 18, 2022.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) demonstrate highly similar clinical courses and mortality rates, and a name change may not be clinically beneficial, based on data from more than 17,000 patients.

Instead, etiologic subcategorization of fatty liver disease (FLD) should be considered, reported lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of Betty and Guy Beatty Center for Integrated Research, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Va., and colleagues.

“There is debate about whether NAFLD is an appropriate name as the term ‘non-alcoholic’ overemphasizes the absence of alcohol use and underemphasizes the importance of the metabolic risk factors which are the main drivers of disease progression,” the investigators wrote in Hepatology. “It has been suggested that MAFLD may better reflect these risk factors. However, such a recommendation is made despite a lack of a general consensus on the definition of ‘metabolic health’ and disagreements in endocrinology circles about the term ‘metabolic syndrome.’ Nevertheless, a few investigators have suggested that MAFLD but not NAFLD is associated with increased fibrosis and mortality.”

To look for clinical differences between the two disease entities, Dr. Younossi and colleagues turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Specifically, the NHANES III and NHANES 2017-2018 cohorts were employed, including 12,878 and 4,328 participants, respectively.

MAFLD was defined as FLD with overweight/obesity, evidence of metabolic dysregulation, or type 2 diabetes mellitus. NAFLD was defined as FLD without excessive alcohol consumption or other causes of chronic liver disease. Patients were sorted into four groups: NAFLD, MAFLD, both disease types, or neither disease type. Since the categories were not mutually exclusive, the investigators compared clinical characteristics based on 95% confidence intervals. If no overlap was found, then differences were deemed statistically significant.

Diagnoses of NAFLD and MAFLD were highly concordant (kappa coefficient = 0.83-0.94). After a median of 22.8 years follow-up, no significant differences were found between groups for cause-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, or major clinical characteristics except those inherent to the disease definitions (for example, lack of alcohol use in NAFLD). Greatest risk factors for advanced fibrosis in both groups were obesity, high-risk fibrosis, and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

As anticipated, by definition, alcoholic liver disease and excess alcohol use were documented in approximately 15% of patients with MAFLD, but in no patients with NAFLD. As such, alcoholic liver disease predicted liver-specific mortality for MAFLD (hazard ratio, 4.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.89-10.75) but not NAFLD. Conversely, insulin resistance predicted liver-specific mortality in NAFLD (HR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.35-9.42) but not MAFLD (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.36-1.95).

“These data do not support the notion that a name change from NAFLD to MAFLD will better capture the risk for long-term outcomes of these patients or better define metabolically at-risk patients who present with FLD,” the investigators concluded. “On the other hand, enlarging the definition to FLD with subcategories of ‘alcoholic,’ ‘non-alcoholic,’ ‘drug-induced,’ etc. has merit and needs to be further considered. In this context, a true international consensus group of experts supported by liver and non-liver scientific societies must undertake an evidence-based and comprehensive approach to this issue and assess both the benefits and risks of changing the name.”

According to Rohit Loomba, MD, director of the NAFLD research center and professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of California, San Diego, the study offers a preview of the consequences if NAFLD were changed to MAFLD, most notably by making alcohol a key driver of outcomes.

“If we change the name of a disease entity ... how does that impact natural history?” Dr. Loomba asked in an interview. “This paper gives you an idea. If you start calling it MAFLD, then people are dying from alcohol use, and they’re not dying from what we are currently seeing patients with NAFLD die of.”

He also noted that the name change could disrupt drug development and outcome measures since most drugs currently in development are directed at nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

“Is it worth the headache?” Dr. Loomba asked. “How are we going to define NASH-related fibrosis? That probably will remain the same because the therapies that we will use to address that will remain consistent with what we are currently pursuing. ... It’s probably premature to change the nomenclature before assessing the impact on finding new treatment.”

Dr. Younossi disclosed relationships with BMS, Novartis, Gilead, and others. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myer Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89 bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) demonstrate highly similar clinical courses and mortality rates, and a name change may not be clinically beneficial, based on data from more than 17,000 patients.

Instead, etiologic subcategorization of fatty liver disease (FLD) should be considered, reported lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of Betty and Guy Beatty Center for Integrated Research, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Va., and colleagues.

“There is debate about whether NAFLD is an appropriate name as the term ‘non-alcoholic’ overemphasizes the absence of alcohol use and underemphasizes the importance of the metabolic risk factors which are the main drivers of disease progression,” the investigators wrote in Hepatology. “It has been suggested that MAFLD may better reflect these risk factors. However, such a recommendation is made despite a lack of a general consensus on the definition of ‘metabolic health’ and disagreements in endocrinology circles about the term ‘metabolic syndrome.’ Nevertheless, a few investigators have suggested that MAFLD but not NAFLD is associated with increased fibrosis and mortality.”

To look for clinical differences between the two disease entities, Dr. Younossi and colleagues turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Specifically, the NHANES III and NHANES 2017-2018 cohorts were employed, including 12,878 and 4,328 participants, respectively.

MAFLD was defined as FLD with overweight/obesity, evidence of metabolic dysregulation, or type 2 diabetes mellitus. NAFLD was defined as FLD without excessive alcohol consumption or other causes of chronic liver disease. Patients were sorted into four groups: NAFLD, MAFLD, both disease types, or neither disease type. Since the categories were not mutually exclusive, the investigators compared clinical characteristics based on 95% confidence intervals. If no overlap was found, then differences were deemed statistically significant.

Diagnoses of NAFLD and MAFLD were highly concordant (kappa coefficient = 0.83-0.94). After a median of 22.8 years follow-up, no significant differences were found between groups for cause-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, or major clinical characteristics except those inherent to the disease definitions (for example, lack of alcohol use in NAFLD). Greatest risk factors for advanced fibrosis in both groups were obesity, high-risk fibrosis, and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

As anticipated, by definition, alcoholic liver disease and excess alcohol use were documented in approximately 15% of patients with MAFLD, but in no patients with NAFLD. As such, alcoholic liver disease predicted liver-specific mortality for MAFLD (hazard ratio, 4.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.89-10.75) but not NAFLD. Conversely, insulin resistance predicted liver-specific mortality in NAFLD (HR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.35-9.42) but not MAFLD (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.36-1.95).

“These data do not support the notion that a name change from NAFLD to MAFLD will better capture the risk for long-term outcomes of these patients or better define metabolically at-risk patients who present with FLD,” the investigators concluded. “On the other hand, enlarging the definition to FLD with subcategories of ‘alcoholic,’ ‘non-alcoholic,’ ‘drug-induced,’ etc. has merit and needs to be further considered. In this context, a true international consensus group of experts supported by liver and non-liver scientific societies must undertake an evidence-based and comprehensive approach to this issue and assess both the benefits and risks of changing the name.”

According to Rohit Loomba, MD, director of the NAFLD research center and professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of California, San Diego, the study offers a preview of the consequences if NAFLD were changed to MAFLD, most notably by making alcohol a key driver of outcomes.

“If we change the name of a disease entity ... how does that impact natural history?” Dr. Loomba asked in an interview. “This paper gives you an idea. If you start calling it MAFLD, then people are dying from alcohol use, and they’re not dying from what we are currently seeing patients with NAFLD die of.”

He also noted that the name change could disrupt drug development and outcome measures since most drugs currently in development are directed at nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

“Is it worth the headache?” Dr. Loomba asked. “How are we going to define NASH-related fibrosis? That probably will remain the same because the therapies that we will use to address that will remain consistent with what we are currently pursuing. ... It’s probably premature to change the nomenclature before assessing the impact on finding new treatment.”

Dr. Younossi disclosed relationships with BMS, Novartis, Gilead, and others. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myer Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89 bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) demonstrate highly similar clinical courses and mortality rates, and a name change may not be clinically beneficial, based on data from more than 17,000 patients.

Instead, etiologic subcategorization of fatty liver disease (FLD) should be considered, reported lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of Betty and Guy Beatty Center for Integrated Research, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Va., and colleagues.

“There is debate about whether NAFLD is an appropriate name as the term ‘non-alcoholic’ overemphasizes the absence of alcohol use and underemphasizes the importance of the metabolic risk factors which are the main drivers of disease progression,” the investigators wrote in Hepatology. “It has been suggested that MAFLD may better reflect these risk factors. However, such a recommendation is made despite a lack of a general consensus on the definition of ‘metabolic health’ and disagreements in endocrinology circles about the term ‘metabolic syndrome.’ Nevertheless, a few investigators have suggested that MAFLD but not NAFLD is associated with increased fibrosis and mortality.”

To look for clinical differences between the two disease entities, Dr. Younossi and colleagues turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Specifically, the NHANES III and NHANES 2017-2018 cohorts were employed, including 12,878 and 4,328 participants, respectively.

MAFLD was defined as FLD with overweight/obesity, evidence of metabolic dysregulation, or type 2 diabetes mellitus. NAFLD was defined as FLD without excessive alcohol consumption or other causes of chronic liver disease. Patients were sorted into four groups: NAFLD, MAFLD, both disease types, or neither disease type. Since the categories were not mutually exclusive, the investigators compared clinical characteristics based on 95% confidence intervals. If no overlap was found, then differences were deemed statistically significant.

Diagnoses of NAFLD and MAFLD were highly concordant (kappa coefficient = 0.83-0.94). After a median of 22.8 years follow-up, no significant differences were found between groups for cause-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, or major clinical characteristics except those inherent to the disease definitions (for example, lack of alcohol use in NAFLD). Greatest risk factors for advanced fibrosis in both groups were obesity, high-risk fibrosis, and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

As anticipated, by definition, alcoholic liver disease and excess alcohol use were documented in approximately 15% of patients with MAFLD, but in no patients with NAFLD. As such, alcoholic liver disease predicted liver-specific mortality for MAFLD (hazard ratio, 4.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.89-10.75) but not NAFLD. Conversely, insulin resistance predicted liver-specific mortality in NAFLD (HR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.35-9.42) but not MAFLD (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.36-1.95).

“These data do not support the notion that a name change from NAFLD to MAFLD will better capture the risk for long-term outcomes of these patients or better define metabolically at-risk patients who present with FLD,” the investigators concluded. “On the other hand, enlarging the definition to FLD with subcategories of ‘alcoholic,’ ‘non-alcoholic,’ ‘drug-induced,’ etc. has merit and needs to be further considered. In this context, a true international consensus group of experts supported by liver and non-liver scientific societies must undertake an evidence-based and comprehensive approach to this issue and assess both the benefits and risks of changing the name.”

According to Rohit Loomba, MD, director of the NAFLD research center and professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of California, San Diego, the study offers a preview of the consequences if NAFLD were changed to MAFLD, most notably by making alcohol a key driver of outcomes.

“If we change the name of a disease entity ... how does that impact natural history?” Dr. Loomba asked in an interview. “This paper gives you an idea. If you start calling it MAFLD, then people are dying from alcohol use, and they’re not dying from what we are currently seeing patients with NAFLD die of.”

He also noted that the name change could disrupt drug development and outcome measures since most drugs currently in development are directed at nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

“Is it worth the headache?” Dr. Loomba asked. “How are we going to define NASH-related fibrosis? That probably will remain the same because the therapies that we will use to address that will remain consistent with what we are currently pursuing. ... It’s probably premature to change the nomenclature before assessing the impact on finding new treatment.”

Dr. Younossi disclosed relationships with BMS, Novartis, Gilead, and others. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myer Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89 bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics.

A complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that Alabama’s Medicaid program is illegally denying curative drug treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection to people with substance use disorder.

The complaint was filed May 9 by the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI) of Harvard Law School, in partnership with AIDS Alabama.

It alleges that Alabama Medicaid has a policy of denying HCV treatment to people who have used illegal drugs or alcohol in the past 6 months.

CHLPI and AIDS Alabama argue that these restrictions violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects people who are disabled because of substance use disorder.

“Forced sobriety policies don’t just unfairly prevent people with substance use disorder from accessing life-saving treatment; they also severely hamper public health efforts to stop the spread of the disease,” Kevin Costello, CHLPI’s litigation director, said in a statement.

“These policies are rooted in stigma, not science, and they violate antidiscrimination provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act,” Mr. Costello said.

Filing an administrative complaint against Alabama is “an important milestone in fighting sobriety restrictions,” he added.
 

Morally wrong

Kathie Hiers, CEO of AIDS Alabama, noted that Alabama’s health outcomes are among the worst in the nation.

“Policies that prevent adequate medical care from being provided must end. HCV now has a cure, and withholding that cure from Alabamians based on a moral judgment is wrong and certainly doesn’t follow the science,” Ms. Hiers added.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy can cure up to 99% of people living with HCV.

The complaint against Alabama Medicaid builds on CHLPI’s successful policy advocacy and litigation campaigns to expand access to DAA therapy in state Medicaid programs across the country.

Since 2017, 19 states have removed treatment restrictions that were based on drug or alcohol use. In other states, however, “severe, illegal sobriety restrictions remain,” according to CHLPI.

Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, and South Dakota still require Medicaid enrollees with HCV to prove they have not used drugs or alcohol for 6 months before they can receive treatment. Iowa, North Dakota, and West Virginia have a 3-month abstinence requirement.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend DAA therapy for all patients with chronic HCV infection, regardless of drug or alcohol use.

CHLPI intends to expand this “enforcement campaign” to all states where sobriety restrictions persist.

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

A complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that Alabama’s Medicaid program is illegally denying curative drug treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection to people with substance use disorder.

The complaint was filed May 9 by the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI) of Harvard Law School, in partnership with AIDS Alabama.

It alleges that Alabama Medicaid has a policy of denying HCV treatment to people who have used illegal drugs or alcohol in the past 6 months.

CHLPI and AIDS Alabama argue that these restrictions violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects people who are disabled because of substance use disorder.

“Forced sobriety policies don’t just unfairly prevent people with substance use disorder from accessing life-saving treatment; they also severely hamper public health efforts to stop the spread of the disease,” Kevin Costello, CHLPI’s litigation director, said in a statement.

“These policies are rooted in stigma, not science, and they violate antidiscrimination provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act,” Mr. Costello said.

Filing an administrative complaint against Alabama is “an important milestone in fighting sobriety restrictions,” he added.
 

Morally wrong

Kathie Hiers, CEO of AIDS Alabama, noted that Alabama’s health outcomes are among the worst in the nation.

“Policies that prevent adequate medical care from being provided must end. HCV now has a cure, and withholding that cure from Alabamians based on a moral judgment is wrong and certainly doesn’t follow the science,” Ms. Hiers added.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy can cure up to 99% of people living with HCV.

The complaint against Alabama Medicaid builds on CHLPI’s successful policy advocacy and litigation campaigns to expand access to DAA therapy in state Medicaid programs across the country.

Since 2017, 19 states have removed treatment restrictions that were based on drug or alcohol use. In other states, however, “severe, illegal sobriety restrictions remain,” according to CHLPI.

Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, and South Dakota still require Medicaid enrollees with HCV to prove they have not used drugs or alcohol for 6 months before they can receive treatment. Iowa, North Dakota, and West Virginia have a 3-month abstinence requirement.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend DAA therapy for all patients with chronic HCV infection, regardless of drug or alcohol use.

CHLPI intends to expand this “enforcement campaign” to all states where sobriety restrictions persist.

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

A complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that Alabama’s Medicaid program is illegally denying curative drug treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection to people with substance use disorder.

The complaint was filed May 9 by the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI) of Harvard Law School, in partnership with AIDS Alabama.

It alleges that Alabama Medicaid has a policy of denying HCV treatment to people who have used illegal drugs or alcohol in the past 6 months.

CHLPI and AIDS Alabama argue that these restrictions violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects people who are disabled because of substance use disorder.

“Forced sobriety policies don’t just unfairly prevent people with substance use disorder from accessing life-saving treatment; they also severely hamper public health efforts to stop the spread of the disease,” Kevin Costello, CHLPI’s litigation director, said in a statement.

“These policies are rooted in stigma, not science, and they violate antidiscrimination provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act,” Mr. Costello said.

Filing an administrative complaint against Alabama is “an important milestone in fighting sobriety restrictions,” he added.
 

Morally wrong

Kathie Hiers, CEO of AIDS Alabama, noted that Alabama’s health outcomes are among the worst in the nation.

“Policies that prevent adequate medical care from being provided must end. HCV now has a cure, and withholding that cure from Alabamians based on a moral judgment is wrong and certainly doesn’t follow the science,” Ms. Hiers added.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy can cure up to 99% of people living with HCV.

The complaint against Alabama Medicaid builds on CHLPI’s successful policy advocacy and litigation campaigns to expand access to DAA therapy in state Medicaid programs across the country.

Since 2017, 19 states have removed treatment restrictions that were based on drug or alcohol use. In other states, however, “severe, illegal sobriety restrictions remain,” according to CHLPI.

Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, and South Dakota still require Medicaid enrollees with HCV to prove they have not used drugs or alcohol for 6 months before they can receive treatment. Iowa, North Dakota, and West Virginia have a 3-month abstinence requirement.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend DAA therapy for all patients with chronic HCV infection, regardless of drug or alcohol use.

CHLPI intends to expand this “enforcement campaign” to all states where sobriety restrictions persist.

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

In a retrospective study to evaluate the impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on all-cause mortality in patients with cirrhosis, researchers found reduced mortality only in those hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding. They reported increased liver-related mortality associated with PPIs in all other patients with cirrhosis.

Patients on PPIs had an 18% reduction in all-cause mortality versus other patients if they had gastrointestinal bleeding. But in those without bleeding, PPIs were associated with a 23% increase in liver-related mortality.

Further analysis suggested that the mortality increase could be related to a 21% increased risk for severe infection with PPI exposure in patients with cirrhosis, as well as a 64% increased risk for decompensation.

“My takeaway from this study is that there should be a nuanced understanding of PPIs and cirrhosis,” corresponding author Nadim Mahmud, MD, MS, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview, adding that, if they are to be used in this setting, there should be “a very compelling indication.”

Based on the new analysis, Dr. Mahmud explained, in a patient with cirrhosis hospitalized with a potentially ulcer-related upper gastrointestinal bleed, “we shouldn’t be afraid” to use PPIs “out of fear of potential infection or decompensation because our data demonstrate pretty strongly that that sort of patient may have a mortality benefit.”

In contrast, patients with cirrhosis and “vague abdominal discomfort” are often started on a PPI “just to see if that helps,” Dr. Mahmud said, and they may stay on the medication “in perpetuity, just because they’re so ubiquitously prescribed.”

“In that patient, we should recognize that there is a potential risk of increased infection and decompensation,” he said. There “should be an active effort to deprescribe the PPI or at the very least reduce it to the minimum dose needed for efficacy, if it’s treating a symptom.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Looking at the big picture of PPIs in people with cirrhosis

The authors noted that the half-life of PPIs is “prolonged in patients with cirrhosis” and that alterations in the gastrointestinal microbiota as a result of gastric acid suppression “may allow for bacterial overgrowth and translocation,” thus increasing the risk for infections.

However, studies of the impact of PPIs on adverse outcomes in patients with cirrhosis have often been hampered by numerous limitations, such as small sample sizes, a “limited ability to control for complex confounding,” or a “narrow focus” on hospitalized patients.

To overcome these problems, the team retrospectively examined data from the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver Diseases cohort, including all adults with incident cirrhosis between January 2008 and June 2021.

They excluded patients with Fibrosis-4 scores less than 1.45 at baseline, as well as those with prior liver transplantation, decompensated cirrhosis at baseline, a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma within 6 months of the index date, and less than 6 months of follow-up.

In all, 76,251 patients with incident cirrhosis met the inclusion criteria, 21% of whom were on a PPI at baseline. The most commonly used PPIs were omeprazole (76.7%), followed by pantoprazole (22.2%) and lansoprazole (0.1%).

Those taking the drugs were more likely than other patients to be White, have metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, have a higher median body mass index, and were more likely to have cirrhosis because of alcohol-related liver disease or metabolic-associated fatty liver disease.

Over 49 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was recorded for 37.5% of patients, of whom 59% experienced non–liver-related death and 41% liver-related mortality.

Multivariate analysis revealed that PPI exposure was not associated with all-cause mortality overall but was significantly associated with reduced all-cause mortality in patients with hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding, at a hazard ratio of 0.88.

However, PPI exposure in patients without gastrointestinal bleeding was associated with an increased risk for liver-related mortality (HR, 1.23), but a reduced risk for non–liver-related mortality (HR, 0.88).

Dr. Mahmud and colleagues found that PPI exposure was significantly associated with severe infection (HR, 1.21) and cirrhosis decompensation (HR, 1.64).

The authors suggested that these increased risks “may mediate the observed increased in liver-related mortality.”
 

Large study suggests limited protective PPI indication

Nancy S. Reau, MD, chair of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said that “multiple studies” point to a link between PPI exposure and infection in cirrhosis.

“Although this is a retrospective study, it is very large so we should give credit to the associations,” she said in an interview. She was not involved with the current study.

“The most important message is that we need to be judicious with our therapy,” Dr. Reau added, qualifying that “everything is a risk-benefit ratio.”

“PPI use in cirrhosis has a role but should not overstep its boundary,” she explained. “More simply, if the PPI is indicated, you should not avoid it in a patient with cirrhosis. On the other hand, if you have a patient with advanced liver disease who is chronically taking a PPI, you should question its indication.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of hepatology, University of Miami Health Systems, said in an interview that, when it comes to PPI use in patients with cirrhosis, “judicious is the right word. They should be clearly used if there’s a bona fide indication ... and probably for a finite period of time.”

In a common scenario, “a patient is put on a PPI after they’ve undergone endoscopy with obliteration of varices, and the thought is that PPIs help the ulcers induced by the banding to heal,” said Dr. Martin, who was not associated with the research. “This paper didn’t specifically tease out whether that’s beneficial or not, but it certainly suggests, in patients with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, that PPIs are still beneficial.”

Dr. Mahmud is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One coauthor is supported by a National Institutes of Health K23 grant; another is supported by a VA Merit Grant and by a National Cancer Institute R01; a third has received unrelated support from Gilead, Glycotest, and Bayer and also is supported by VA Merit Grants. Dr. Reau and Dr. Martin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a retrospective study to evaluate the impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on all-cause mortality in patients with cirrhosis, researchers found reduced mortality only in those hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding. They reported increased liver-related mortality associated with PPIs in all other patients with cirrhosis.

Patients on PPIs had an 18% reduction in all-cause mortality versus other patients if they had gastrointestinal bleeding. But in those without bleeding, PPIs were associated with a 23% increase in liver-related mortality.

Further analysis suggested that the mortality increase could be related to a 21% increased risk for severe infection with PPI exposure in patients with cirrhosis, as well as a 64% increased risk for decompensation.

“My takeaway from this study is that there should be a nuanced understanding of PPIs and cirrhosis,” corresponding author Nadim Mahmud, MD, MS, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview, adding that, if they are to be used in this setting, there should be “a very compelling indication.”

Based on the new analysis, Dr. Mahmud explained, in a patient with cirrhosis hospitalized with a potentially ulcer-related upper gastrointestinal bleed, “we shouldn’t be afraid” to use PPIs “out of fear of potential infection or decompensation because our data demonstrate pretty strongly that that sort of patient may have a mortality benefit.”

In contrast, patients with cirrhosis and “vague abdominal discomfort” are often started on a PPI “just to see if that helps,” Dr. Mahmud said, and they may stay on the medication “in perpetuity, just because they’re so ubiquitously prescribed.”

“In that patient, we should recognize that there is a potential risk of increased infection and decompensation,” he said. There “should be an active effort to deprescribe the PPI or at the very least reduce it to the minimum dose needed for efficacy, if it’s treating a symptom.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Looking at the big picture of PPIs in people with cirrhosis

The authors noted that the half-life of PPIs is “prolonged in patients with cirrhosis” and that alterations in the gastrointestinal microbiota as a result of gastric acid suppression “may allow for bacterial overgrowth and translocation,” thus increasing the risk for infections.

However, studies of the impact of PPIs on adverse outcomes in patients with cirrhosis have often been hampered by numerous limitations, such as small sample sizes, a “limited ability to control for complex confounding,” or a “narrow focus” on hospitalized patients.

To overcome these problems, the team retrospectively examined data from the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver Diseases cohort, including all adults with incident cirrhosis between January 2008 and June 2021.

They excluded patients with Fibrosis-4 scores less than 1.45 at baseline, as well as those with prior liver transplantation, decompensated cirrhosis at baseline, a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma within 6 months of the index date, and less than 6 months of follow-up.

In all, 76,251 patients with incident cirrhosis met the inclusion criteria, 21% of whom were on a PPI at baseline. The most commonly used PPIs were omeprazole (76.7%), followed by pantoprazole (22.2%) and lansoprazole (0.1%).

Those taking the drugs were more likely than other patients to be White, have metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, have a higher median body mass index, and were more likely to have cirrhosis because of alcohol-related liver disease or metabolic-associated fatty liver disease.

Over 49 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was recorded for 37.5% of patients, of whom 59% experienced non–liver-related death and 41% liver-related mortality.

Multivariate analysis revealed that PPI exposure was not associated with all-cause mortality overall but was significantly associated with reduced all-cause mortality in patients with hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding, at a hazard ratio of 0.88.

However, PPI exposure in patients without gastrointestinal bleeding was associated with an increased risk for liver-related mortality (HR, 1.23), but a reduced risk for non–liver-related mortality (HR, 0.88).

Dr. Mahmud and colleagues found that PPI exposure was significantly associated with severe infection (HR, 1.21) and cirrhosis decompensation (HR, 1.64).

The authors suggested that these increased risks “may mediate the observed increased in liver-related mortality.”
 

Large study suggests limited protective PPI indication

Nancy S. Reau, MD, chair of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said that “multiple studies” point to a link between PPI exposure and infection in cirrhosis.

“Although this is a retrospective study, it is very large so we should give credit to the associations,” she said in an interview. She was not involved with the current study.

“The most important message is that we need to be judicious with our therapy,” Dr. Reau added, qualifying that “everything is a risk-benefit ratio.”

“PPI use in cirrhosis has a role but should not overstep its boundary,” she explained. “More simply, if the PPI is indicated, you should not avoid it in a patient with cirrhosis. On the other hand, if you have a patient with advanced liver disease who is chronically taking a PPI, you should question its indication.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of hepatology, University of Miami Health Systems, said in an interview that, when it comes to PPI use in patients with cirrhosis, “judicious is the right word. They should be clearly used if there’s a bona fide indication ... and probably for a finite period of time.”

In a common scenario, “a patient is put on a PPI after they’ve undergone endoscopy with obliteration of varices, and the thought is that PPIs help the ulcers induced by the banding to heal,” said Dr. Martin, who was not associated with the research. “This paper didn’t specifically tease out whether that’s beneficial or not, but it certainly suggests, in patients with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, that PPIs are still beneficial.”

Dr. Mahmud is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One coauthor is supported by a National Institutes of Health K23 grant; another is supported by a VA Merit Grant and by a National Cancer Institute R01; a third has received unrelated support from Gilead, Glycotest, and Bayer and also is supported by VA Merit Grants. Dr. Reau and Dr. Martin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a retrospective study to evaluate the impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on all-cause mortality in patients with cirrhosis, researchers found reduced mortality only in those hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding. They reported increased liver-related mortality associated with PPIs in all other patients with cirrhosis.

Patients on PPIs had an 18% reduction in all-cause mortality versus other patients if they had gastrointestinal bleeding. But in those without bleeding, PPIs were associated with a 23% increase in liver-related mortality.

Further analysis suggested that the mortality increase could be related to a 21% increased risk for severe infection with PPI exposure in patients with cirrhosis, as well as a 64% increased risk for decompensation.

“My takeaway from this study is that there should be a nuanced understanding of PPIs and cirrhosis,” corresponding author Nadim Mahmud, MD, MS, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview, adding that, if they are to be used in this setting, there should be “a very compelling indication.”

Based on the new analysis, Dr. Mahmud explained, in a patient with cirrhosis hospitalized with a potentially ulcer-related upper gastrointestinal bleed, “we shouldn’t be afraid” to use PPIs “out of fear of potential infection or decompensation because our data demonstrate pretty strongly that that sort of patient may have a mortality benefit.”

In contrast, patients with cirrhosis and “vague abdominal discomfort” are often started on a PPI “just to see if that helps,” Dr. Mahmud said, and they may stay on the medication “in perpetuity, just because they’re so ubiquitously prescribed.”

“In that patient, we should recognize that there is a potential risk of increased infection and decompensation,” he said. There “should be an active effort to deprescribe the PPI or at the very least reduce it to the minimum dose needed for efficacy, if it’s treating a symptom.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Looking at the big picture of PPIs in people with cirrhosis

The authors noted that the half-life of PPIs is “prolonged in patients with cirrhosis” and that alterations in the gastrointestinal microbiota as a result of gastric acid suppression “may allow for bacterial overgrowth and translocation,” thus increasing the risk for infections.

However, studies of the impact of PPIs on adverse outcomes in patients with cirrhosis have often been hampered by numerous limitations, such as small sample sizes, a “limited ability to control for complex confounding,” or a “narrow focus” on hospitalized patients.

To overcome these problems, the team retrospectively examined data from the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver Diseases cohort, including all adults with incident cirrhosis between January 2008 and June 2021.

They excluded patients with Fibrosis-4 scores less than 1.45 at baseline, as well as those with prior liver transplantation, decompensated cirrhosis at baseline, a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma within 6 months of the index date, and less than 6 months of follow-up.

In all, 76,251 patients with incident cirrhosis met the inclusion criteria, 21% of whom were on a PPI at baseline. The most commonly used PPIs were omeprazole (76.7%), followed by pantoprazole (22.2%) and lansoprazole (0.1%).

Those taking the drugs were more likely than other patients to be White, have metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, have a higher median body mass index, and were more likely to have cirrhosis because of alcohol-related liver disease or metabolic-associated fatty liver disease.

Over 49 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was recorded for 37.5% of patients, of whom 59% experienced non–liver-related death and 41% liver-related mortality.

Multivariate analysis revealed that PPI exposure was not associated with all-cause mortality overall but was significantly associated with reduced all-cause mortality in patients with hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding, at a hazard ratio of 0.88.

However, PPI exposure in patients without gastrointestinal bleeding was associated with an increased risk for liver-related mortality (HR, 1.23), but a reduced risk for non–liver-related mortality (HR, 0.88).

Dr. Mahmud and colleagues found that PPI exposure was significantly associated with severe infection (HR, 1.21) and cirrhosis decompensation (HR, 1.64).

The authors suggested that these increased risks “may mediate the observed increased in liver-related mortality.”
 

Large study suggests limited protective PPI indication

Nancy S. Reau, MD, chair of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said that “multiple studies” point to a link between PPI exposure and infection in cirrhosis.

“Although this is a retrospective study, it is very large so we should give credit to the associations,” she said in an interview. She was not involved with the current study.

“The most important message is that we need to be judicious with our therapy,” Dr. Reau added, qualifying that “everything is a risk-benefit ratio.”

“PPI use in cirrhosis has a role but should not overstep its boundary,” she explained. “More simply, if the PPI is indicated, you should not avoid it in a patient with cirrhosis. On the other hand, if you have a patient with advanced liver disease who is chronically taking a PPI, you should question its indication.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of hepatology, University of Miami Health Systems, said in an interview that, when it comes to PPI use in patients with cirrhosis, “judicious is the right word. They should be clearly used if there’s a bona fide indication ... and probably for a finite period of time.”

In a common scenario, “a patient is put on a PPI after they’ve undergone endoscopy with obliteration of varices, and the thought is that PPIs help the ulcers induced by the banding to heal,” said Dr. Martin, who was not associated with the research. “This paper didn’t specifically tease out whether that’s beneficial or not, but it certainly suggests, in patients with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, that PPIs are still beneficial.”

Dr. Mahmud is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One coauthor is supported by a National Institutes of Health K23 grant; another is supported by a VA Merit Grant and by a National Cancer Institute R01; a third has received unrelated support from Gilead, Glycotest, and Bayer and also is supported by VA Merit Grants. Dr. Reau and Dr. Martin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This spring, global health advisories have been issued regarding an alarming – and as-yet unexplained – uptick of hepatitis in children. Currently, over 200 cases have been reported worldwide, a relatively small amount that nonetheless belies a considerable toll, including several deaths and the need for liver transplantation in a number of patients. The long-term implications are not yet known. Global health officials are working hard to determine a cause, with many focusing on the underlying cases of adenovirus that several patients have presented with.

To understand more, this news organization reached out to frequent contributor William F. Balistreri, MD, a specialist in pediatric gastroenterology and hepatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, where to date they have treated at least six cases of hepatitis in otherwise healthy young children, with one requiring a liver transplant. Dr. Balistreri discussed how the outbreak has developed to date, his advice to hepatologists and pediatricians, and where we stand now in this fast-evolving crisis.
 

Tracing the outbreak in the United States

How has this outbreak played out thus far in the United States, and what have we learned from that?

Sporadic reports of cases in multiple states are appearing. On April 21, 2022, a health alert was issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommending testing for adenovirus in children with acute hepatitis of an unknown etiology.

Baker and colleagues recently described five children with severe hepatitis and adenovirus viremia who were admitted to a children’s hospital in Birmingham, Ala., between October and November 2021. In collaboration with local and state officials, the CDC reviewed clinical records in order to identify patients with hepatitis and concomitant adenovirus infection, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

By February 2022, a total of nine children were identified. There was no epidemiologic linkage among these nine patients; all were well and immunocompetent. The prodromal features were somewhat similar: upper respiratory infection, vomiting, diarrhea, and jaundice. All children had markedly elevated aminotransferase levels and variably elevated total bilirubin levels. Extensive workup for other causes of acute liver injury (for example, other viruses, toxins/drugs, metabolic and autoimmune diseases) was unrevealing.

Specifically, none had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, in all nine children, adenovirus was detected in whole blood samples. In the six children who underwent liver biopsy, there was nonspecific hepatitis, without inclusions or immunohistochemical detection of viral agents, including adenovirus. In three patients, the liver injury progressed, and despite the administration of antiviral agents, two underwent liver transplantation.

Baker and colleagues also suggested that measurement of adenovirus titers in whole blood (rather than plasma) may be more sensitive.

The CDC has recommended monitoring and surveillance in order to more fully understand the nature of the illness.
 

European and global cases

What has been the experience with this in Europe and elsewhere globally?

In mid-to-late 2021, several cases of acute hepatitis of unknown nature in children were identified in Europe. Public health officials in the United Kingdom investigated the high number of cases seen in children from England, Scotland, and Wales. They noted approximately 60 cases in England, mostly in children aged 2-5 years.

Marsh and colleagues reported a cluster of cases of severe hepatitis of unknown origin in Scotland affecting children aged 3-5 years. In Scotland, admitted cases were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 13 cases, five had a recent positive test. They discussed the possibility of increased severity of disease following infection with Omicron BA.2 (the dominant SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating in Scotland at that time) or infection by an uncharacterized SARS-CoV-2 variant. None of the children had been vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

On April 15, 2022, the World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News published a report of acute hepatitis of unknown etiology occurring in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By April 21, 2022, 169 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown origin in children younger than 16 years had been reported from 11 countries in the WHO European region and 1 country in the WHO region of the Americas. Approximately 10% required a liver transplantation and at least one death was reported.

What has been established about the possible connection to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, particularly as it relates to coinfection with adenovirus?

In that WHO report of 169 cases, adenovirus was detected in 74 and SARS-CoV-2 in 20. Of note, 19 cases had a SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus coinfection.

The report’s authors emphasized that, “while adenovirus is a possible hypothesis, investigations are ongoing for the causative agent.” The authors questioned whether this represents a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis or reflects an increased awareness.

The stated priority of the WHO is to determine the cause and to further refine control and prevention actions.

Given the worldwide nature of this outbreak, have connections between any of the cases been made yet?

Not to my knowledge.
 

What clinicians need to know

What makes this outbreak of hepatitis cases particularly concerning to the health care community, in comparison to other childhood diseases that occur globally? Is it because the cause is unknown or is it for other reasons?

It may be a collective heightened concern following the emergence of COVID.

Whether it represents a new form of acute hepatitis, a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis, or an increased awareness because of the well-publicized alerts remains to be determined. We certainly saw “viral-induced hepatitis” in the past.

Young patients may first be brought to pediatricians. What, if anything, should pediatricians be on the lookout for? Do they need a heightened index of suspicion or are the cases too rare at this point?

An awareness of the “outbreak” may allow the clinician to extend the typical workup of a child presenting with an undefined, presumably viral illness.

In the cases reported, the prodromal and/or presenting symptoms were respiratory and gastrointestinal in nature. They include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.

Specifically, if jaundice and/or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Should pediatricians consider early referral to a pediatric gastroenterologist or hepatologist?

Yes, because there is the potential for finding a treatable cause (for example, autoimmune hepatitis or a specific metabolic disease) in a patient presenting in this fashion.

In addition, the potential for progression to acute liver failure (with coagulopathy and encephalopathy), albeit rare, exists.

What do hepatologists need to be doing when presented with suspected cases?

The typical clinical picture holds and the workup is standard. The one new key, given the recent data, is to test for adenovirus, using whole blood versus plasma, as the former may be more sensitive.

In addition, it is prudent to check for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.

What are the major questions that remain and that you’d like to see elucidated going forward?

There are many. Is this a new disease? A new variant of adenovirus? A synergy or susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is it related to a variant of SARS-CoV-2? Is it triggering an adverse immune response? Are there other epigenetic factors involved? And finally, is this an increase, or is it related to a collective heightened concern following the pandemic?

Dr. Balistreri is the Dorothy M.M. Kersten Professor of Pediatrics, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center, medical director emeritus of liver transplantation, and professor at the University of Cincinnati; he is also with the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

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

This spring, global health advisories have been issued regarding an alarming – and as-yet unexplained – uptick of hepatitis in children. Currently, over 200 cases have been reported worldwide, a relatively small amount that nonetheless belies a considerable toll, including several deaths and the need for liver transplantation in a number of patients. The long-term implications are not yet known. Global health officials are working hard to determine a cause, with many focusing on the underlying cases of adenovirus that several patients have presented with.

To understand more, this news organization reached out to frequent contributor William F. Balistreri, MD, a specialist in pediatric gastroenterology and hepatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, where to date they have treated at least six cases of hepatitis in otherwise healthy young children, with one requiring a liver transplant. Dr. Balistreri discussed how the outbreak has developed to date, his advice to hepatologists and pediatricians, and where we stand now in this fast-evolving crisis.
 

Tracing the outbreak in the United States

How has this outbreak played out thus far in the United States, and what have we learned from that?

Sporadic reports of cases in multiple states are appearing. On April 21, 2022, a health alert was issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommending testing for adenovirus in children with acute hepatitis of an unknown etiology.

Baker and colleagues recently described five children with severe hepatitis and adenovirus viremia who were admitted to a children’s hospital in Birmingham, Ala., between October and November 2021. In collaboration with local and state officials, the CDC reviewed clinical records in order to identify patients with hepatitis and concomitant adenovirus infection, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

By February 2022, a total of nine children were identified. There was no epidemiologic linkage among these nine patients; all were well and immunocompetent. The prodromal features were somewhat similar: upper respiratory infection, vomiting, diarrhea, and jaundice. All children had markedly elevated aminotransferase levels and variably elevated total bilirubin levels. Extensive workup for other causes of acute liver injury (for example, other viruses, toxins/drugs, metabolic and autoimmune diseases) was unrevealing.

Specifically, none had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, in all nine children, adenovirus was detected in whole blood samples. In the six children who underwent liver biopsy, there was nonspecific hepatitis, without inclusions or immunohistochemical detection of viral agents, including adenovirus. In three patients, the liver injury progressed, and despite the administration of antiviral agents, two underwent liver transplantation.

Baker and colleagues also suggested that measurement of adenovirus titers in whole blood (rather than plasma) may be more sensitive.

The CDC has recommended monitoring and surveillance in order to more fully understand the nature of the illness.
 

European and global cases

What has been the experience with this in Europe and elsewhere globally?

In mid-to-late 2021, several cases of acute hepatitis of unknown nature in children were identified in Europe. Public health officials in the United Kingdom investigated the high number of cases seen in children from England, Scotland, and Wales. They noted approximately 60 cases in England, mostly in children aged 2-5 years.

Marsh and colleagues reported a cluster of cases of severe hepatitis of unknown origin in Scotland affecting children aged 3-5 years. In Scotland, admitted cases were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 13 cases, five had a recent positive test. They discussed the possibility of increased severity of disease following infection with Omicron BA.2 (the dominant SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating in Scotland at that time) or infection by an uncharacterized SARS-CoV-2 variant. None of the children had been vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

On April 15, 2022, the World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News published a report of acute hepatitis of unknown etiology occurring in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By April 21, 2022, 169 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown origin in children younger than 16 years had been reported from 11 countries in the WHO European region and 1 country in the WHO region of the Americas. Approximately 10% required a liver transplantation and at least one death was reported.

What has been established about the possible connection to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, particularly as it relates to coinfection with adenovirus?

In that WHO report of 169 cases, adenovirus was detected in 74 and SARS-CoV-2 in 20. Of note, 19 cases had a SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus coinfection.

The report’s authors emphasized that, “while adenovirus is a possible hypothesis, investigations are ongoing for the causative agent.” The authors questioned whether this represents a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis or reflects an increased awareness.

The stated priority of the WHO is to determine the cause and to further refine control and prevention actions.

Given the worldwide nature of this outbreak, have connections between any of the cases been made yet?

Not to my knowledge.
 

What clinicians need to know

What makes this outbreak of hepatitis cases particularly concerning to the health care community, in comparison to other childhood diseases that occur globally? Is it because the cause is unknown or is it for other reasons?

It may be a collective heightened concern following the emergence of COVID.

Whether it represents a new form of acute hepatitis, a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis, or an increased awareness because of the well-publicized alerts remains to be determined. We certainly saw “viral-induced hepatitis” in the past.

Young patients may first be brought to pediatricians. What, if anything, should pediatricians be on the lookout for? Do they need a heightened index of suspicion or are the cases too rare at this point?

An awareness of the “outbreak” may allow the clinician to extend the typical workup of a child presenting with an undefined, presumably viral illness.

In the cases reported, the prodromal and/or presenting symptoms were respiratory and gastrointestinal in nature. They include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.

Specifically, if jaundice and/or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Should pediatricians consider early referral to a pediatric gastroenterologist or hepatologist?

Yes, because there is the potential for finding a treatable cause (for example, autoimmune hepatitis or a specific metabolic disease) in a patient presenting in this fashion.

In addition, the potential for progression to acute liver failure (with coagulopathy and encephalopathy), albeit rare, exists.

What do hepatologists need to be doing when presented with suspected cases?

The typical clinical picture holds and the workup is standard. The one new key, given the recent data, is to test for adenovirus, using whole blood versus plasma, as the former may be more sensitive.

In addition, it is prudent to check for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.

What are the major questions that remain and that you’d like to see elucidated going forward?

There are many. Is this a new disease? A new variant of adenovirus? A synergy or susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is it related to a variant of SARS-CoV-2? Is it triggering an adverse immune response? Are there other epigenetic factors involved? And finally, is this an increase, or is it related to a collective heightened concern following the pandemic?

Dr. Balistreri is the Dorothy M.M. Kersten Professor of Pediatrics, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center, medical director emeritus of liver transplantation, and professor at the University of Cincinnati; he is also with the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

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

This spring, global health advisories have been issued regarding an alarming – and as-yet unexplained – uptick of hepatitis in children. Currently, over 200 cases have been reported worldwide, a relatively small amount that nonetheless belies a considerable toll, including several deaths and the need for liver transplantation in a number of patients. The long-term implications are not yet known. Global health officials are working hard to determine a cause, with many focusing on the underlying cases of adenovirus that several patients have presented with.

To understand more, this news organization reached out to frequent contributor William F. Balistreri, MD, a specialist in pediatric gastroenterology and hepatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, where to date they have treated at least six cases of hepatitis in otherwise healthy young children, with one requiring a liver transplant. Dr. Balistreri discussed how the outbreak has developed to date, his advice to hepatologists and pediatricians, and where we stand now in this fast-evolving crisis.
 

Tracing the outbreak in the United States

How has this outbreak played out thus far in the United States, and what have we learned from that?

Sporadic reports of cases in multiple states are appearing. On April 21, 2022, a health alert was issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommending testing for adenovirus in children with acute hepatitis of an unknown etiology.

Baker and colleagues recently described five children with severe hepatitis and adenovirus viremia who were admitted to a children’s hospital in Birmingham, Ala., between October and November 2021. In collaboration with local and state officials, the CDC reviewed clinical records in order to identify patients with hepatitis and concomitant adenovirus infection, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

By February 2022, a total of nine children were identified. There was no epidemiologic linkage among these nine patients; all were well and immunocompetent. The prodromal features were somewhat similar: upper respiratory infection, vomiting, diarrhea, and jaundice. All children had markedly elevated aminotransferase levels and variably elevated total bilirubin levels. Extensive workup for other causes of acute liver injury (for example, other viruses, toxins/drugs, metabolic and autoimmune diseases) was unrevealing.

Specifically, none had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, in all nine children, adenovirus was detected in whole blood samples. In the six children who underwent liver biopsy, there was nonspecific hepatitis, without inclusions or immunohistochemical detection of viral agents, including adenovirus. In three patients, the liver injury progressed, and despite the administration of antiviral agents, two underwent liver transplantation.

Baker and colleagues also suggested that measurement of adenovirus titers in whole blood (rather than plasma) may be more sensitive.

The CDC has recommended monitoring and surveillance in order to more fully understand the nature of the illness.
 

European and global cases

What has been the experience with this in Europe and elsewhere globally?

In mid-to-late 2021, several cases of acute hepatitis of unknown nature in children were identified in Europe. Public health officials in the United Kingdom investigated the high number of cases seen in children from England, Scotland, and Wales. They noted approximately 60 cases in England, mostly in children aged 2-5 years.

Marsh and colleagues reported a cluster of cases of severe hepatitis of unknown origin in Scotland affecting children aged 3-5 years. In Scotland, admitted cases were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 13 cases, five had a recent positive test. They discussed the possibility of increased severity of disease following infection with Omicron BA.2 (the dominant SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating in Scotland at that time) or infection by an uncharacterized SARS-CoV-2 variant. None of the children had been vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

On April 15, 2022, the World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News published a report of acute hepatitis of unknown etiology occurring in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By April 21, 2022, 169 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown origin in children younger than 16 years had been reported from 11 countries in the WHO European region and 1 country in the WHO region of the Americas. Approximately 10% required a liver transplantation and at least one death was reported.

What has been established about the possible connection to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, particularly as it relates to coinfection with adenovirus?

In that WHO report of 169 cases, adenovirus was detected in 74 and SARS-CoV-2 in 20. Of note, 19 cases had a SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus coinfection.

The report’s authors emphasized that, “while adenovirus is a possible hypothesis, investigations are ongoing for the causative agent.” The authors questioned whether this represents a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis or reflects an increased awareness.

The stated priority of the WHO is to determine the cause and to further refine control and prevention actions.

Given the worldwide nature of this outbreak, have connections between any of the cases been made yet?

Not to my knowledge.
 

What clinicians need to know

What makes this outbreak of hepatitis cases particularly concerning to the health care community, in comparison to other childhood diseases that occur globally? Is it because the cause is unknown or is it for other reasons?

It may be a collective heightened concern following the emergence of COVID.

Whether it represents a new form of acute hepatitis, a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis, or an increased awareness because of the well-publicized alerts remains to be determined. We certainly saw “viral-induced hepatitis” in the past.

Young patients may first be brought to pediatricians. What, if anything, should pediatricians be on the lookout for? Do they need a heightened index of suspicion or are the cases too rare at this point?

An awareness of the “outbreak” may allow the clinician to extend the typical workup of a child presenting with an undefined, presumably viral illness.

In the cases reported, the prodromal and/or presenting symptoms were respiratory and gastrointestinal in nature. They include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.

Specifically, if jaundice and/or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Should pediatricians consider early referral to a pediatric gastroenterologist or hepatologist?

Yes, because there is the potential for finding a treatable cause (for example, autoimmune hepatitis or a specific metabolic disease) in a patient presenting in this fashion.

In addition, the potential for progression to acute liver failure (with coagulopathy and encephalopathy), albeit rare, exists.

What do hepatologists need to be doing when presented with suspected cases?

The typical clinical picture holds and the workup is standard. The one new key, given the recent data, is to test for adenovirus, using whole blood versus plasma, as the former may be more sensitive.

In addition, it is prudent to check for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.

What are the major questions that remain and that you’d like to see elucidated going forward?

There are many. Is this a new disease? A new variant of adenovirus? A synergy or susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is it related to a variant of SARS-CoV-2? Is it triggering an adverse immune response? Are there other epigenetic factors involved? And finally, is this an increase, or is it related to a collective heightened concern following the pandemic?

Dr. Balistreri is the Dorothy M.M. Kersten Professor of Pediatrics, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center, medical director emeritus of liver transplantation, and professor at the University of Cincinnati; he is also with the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

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