Liver Disease

Stopping nucleoside analog therapy in patients with hepatitis B viral (HBV) infections results in sustained viral suppression in only a minority of patients, but a new study suggests there are immune signatures that may serve as predictive biomarkers to help clinicians determine how to improve immune responses in these patients, according to investigators.

In a study of 359 patients enrolled in clinical trials of antiviral therapy for HBV infections, there were 29 immune-related proteins that were found in significantly higher levels among patients who continued to have viral suppression 24 weeks after the end of treatment, compared with patients who did not maintain viral suppression, reported Henry L.Y. Chan, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

“In this study, plasma proteomics shows that sustained HBV suppression following treatment discontinuation is associated with higher levels of innate and adaptive immune responses during treatment, but whether these signatures vary by specific treatment regimens remains to be determined,” he said in an oral session at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

The clustering of proteins differed between patients treated with nucleoside analogs and those who received pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN), Dr. Chan noted.
 

Is it safe?

Although current international guidelines say that clinicians may consider stopping nucleoside analogs in certain patient populations with the goal of promoting sustained off-treatment responses, pooled data from four large phase 3 studies showed that only 10% of patients had sustained HBV DNA suppression, and only 32% had persistent low-level viremia, Dr. Chan said, citing a presentation from ILC in 2019.

Dr. Chan and colleagues sought to identify immune biomarkers that at the end of treatment predict HBV off-treatment response. This is important because existing treatments do not kill the virus which – even if suppressed – can lead to hepatocellular carcinoma.

The researchers examined plasma samples from patients with chronic hepatitis B who were enrolled in two studies: a registrational study comparing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with adefovir followed by tenofovir maintenance (GS-US-174-0102) and one comparing TDF plus PEG-IFN with either drug alone (GS-US-174-0149).

They identified a total of 359 patients who had at least two treatment-free follow-up visits, were positive for the hepatitis B S antigen (HBsAg) at the end of the treatment, including patients who had antigen loss on treatment but subsequently seroverted, and had available plasma samples collected before the end of treatment.

The study outcomes were sustained viral suppression 24 weeks after the end of treatment, defined as HBV DNA less than 29 IU/mL, and a low replicative state defined as HBV DNA below 2,000 IU/mL with ALT levels at or below the upper limit of normal.

The median patient age was 39 years. In all, 67% of the population was male, and 70% were Asian.
 

Immune-related proteins

The investigators performed proteomic analyses looking for expression levels in serum or plasma proteins at the end of treatment.

A total of 25 patients had HBV DNA suppression at posttreatment week 24, 111 patients had a low replicative states, and 4 had HBsAg loss.

The patients with HBV DNA suppression had significantly higher expression of 29 immune-related proteins, the majority of which were related to the host immune response.

The proteins included myeloid cell markers, leukocyte-trafficking chemokines, natural killer cell markers, and extracellular matrix and/or extracellular matrix–associated proteins.

Among patients with HBV suppression, there was evidence of enrichment for extracellular remodeling pathways, as well as pathways involved in innate immune response to viral infections and immune regulation.

Among patients with low viral replication, there was a trend toward higher CD8a expression levels at the 24-week follow-up, but there were no proteins with significantly elevated expression levels.

“Assessment of unique protein signatures associated with HBsAg loss following treatment discontinuation is ongoing,” Dr. Chan said.
 

Timing of expression patterns

During the question-and-answer session following his presentation, comoderator Pablo Sarobe, MD, from the Clinica Universidad de Navarra (Spain), said: “I’ve seen that you have compared the different proteins which are detected in your cell samples 24 weeks after stopping treatment. Do you think that these differences are already relevant just at the end of treatment, or that these proteins are being expressed [during] the 24 weeks between the end of treatment and your determination?”

“We only have one time-point sample, so it’s hard to say,” Dr. Chan replied, but he speculated that the delay would not have a direct impact on protein expression, “so probably this expression should last after treatment has stopped. But we only have only posttreatment 24-week data, and we believe that some of the outcome measures may change with longer follow-up. After 1 year some patients in suppression may relapse.”

Asked by an audience member whether the investigators had performed a subanalysis of patients treated with nucleoside analogs, Dr. Chan noted that such an analysis was under consideration, although the patient numbers were relatively small. He did add, however, that protein expression patterns differed among patients treated with nucleoside analogs and PEG-IFN.

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Chan disclosed sponsored lecture activities and consulting for Gilead and others. Dr. Sarobe reported no conflicts of interest.

Stopping nucleoside analog therapy in patients with hepatitis B viral (HBV) infections results in sustained viral suppression in only a minority of patients, but a new study suggests there are immune signatures that may serve as predictive biomarkers to help clinicians determine how to improve immune responses in these patients, according to investigators.

In a study of 359 patients enrolled in clinical trials of antiviral therapy for HBV infections, there were 29 immune-related proteins that were found in significantly higher levels among patients who continued to have viral suppression 24 weeks after the end of treatment, compared with patients who did not maintain viral suppression, reported Henry L.Y. Chan, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

“In this study, plasma proteomics shows that sustained HBV suppression following treatment discontinuation is associated with higher levels of innate and adaptive immune responses during treatment, but whether these signatures vary by specific treatment regimens remains to be determined,” he said in an oral session at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

The clustering of proteins differed between patients treated with nucleoside analogs and those who received pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN), Dr. Chan noted.
 

Is it safe?

Although current international guidelines say that clinicians may consider stopping nucleoside analogs in certain patient populations with the goal of promoting sustained off-treatment responses, pooled data from four large phase 3 studies showed that only 10% of patients had sustained HBV DNA suppression, and only 32% had persistent low-level viremia, Dr. Chan said, citing a presentation from ILC in 2019.

Dr. Chan and colleagues sought to identify immune biomarkers that at the end of treatment predict HBV off-treatment response. This is important because existing treatments do not kill the virus which – even if suppressed – can lead to hepatocellular carcinoma.

The researchers examined plasma samples from patients with chronic hepatitis B who were enrolled in two studies: a registrational study comparing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with adefovir followed by tenofovir maintenance (GS-US-174-0102) and one comparing TDF plus PEG-IFN with either drug alone (GS-US-174-0149).

They identified a total of 359 patients who had at least two treatment-free follow-up visits, were positive for the hepatitis B S antigen (HBsAg) at the end of the treatment, including patients who had antigen loss on treatment but subsequently seroverted, and had available plasma samples collected before the end of treatment.

The study outcomes were sustained viral suppression 24 weeks after the end of treatment, defined as HBV DNA less than 29 IU/mL, and a low replicative state defined as HBV DNA below 2,000 IU/mL with ALT levels at or below the upper limit of normal.

The median patient age was 39 years. In all, 67% of the population was male, and 70% were Asian.
 

Immune-related proteins

The investigators performed proteomic analyses looking for expression levels in serum or plasma proteins at the end of treatment.

A total of 25 patients had HBV DNA suppression at posttreatment week 24, 111 patients had a low replicative states, and 4 had HBsAg loss.

The patients with HBV DNA suppression had significantly higher expression of 29 immune-related proteins, the majority of which were related to the host immune response.

The proteins included myeloid cell markers, leukocyte-trafficking chemokines, natural killer cell markers, and extracellular matrix and/or extracellular matrix–associated proteins.

Among patients with HBV suppression, there was evidence of enrichment for extracellular remodeling pathways, as well as pathways involved in innate immune response to viral infections and immune regulation.

Among patients with low viral replication, there was a trend toward higher CD8a expression levels at the 24-week follow-up, but there were no proteins with significantly elevated expression levels.

“Assessment of unique protein signatures associated with HBsAg loss following treatment discontinuation is ongoing,” Dr. Chan said.
 

Timing of expression patterns

During the question-and-answer session following his presentation, comoderator Pablo Sarobe, MD, from the Clinica Universidad de Navarra (Spain), said: “I’ve seen that you have compared the different proteins which are detected in your cell samples 24 weeks after stopping treatment. Do you think that these differences are already relevant just at the end of treatment, or that these proteins are being expressed [during] the 24 weeks between the end of treatment and your determination?”

“We only have one time-point sample, so it’s hard to say,” Dr. Chan replied, but he speculated that the delay would not have a direct impact on protein expression, “so probably this expression should last after treatment has stopped. But we only have only posttreatment 24-week data, and we believe that some of the outcome measures may change with longer follow-up. After 1 year some patients in suppression may relapse.”

Asked by an audience member whether the investigators had performed a subanalysis of patients treated with nucleoside analogs, Dr. Chan noted that such an analysis was under consideration, although the patient numbers were relatively small. He did add, however, that protein expression patterns differed among patients treated with nucleoside analogs and PEG-IFN.

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Chan disclosed sponsored lecture activities and consulting for Gilead and others. Dr. Sarobe reported no conflicts of interest.

Stopping nucleoside analog therapy in patients with hepatitis B viral (HBV) infections results in sustained viral suppression in only a minority of patients, but a new study suggests there are immune signatures that may serve as predictive biomarkers to help clinicians determine how to improve immune responses in these patients, according to investigators.

In a study of 359 patients enrolled in clinical trials of antiviral therapy for HBV infections, there were 29 immune-related proteins that were found in significantly higher levels among patients who continued to have viral suppression 24 weeks after the end of treatment, compared with patients who did not maintain viral suppression, reported Henry L.Y. Chan, MD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

“In this study, plasma proteomics shows that sustained HBV suppression following treatment discontinuation is associated with higher levels of innate and adaptive immune responses during treatment, but whether these signatures vary by specific treatment regimens remains to be determined,” he said in an oral session at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

The clustering of proteins differed between patients treated with nucleoside analogs and those who received pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN), Dr. Chan noted.
 

Is it safe?

Although current international guidelines say that clinicians may consider stopping nucleoside analogs in certain patient populations with the goal of promoting sustained off-treatment responses, pooled data from four large phase 3 studies showed that only 10% of patients had sustained HBV DNA suppression, and only 32% had persistent low-level viremia, Dr. Chan said, citing a presentation from ILC in 2019.

Dr. Chan and colleagues sought to identify immune biomarkers that at the end of treatment predict HBV off-treatment response. This is important because existing treatments do not kill the virus which – even if suppressed – can lead to hepatocellular carcinoma.

The researchers examined plasma samples from patients with chronic hepatitis B who were enrolled in two studies: a registrational study comparing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with adefovir followed by tenofovir maintenance (GS-US-174-0102) and one comparing TDF plus PEG-IFN with either drug alone (GS-US-174-0149).

They identified a total of 359 patients who had at least two treatment-free follow-up visits, were positive for the hepatitis B S antigen (HBsAg) at the end of the treatment, including patients who had antigen loss on treatment but subsequently seroverted, and had available plasma samples collected before the end of treatment.

The study outcomes were sustained viral suppression 24 weeks after the end of treatment, defined as HBV DNA less than 29 IU/mL, and a low replicative state defined as HBV DNA below 2,000 IU/mL with ALT levels at or below the upper limit of normal.

The median patient age was 39 years. In all, 67% of the population was male, and 70% were Asian.
 

Immune-related proteins

The investigators performed proteomic analyses looking for expression levels in serum or plasma proteins at the end of treatment.

A total of 25 patients had HBV DNA suppression at posttreatment week 24, 111 patients had a low replicative states, and 4 had HBsAg loss.

The patients with HBV DNA suppression had significantly higher expression of 29 immune-related proteins, the majority of which were related to the host immune response.

The proteins included myeloid cell markers, leukocyte-trafficking chemokines, natural killer cell markers, and extracellular matrix and/or extracellular matrix–associated proteins.

Among patients with HBV suppression, there was evidence of enrichment for extracellular remodeling pathways, as well as pathways involved in innate immune response to viral infections and immune regulation.

Among patients with low viral replication, there was a trend toward higher CD8a expression levels at the 24-week follow-up, but there were no proteins with significantly elevated expression levels.

“Assessment of unique protein signatures associated with HBsAg loss following treatment discontinuation is ongoing,” Dr. Chan said.
 

Timing of expression patterns

During the question-and-answer session following his presentation, comoderator Pablo Sarobe, MD, from the Clinica Universidad de Navarra (Spain), said: “I’ve seen that you have compared the different proteins which are detected in your cell samples 24 weeks after stopping treatment. Do you think that these differences are already relevant just at the end of treatment, or that these proteins are being expressed [during] the 24 weeks between the end of treatment and your determination?”

“We only have one time-point sample, so it’s hard to say,” Dr. Chan replied, but he speculated that the delay would not have a direct impact on protein expression, “so probably this expression should last after treatment has stopped. But we only have only posttreatment 24-week data, and we believe that some of the outcome measures may change with longer follow-up. After 1 year some patients in suppression may relapse.”

Asked by an audience member whether the investigators had performed a subanalysis of patients treated with nucleoside analogs, Dr. Chan noted that such an analysis was under consideration, although the patient numbers were relatively small. He did add, however, that protein expression patterns differed among patients treated with nucleoside analogs and PEG-IFN.

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Chan disclosed sponsored lecture activities and consulting for Gilead and others. Dr. Sarobe reported no conflicts of interest.

Dear colleagues and friends,

The Perspectives series continues! There are few issues in our discipline that are as challenging, and controversial, as liver transplant prioritization. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been the mainstay for organ allocation for nearly 2 decades, and there has been vigorous debate as to whether it should remain so. In this issue, Dr. Jasmohan Bajaj and Dr. Julie Heimbach discuss the strengths and limitations of MELD and provide a vision of upcoming developments. As always, I welcome your feedback and suggestions for future topics at [email protected].

Charles J. Kahi, MD, MS, AGAF, is professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
 

Yes, it’s time for an update

BY JASMOHAN S. BAJAJ, MD, AGAF

Since February 2002, the U.S.-based liver transplant system has adopted the MELD score for transplant priority. Initially developed to predict outcomes after transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt, it was modified to exclude etiology for the purpose of listing patients.¹

There were several advantages with MELD including objectivity, ease of calculation using a website, and over time, a burgeoning experience nationwide that extended even beyond transplant. Moreover, it focused on “sickest-first,” did away with the extremely “manipulable” waiting list, and left off hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and ascites severity.¹ However, even earlier on, there were concerns regarding not capturing hepatocellular cancer (HCC) and some complications of cirrhosis that required exceptions. The points awarded to all these exceptions also changed with time, with lower priority and reincorporation of the waiting list time for HCC. Over time, the addition of serum sodium led it to be converted to “MELD-Na,” which now remains the primary method for transplant listing priority.

But the population with cirrhosis that existed 20 years ago has shifted radically. Patients with cirrhosis currently tend to either be much older with more comorbid conditions that predispose them to chronic kidney disease and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular compromise or be younger with an earlier presentation of alcohol-associated hepatitis. Moreover, the widespread availability of hepatitis C virus (HCV) eradication has changed the landscape and stopped the progression of cirrhosis organically by virtually removing that etiology. This is relevant because a recent United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) analysis showed that the concordance between MELD score and 90-day mortality was the lowest in the rapidly increasing population with alcohol-related and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease etiologies, but conversely, this concordance was the highest in the population with hepatitis C–related cirrhosis.² These demographic shifts in age and changes in etiology likely lessen the predictive power of the current MELD score iteration.

There is also increasing evidence that MELD is “stuck in the middle.” This means that both patients at low MELD score and those with organ failures may be underserved with respect to transplant listing with the current MELD score iteration.

Among patients with a MELD score disproportionately lower than their complications of cirrhosis several studies demonstrate the improvement in prognostication with addition of covert HE, history of overt HE, frailty, and sarcopenia indices. These are independently prognostic variables that affect daily function, affect patient-reported outcomes, and can influence readmissions. The burden of impending falls, readmissions, infections, and overall ill health is not captured even though relatively objective methods such as cognitive tests and documented admissions for overt HE can be utilized.³ This relative mistrust in including HE and covariables likely harkens back to a dramatic reduction in grade III/IV HE severity seen the year after MELD introduction, when compared with the year before, during which that designation was added to the listing priority.⁴ However, objective additions to the MELD score that capture the distress of patients and their families with multiple readmissions for HE worsened by sarcopenia are desperately needed (see table).

Jasmohan S. Bajaj, MD, AGAF, is with the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Richmond VA Medical Center. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Kamath PS and Kim WR. Hepatology. 2007;45:797-805.

2. Godfrey EL et al. Am J Transplant. 2019;19:3299-307.

3. Acharya C and Bajaj JS. Liver Transpl. 2021 May 21. doi:10.1002/lt.26099.

4. Bajaj JS and Saeian K. Dig Dis Sci 2005;50:753-6.

5. Artru F and Samuel D. JHEP Rep 2019 May;1(1):53-65.

6. Bernardi M et al. J Hepatol 2010 Dec 9;54:1297-306.
 

Maybe, but take it slow

BY JULIE K. HEIMBACH, MD

Even though 2020 was another record year for organ donation in the United States, a truly remarkable feat considering the profound impact of COVID-19 on health care as well as the population at large, there remains a critical shortage of available liver allografts.1 Last year in the U.S., of the approximately 13,000 patients waiting for a liver transplant, just under 9,000 patients underwent liver transplantation from a deceased or a living donor, while 2,345 either died waiting on the list or were removed for being too sick, and the rest remained waiting.¹ In a perfect system, we would transplant every wait-listed patient at a time that would provide them the greatest benefit with the least amount of distress. However, because of the shortage of available organs for transplantation, an allocation system to rank wait-listed candidates is required. Because organ transplantation relies on the incredible altruism of individuals and their family members who make this ultimate gift on their behalf, it is crucial both for donor families and for waiting recipients that organ allocation be transparent, as fair and equitable as possible, and compliant with federal law, which is currently determined by the “Final Rule” that states that organ allocation be based in order of urgency.²

Since February 2002, U.S. liver allocation policy has been based on MELD.³ Prior to that time, liver allocation was based in part on the Child-Turcot-Pugh classification of liver disease, which included subjective components (ascites and encephalopathy) that are difficult to measure, as well as increased priority based on admission to the intensive care unit, also subjective and open to interpretation or abuse. Most crucially, the system defaulted to length of waiting time with large numbers of patients in the same category, which led to higher death rates for patients whose disease progressed more quickly or who were referred very late in their disease course.

MELD relies on a simple set of laboratory values that are easily obtained at any clinical lab and are already being routinely monitored as part of standard care for patients with end-stage liver disease.³ MELD initially required just three variables (bilirubin, creatinine, INR) and was updated to include just four variables with the adoption of MELD-Na in 2016, which added sodium levels. The MELD- and MELD-Na–based approach is a highly reliable, accurate way to rank patients who are most at risk of death in the next 3 months, with a C statistic of approximately 0.83-0.84.3,4 Perhaps the greatest testament to the strength of MELD is that, following the adoption of MELD-based liver allocation, MELD has gradually been adopted as the system of liver allocation by most countries around the world.

With the adoption of MELD and subsequently MELD-Na, which prioritize deceased donor liver allografts to the sickest patients first and is therefore compliant with the Final Rule, outcomes for patients waiting for liver transplant have steadily improved.^3,4 In addition, MELD has provided an easily obtainable, objective measure to guide decisions about timing of liver transplant, especially in the setting of potential living donor liver transplantation. MELD is also predictive of outcome for patients undergoing nontransplant elective and emergent surgical procedures, and because of the ease in calculating the score, it allows for an objective comparison of patients with cirrhosis across a variety of clinical and research settings.

The MELD system has many additional strengths, though perhaps the most important is that it is adaptable. While the MELD score accurately predicts death from chronic liver disease, the MELD score is not able to predict mortality or risk of wait-list dropout due to disease progression from certain complications of chronic liver disease such as the development of HCC or hepatopulmonary syndrome, in which access to timely transplantation has been proven to be beneficial. This has required an adaption to the system whereby candidates with conditions, such as HCC, that meet specific criteria receive an assigned MELD score, rather than a calculated score. Determining which patients should qualify for MELD exceptions, as well as what the assigned priority score should be, has required careful analysis and ongoing revision. An additional issue for MELD, which was identified more than a decade ago and is overdue for adjustment, is the disparity in access to transplant for women who continue to experience a lower transplant rate (14.4% according to the most recent analysis) and approximately 8.6% higher death rate than men with the same MELD score.⁵ This is due, in part, to the use of creatinine in the MELD equation, which as a by-product of muscle metabolism, underestimates the degree of renal dysfunction in women and thus underestimates their risk of wait-list mortality.⁵ A potential modification to the MELD-Na score that corrects for this sex-based disparity is currently being studied by the OPTN Liver-Intestine committee, which is further evidence of the strength and adaptability of a MELD-based allocation system.

While it is tempting to conclude that a system that requires on-going monitoring and revision is best discarded in favor of a new model such as an artificial intelligence–based solution, policy development requires a tremendous amount of time for consensus-building, as well as effort to ensure that unexpected negative effects are not created. Whereas a novel system could be identified and determined to be superior down the road, the amount of effort and expense that would be needed to build consensus around such a new model should not be underestimated. Considering the challenges to health care and the population at large that are already occurring as we emerge from the COVID pandemic, as well as the short-term need to monitor the impact from the recent adoption of the acuity circle model which went live in February 2020 and allocates according to MELD but over a broader geographic area based on a circle around the donor hospital, building consensus around incremental changes to a MELD-based allocation system likely represents the best option in our continued quest for the optimal liver allocation system.
 

Julie K. Heimbach, MD, is a transplant surgeon and the surgical director of liver transplantation at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. She has no conflicts to report.

References

1. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data. Available at https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/view-data-reports/national-data. Accessed May 1, 2021.

2. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Final rule. Available at https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/governance/about-the-optn/final-rule. Accessed May 1, 2021.

3. Wiesner R et al; United Network for Organ Sharing Liver Disease Severity Score Committee. Gastroenterology. 2003 Jan;124(1):91-6.

4. Nagai S et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Nov;155(5):1451-62.e3.

5. Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Jul 1;155(7):e201129.

Dear colleagues and friends,

The Perspectives series continues! There are few issues in our discipline that are as challenging, and controversial, as liver transplant prioritization. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been the mainstay for organ allocation for nearly 2 decades, and there has been vigorous debate as to whether it should remain so. In this issue, Dr. Jasmohan Bajaj and Dr. Julie Heimbach discuss the strengths and limitations of MELD and provide a vision of upcoming developments. As always, I welcome your feedback and suggestions for future topics at [email protected].

Charles J. Kahi, MD, MS, AGAF, is professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
 

Yes, it’s time for an update

BY JASMOHAN S. BAJAJ, MD, AGAF

Since February 2002, the U.S.-based liver transplant system has adopted the MELD score for transplant priority. Initially developed to predict outcomes after transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt, it was modified to exclude etiology for the purpose of listing patients.¹

There were several advantages with MELD including objectivity, ease of calculation using a website, and over time, a burgeoning experience nationwide that extended even beyond transplant. Moreover, it focused on “sickest-first,” did away with the extremely “manipulable” waiting list, and left off hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and ascites severity.¹ However, even earlier on, there were concerns regarding not capturing hepatocellular cancer (HCC) and some complications of cirrhosis that required exceptions. The points awarded to all these exceptions also changed with time, with lower priority and reincorporation of the waiting list time for HCC. Over time, the addition of serum sodium led it to be converted to “MELD-Na,” which now remains the primary method for transplant listing priority.

But the population with cirrhosis that existed 20 years ago has shifted radically. Patients with cirrhosis currently tend to either be much older with more comorbid conditions that predispose them to chronic kidney disease and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular compromise or be younger with an earlier presentation of alcohol-associated hepatitis. Moreover, the widespread availability of hepatitis C virus (HCV) eradication has changed the landscape and stopped the progression of cirrhosis organically by virtually removing that etiology. This is relevant because a recent United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) analysis showed that the concordance between MELD score and 90-day mortality was the lowest in the rapidly increasing population with alcohol-related and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease etiologies, but conversely, this concordance was the highest in the population with hepatitis C–related cirrhosis.² These demographic shifts in age and changes in etiology likely lessen the predictive power of the current MELD score iteration.

There is also increasing evidence that MELD is “stuck in the middle.” This means that both patients at low MELD score and those with organ failures may be underserved with respect to transplant listing with the current MELD score iteration.

Among patients with a MELD score disproportionately lower than their complications of cirrhosis several studies demonstrate the improvement in prognostication with addition of covert HE, history of overt HE, frailty, and sarcopenia indices. These are independently prognostic variables that affect daily function, affect patient-reported outcomes, and can influence readmissions. The burden of impending falls, readmissions, infections, and overall ill health is not captured even though relatively objective methods such as cognitive tests and documented admissions for overt HE can be utilized.³ This relative mistrust in including HE and covariables likely harkens back to a dramatic reduction in grade III/IV HE severity seen the year after MELD introduction, when compared with the year before, during which that designation was added to the listing priority.⁴ However, objective additions to the MELD score that capture the distress of patients and their families with multiple readmissions for HE worsened by sarcopenia are desperately needed (see table).

Jasmohan S. Bajaj, MD, AGAF, is with the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Richmond VA Medical Center. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Kamath PS and Kim WR. Hepatology. 2007;45:797-805.

2. Godfrey EL et al. Am J Transplant. 2019;19:3299-307.

3. Acharya C and Bajaj JS. Liver Transpl. 2021 May 21. doi:10.1002/lt.26099.

4. Bajaj JS and Saeian K. Dig Dis Sci 2005;50:753-6.

5. Artru F and Samuel D. JHEP Rep 2019 May;1(1):53-65.

6. Bernardi M et al. J Hepatol 2010 Dec 9;54:1297-306.
 

Maybe, but take it slow

BY JULIE K. HEIMBACH, MD

Even though 2020 was another record year for organ donation in the United States, a truly remarkable feat considering the profound impact of COVID-19 on health care as well as the population at large, there remains a critical shortage of available liver allografts.1 Last year in the U.S., of the approximately 13,000 patients waiting for a liver transplant, just under 9,000 patients underwent liver transplantation from a deceased or a living donor, while 2,345 either died waiting on the list or were removed for being too sick, and the rest remained waiting.¹ In a perfect system, we would transplant every wait-listed patient at a time that would provide them the greatest benefit with the least amount of distress. However, because of the shortage of available organs for transplantation, an allocation system to rank wait-listed candidates is required. Because organ transplantation relies on the incredible altruism of individuals and their family members who make this ultimate gift on their behalf, it is crucial both for donor families and for waiting recipients that organ allocation be transparent, as fair and equitable as possible, and compliant with federal law, which is currently determined by the “Final Rule” that states that organ allocation be based in order of urgency.²

Since February 2002, U.S. liver allocation policy has been based on MELD.³ Prior to that time, liver allocation was based in part on the Child-Turcot-Pugh classification of liver disease, which included subjective components (ascites and encephalopathy) that are difficult to measure, as well as increased priority based on admission to the intensive care unit, also subjective and open to interpretation or abuse. Most crucially, the system defaulted to length of waiting time with large numbers of patients in the same category, which led to higher death rates for patients whose disease progressed more quickly or who were referred very late in their disease course.

MELD relies on a simple set of laboratory values that are easily obtained at any clinical lab and are already being routinely monitored as part of standard care for patients with end-stage liver disease.³ MELD initially required just three variables (bilirubin, creatinine, INR) and was updated to include just four variables with the adoption of MELD-Na in 2016, which added sodium levels. The MELD- and MELD-Na–based approach is a highly reliable, accurate way to rank patients who are most at risk of death in the next 3 months, with a C statistic of approximately 0.83-0.84.3,4 Perhaps the greatest testament to the strength of MELD is that, following the adoption of MELD-based liver allocation, MELD has gradually been adopted as the system of liver allocation by most countries around the world.

With the adoption of MELD and subsequently MELD-Na, which prioritize deceased donor liver allografts to the sickest patients first and is therefore compliant with the Final Rule, outcomes for patients waiting for liver transplant have steadily improved.^3,4 In addition, MELD has provided an easily obtainable, objective measure to guide decisions about timing of liver transplant, especially in the setting of potential living donor liver transplantation. MELD is also predictive of outcome for patients undergoing nontransplant elective and emergent surgical procedures, and because of the ease in calculating the score, it allows for an objective comparison of patients with cirrhosis across a variety of clinical and research settings.

The MELD system has many additional strengths, though perhaps the most important is that it is adaptable. While the MELD score accurately predicts death from chronic liver disease, the MELD score is not able to predict mortality or risk of wait-list dropout due to disease progression from certain complications of chronic liver disease such as the development of HCC or hepatopulmonary syndrome, in which access to timely transplantation has been proven to be beneficial. This has required an adaption to the system whereby candidates with conditions, such as HCC, that meet specific criteria receive an assigned MELD score, rather than a calculated score. Determining which patients should qualify for MELD exceptions, as well as what the assigned priority score should be, has required careful analysis and ongoing revision. An additional issue for MELD, which was identified more than a decade ago and is overdue for adjustment, is the disparity in access to transplant for women who continue to experience a lower transplant rate (14.4% according to the most recent analysis) and approximately 8.6% higher death rate than men with the same MELD score.⁵ This is due, in part, to the use of creatinine in the MELD equation, which as a by-product of muscle metabolism, underestimates the degree of renal dysfunction in women and thus underestimates their risk of wait-list mortality.⁵ A potential modification to the MELD-Na score that corrects for this sex-based disparity is currently being studied by the OPTN Liver-Intestine committee, which is further evidence of the strength and adaptability of a MELD-based allocation system.

While it is tempting to conclude that a system that requires on-going monitoring and revision is best discarded in favor of a new model such as an artificial intelligence–based solution, policy development requires a tremendous amount of time for consensus-building, as well as effort to ensure that unexpected negative effects are not created. Whereas a novel system could be identified and determined to be superior down the road, the amount of effort and expense that would be needed to build consensus around such a new model should not be underestimated. Considering the challenges to health care and the population at large that are already occurring as we emerge from the COVID pandemic, as well as the short-term need to monitor the impact from the recent adoption of the acuity circle model which went live in February 2020 and allocates according to MELD but over a broader geographic area based on a circle around the donor hospital, building consensus around incremental changes to a MELD-based allocation system likely represents the best option in our continued quest for the optimal liver allocation system.
 

Julie K. Heimbach, MD, is a transplant surgeon and the surgical director of liver transplantation at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. She has no conflicts to report.

References

1. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data. Available at https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/view-data-reports/national-data. Accessed May 1, 2021.

2. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Final rule. Available at https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/governance/about-the-optn/final-rule. Accessed May 1, 2021.

3. Wiesner R et al; United Network for Organ Sharing Liver Disease Severity Score Committee. Gastroenterology. 2003 Jan;124(1):91-6.

4. Nagai S et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Nov;155(5):1451-62.e3.

5. Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Jul 1;155(7):e201129.

Dear colleagues and friends,

The Perspectives series continues! There are few issues in our discipline that are as challenging, and controversial, as liver transplant prioritization. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been the mainstay for organ allocation for nearly 2 decades, and there has been vigorous debate as to whether it should remain so. In this issue, Dr. Jasmohan Bajaj and Dr. Julie Heimbach discuss the strengths and limitations of MELD and provide a vision of upcoming developments. As always, I welcome your feedback and suggestions for future topics at [email protected].

Charles J. Kahi, MD, MS, AGAF, is professor of medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
 

Yes, it’s time for an update

BY JASMOHAN S. BAJAJ, MD, AGAF

Since February 2002, the U.S.-based liver transplant system has adopted the MELD score for transplant priority. Initially developed to predict outcomes after transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt, it was modified to exclude etiology for the purpose of listing patients.¹

There were several advantages with MELD including objectivity, ease of calculation using a website, and over time, a burgeoning experience nationwide that extended even beyond transplant. Moreover, it focused on “sickest-first,” did away with the extremely “manipulable” waiting list, and left off hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and ascites severity.¹ However, even earlier on, there were concerns regarding not capturing hepatocellular cancer (HCC) and some complications of cirrhosis that required exceptions. The points awarded to all these exceptions also changed with time, with lower priority and reincorporation of the waiting list time for HCC. Over time, the addition of serum sodium led it to be converted to “MELD-Na,” which now remains the primary method for transplant listing priority.

But the population with cirrhosis that existed 20 years ago has shifted radically. Patients with cirrhosis currently tend to either be much older with more comorbid conditions that predispose them to chronic kidney disease and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular compromise or be younger with an earlier presentation of alcohol-associated hepatitis. Moreover, the widespread availability of hepatitis C virus (HCV) eradication has changed the landscape and stopped the progression of cirrhosis organically by virtually removing that etiology. This is relevant because a recent United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) analysis showed that the concordance between MELD score and 90-day mortality was the lowest in the rapidly increasing population with alcohol-related and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease etiologies, but conversely, this concordance was the highest in the population with hepatitis C–related cirrhosis.² These demographic shifts in age and changes in etiology likely lessen the predictive power of the current MELD score iteration.

There is also increasing evidence that MELD is “stuck in the middle.” This means that both patients at low MELD score and those with organ failures may be underserved with respect to transplant listing with the current MELD score iteration.

Among patients with a MELD score disproportionately lower than their complications of cirrhosis several studies demonstrate the improvement in prognostication with addition of covert HE, history of overt HE, frailty, and sarcopenia indices. These are independently prognostic variables that affect daily function, affect patient-reported outcomes, and can influence readmissions. The burden of impending falls, readmissions, infections, and overall ill health is not captured even though relatively objective methods such as cognitive tests and documented admissions for overt HE can be utilized.³ This relative mistrust in including HE and covariables likely harkens back to a dramatic reduction in grade III/IV HE severity seen the year after MELD introduction, when compared with the year before, during which that designation was added to the listing priority.⁴ However, objective additions to the MELD score that capture the distress of patients and their families with multiple readmissions for HE worsened by sarcopenia are desperately needed (see table).

Jasmohan S. Bajaj, MD, AGAF, is with the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Richmond VA Medical Center. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Kamath PS and Kim WR. Hepatology. 2007;45:797-805.

2. Godfrey EL et al. Am J Transplant. 2019;19:3299-307.

3. Acharya C and Bajaj JS. Liver Transpl. 2021 May 21. doi:10.1002/lt.26099.

4. Bajaj JS and Saeian K. Dig Dis Sci 2005;50:753-6.

5. Artru F and Samuel D. JHEP Rep 2019 May;1(1):53-65.

6. Bernardi M et al. J Hepatol 2010 Dec 9;54:1297-306.
 

Maybe, but take it slow

BY JULIE K. HEIMBACH, MD

Even though 2020 was another record year for organ donation in the United States, a truly remarkable feat considering the profound impact of COVID-19 on health care as well as the population at large, there remains a critical shortage of available liver allografts.1 Last year in the U.S., of the approximately 13,000 patients waiting for a liver transplant, just under 9,000 patients underwent liver transplantation from a deceased or a living donor, while 2,345 either died waiting on the list or were removed for being too sick, and the rest remained waiting.¹ In a perfect system, we would transplant every wait-listed patient at a time that would provide them the greatest benefit with the least amount of distress. However, because of the shortage of available organs for transplantation, an allocation system to rank wait-listed candidates is required. Because organ transplantation relies on the incredible altruism of individuals and their family members who make this ultimate gift on their behalf, it is crucial both for donor families and for waiting recipients that organ allocation be transparent, as fair and equitable as possible, and compliant with federal law, which is currently determined by the “Final Rule” that states that organ allocation be based in order of urgency.²

Since February 2002, U.S. liver allocation policy has been based on MELD.³ Prior to that time, liver allocation was based in part on the Child-Turcot-Pugh classification of liver disease, which included subjective components (ascites and encephalopathy) that are difficult to measure, as well as increased priority based on admission to the intensive care unit, also subjective and open to interpretation or abuse. Most crucially, the system defaulted to length of waiting time with large numbers of patients in the same category, which led to higher death rates for patients whose disease progressed more quickly or who were referred very late in their disease course.

MELD relies on a simple set of laboratory values that are easily obtained at any clinical lab and are already being routinely monitored as part of standard care for patients with end-stage liver disease.³ MELD initially required just three variables (bilirubin, creatinine, INR) and was updated to include just four variables with the adoption of MELD-Na in 2016, which added sodium levels. The MELD- and MELD-Na–based approach is a highly reliable, accurate way to rank patients who are most at risk of death in the next 3 months, with a C statistic of approximately 0.83-0.84.3,4 Perhaps the greatest testament to the strength of MELD is that, following the adoption of MELD-based liver allocation, MELD has gradually been adopted as the system of liver allocation by most countries around the world.

With the adoption of MELD and subsequently MELD-Na, which prioritize deceased donor liver allografts to the sickest patients first and is therefore compliant with the Final Rule, outcomes for patients waiting for liver transplant have steadily improved.^3,4 In addition, MELD has provided an easily obtainable, objective measure to guide decisions about timing of liver transplant, especially in the setting of potential living donor liver transplantation. MELD is also predictive of outcome for patients undergoing nontransplant elective and emergent surgical procedures, and because of the ease in calculating the score, it allows for an objective comparison of patients with cirrhosis across a variety of clinical and research settings.

The MELD system has many additional strengths, though perhaps the most important is that it is adaptable. While the MELD score accurately predicts death from chronic liver disease, the MELD score is not able to predict mortality or risk of wait-list dropout due to disease progression from certain complications of chronic liver disease such as the development of HCC or hepatopulmonary syndrome, in which access to timely transplantation has been proven to be beneficial. This has required an adaption to the system whereby candidates with conditions, such as HCC, that meet specific criteria receive an assigned MELD score, rather than a calculated score. Determining which patients should qualify for MELD exceptions, as well as what the assigned priority score should be, has required careful analysis and ongoing revision. An additional issue for MELD, which was identified more than a decade ago and is overdue for adjustment, is the disparity in access to transplant for women who continue to experience a lower transplant rate (14.4% according to the most recent analysis) and approximately 8.6% higher death rate than men with the same MELD score.⁵ This is due, in part, to the use of creatinine in the MELD equation, which as a by-product of muscle metabolism, underestimates the degree of renal dysfunction in women and thus underestimates their risk of wait-list mortality.⁵ A potential modification to the MELD-Na score that corrects for this sex-based disparity is currently being studied by the OPTN Liver-Intestine committee, which is further evidence of the strength and adaptability of a MELD-based allocation system.

While it is tempting to conclude that a system that requires on-going monitoring and revision is best discarded in favor of a new model such as an artificial intelligence–based solution, policy development requires a tremendous amount of time for consensus-building, as well as effort to ensure that unexpected negative effects are not created. Whereas a novel system could be identified and determined to be superior down the road, the amount of effort and expense that would be needed to build consensus around such a new model should not be underestimated. Considering the challenges to health care and the population at large that are already occurring as we emerge from the COVID pandemic, as well as the short-term need to monitor the impact from the recent adoption of the acuity circle model which went live in February 2020 and allocates according to MELD but over a broader geographic area based on a circle around the donor hospital, building consensus around incremental changes to a MELD-based allocation system likely represents the best option in our continued quest for the optimal liver allocation system.
 

Julie K. Heimbach, MD, is a transplant surgeon and the surgical director of liver transplantation at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. She has no conflicts to report.

References

1. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data. Available at https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/view-data-reports/national-data. Accessed May 1, 2021.

2. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Final rule. Available at https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/governance/about-the-optn/final-rule. Accessed May 1, 2021.

3. Wiesner R et al; United Network for Organ Sharing Liver Disease Severity Score Committee. Gastroenterology. 2003 Jan;124(1):91-6.

4. Nagai S et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Nov;155(5):1451-62.e3.

5. Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Jul 1;155(7):e201129.

A proposed rapid diagnostic test for hepatitis C viral infections that combines an inexpensive but lower-sensitivity core-antigen test with lab RNA confirmation of negative tests could expand testing and same-day initiation of antiviral therapy in places where resources are limited, investigators said.

Applying the proposed method to the Republic of Georgia, with a hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence of 5.4% as reported by the World Health Organization, would result in a 95.4% diagnosis rate, compared with 78.8% for lab-based RNA testing, which is the standard of care. Applied to Malaysia, the proposed method would boost diagnosis rates from 57.0% to 91.2%, reported Madeline Adee, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital’s Institute for Technology Assessment in Boston and colleagues.

“We found that a novel core antigen rapid diagnostic test for HCV could improve the diagnosis rate and result in cost savings. Although not yet developed, such a test could be a game changer and have a substantial impact on the feasibility and cost of HCV elimination, especially in low and middle-income countries,” they wrote in a poster presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Although rapid diagnostic tests for HCV can improve diagnosis and treatment rates, currently available molecular tests are expensive and require a solid clinical laboratory infrastructure, which can put such tests out of the reach for clinicians in low- or middle-income countries. Rapid immunoassays based on HCV core antigens are comparative bargains, but their sensitivity ranges from 70% to 90%; in contrast, the third-generation HCV enzyme immunoassay has about a 98% sensitivity.
 

Could it work?

The proposed testing method would be likely to improve diagnosis, but whether that would translate into increased treatment is uncertain, commented Lesley Miller, MD, who specializes in HCV screening and treatment in underserved populations at Emory University, Atlanta.

“When we’re talking about hepatitis C, it’s all about the care cascade, the drop-off at each step from those who have the disease and aren’t diagnosed, to those who are tested and only partially diagnosed because they don’t have a confirmed infection, to those that get into care, get treated, and get cured,” she said in an interview.

“It’s all about closing the gaps in the care cascade in order to achieve elimination of the virus, which is what we’re all trying to do,” she added.

She pointed that there are certain at-risk populations in the United States, such as injectable-drug users, who might be able to benefit from such a system.

“These folks often have less access to traditional care, so bringing rapid testing and care to where those folks are is really important, so if we can deploy mobile units to areas where there is high prevalence and do it at the point of care, it simplifies the entire process,” she said.

Thomas J. Hoerger, PhD, a senior fellow in health economics and financing at the nonprofit research group RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview that the proposed model could eliminate the step in testing in which patients are required to return for confirmation.

“People don’t always come back for further testing, so if you can do it immediately and have the results of a screening test, you might be able to get people to come back more quickly. You still have the problem of the high cost of treatment, but this would at least make it a little more convenient,” he said.

He noted that the success of the strategy would be dependent on the sensitivity of the rapid core antigen test, it’s cost relative to HCV RNA testing, and whether the availability of the rapid test would translate into an improvement in follow-up.

Neither Dr. Miller nor Dr. Hoerger were involved in the study.
 

Evaluating the approach

To determine whether a lower-cost rapid test could be cost effective, the researchers created a microsimulation model of the natural history of HCV to compare potential outcomes from either core antigen rapid diagnostic testing with a base case sensitivity for HCV viremia of 80% with lab-based RNA confirmation for negative results or the current standard of care with lab-based RNA confirmation only.

The model incorporated METAVIR stage F0-F4, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death. The investigators determined the baseline characteristics of HCV patients in each country based on different distributions of sex, HCV genotype, and METAVIR fibrosis stage.

They simulated outcomes for 10,000 adults in the Republic of Georgia, with an HCV prevalence of 5.4%, and Malaysia, with an HCV prevalence of 1.5%.

The model considers costs from a health care payer’s perspective, and the investigations performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate how the cost-effectiveness of testing pathways might change when various factors were plugged into the model.

As noted before, the investigators determined that the core antigen rapid test algorithm would improve diagnosis rates in Georgia from 78.8% to 95.4% and in Malaysia from 57.9% to 91.2%.

The use of the rapid test would also increase quality-adjusted life-years in Georgia by 207 per 10,000 and in Malaysia by 146 per 10,000.

Cost savings, primarily from averting the costs of care for patients with HCV, begin within the first year of the model. Over 50 years, the lifetime horizon cost savings in Georgia would be $232,000 per 10,000 people, and the corresponding savings in Malaysia would be $504,000 per 10,000 people.

Even when allowing for variations in parameters, the core antigen rapid diagnostic test approach remained the preferred model, the investigators reported.

The study was supported by the global health agency Unitaid. The researchers, Dr. Miller, and Dr. Hoerger reported no conflicts of interest relevant to the study.

A proposed rapid diagnostic test for hepatitis C viral infections that combines an inexpensive but lower-sensitivity core-antigen test with lab RNA confirmation of negative tests could expand testing and same-day initiation of antiviral therapy in places where resources are limited, investigators said.

Applying the proposed method to the Republic of Georgia, with a hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence of 5.4% as reported by the World Health Organization, would result in a 95.4% diagnosis rate, compared with 78.8% for lab-based RNA testing, which is the standard of care. Applied to Malaysia, the proposed method would boost diagnosis rates from 57.0% to 91.2%, reported Madeline Adee, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital’s Institute for Technology Assessment in Boston and colleagues.

“We found that a novel core antigen rapid diagnostic test for HCV could improve the diagnosis rate and result in cost savings. Although not yet developed, such a test could be a game changer and have a substantial impact on the feasibility and cost of HCV elimination, especially in low and middle-income countries,” they wrote in a poster presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Although rapid diagnostic tests for HCV can improve diagnosis and treatment rates, currently available molecular tests are expensive and require a solid clinical laboratory infrastructure, which can put such tests out of the reach for clinicians in low- or middle-income countries. Rapid immunoassays based on HCV core antigens are comparative bargains, but their sensitivity ranges from 70% to 90%; in contrast, the third-generation HCV enzyme immunoassay has about a 98% sensitivity.
 

Could it work?

The proposed testing method would be likely to improve diagnosis, but whether that would translate into increased treatment is uncertain, commented Lesley Miller, MD, who specializes in HCV screening and treatment in underserved populations at Emory University, Atlanta.

“When we’re talking about hepatitis C, it’s all about the care cascade, the drop-off at each step from those who have the disease and aren’t diagnosed, to those who are tested and only partially diagnosed because they don’t have a confirmed infection, to those that get into care, get treated, and get cured,” she said in an interview.

“It’s all about closing the gaps in the care cascade in order to achieve elimination of the virus, which is what we’re all trying to do,” she added.

She pointed that there are certain at-risk populations in the United States, such as injectable-drug users, who might be able to benefit from such a system.

“These folks often have less access to traditional care, so bringing rapid testing and care to where those folks are is really important, so if we can deploy mobile units to areas where there is high prevalence and do it at the point of care, it simplifies the entire process,” she said.

Thomas J. Hoerger, PhD, a senior fellow in health economics and financing at the nonprofit research group RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview that the proposed model could eliminate the step in testing in which patients are required to return for confirmation.

“People don’t always come back for further testing, so if you can do it immediately and have the results of a screening test, you might be able to get people to come back more quickly. You still have the problem of the high cost of treatment, but this would at least make it a little more convenient,” he said.

He noted that the success of the strategy would be dependent on the sensitivity of the rapid core antigen test, it’s cost relative to HCV RNA testing, and whether the availability of the rapid test would translate into an improvement in follow-up.

Neither Dr. Miller nor Dr. Hoerger were involved in the study.
 

Evaluating the approach

To determine whether a lower-cost rapid test could be cost effective, the researchers created a microsimulation model of the natural history of HCV to compare potential outcomes from either core antigen rapid diagnostic testing with a base case sensitivity for HCV viremia of 80% with lab-based RNA confirmation for negative results or the current standard of care with lab-based RNA confirmation only.

The model incorporated METAVIR stage F0-F4, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death. The investigators determined the baseline characteristics of HCV patients in each country based on different distributions of sex, HCV genotype, and METAVIR fibrosis stage.

They simulated outcomes for 10,000 adults in the Republic of Georgia, with an HCV prevalence of 5.4%, and Malaysia, with an HCV prevalence of 1.5%.

The model considers costs from a health care payer’s perspective, and the investigations performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate how the cost-effectiveness of testing pathways might change when various factors were plugged into the model.

As noted before, the investigators determined that the core antigen rapid test algorithm would improve diagnosis rates in Georgia from 78.8% to 95.4% and in Malaysia from 57.9% to 91.2%.

The use of the rapid test would also increase quality-adjusted life-years in Georgia by 207 per 10,000 and in Malaysia by 146 per 10,000.

Cost savings, primarily from averting the costs of care for patients with HCV, begin within the first year of the model. Over 50 years, the lifetime horizon cost savings in Georgia would be $232,000 per 10,000 people, and the corresponding savings in Malaysia would be $504,000 per 10,000 people.

Even when allowing for variations in parameters, the core antigen rapid diagnostic test approach remained the preferred model, the investigators reported.

The study was supported by the global health agency Unitaid. The researchers, Dr. Miller, and Dr. Hoerger reported no conflicts of interest relevant to the study.

A proposed rapid diagnostic test for hepatitis C viral infections that combines an inexpensive but lower-sensitivity core-antigen test with lab RNA confirmation of negative tests could expand testing and same-day initiation of antiviral therapy in places where resources are limited, investigators said.

Applying the proposed method to the Republic of Georgia, with a hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence of 5.4% as reported by the World Health Organization, would result in a 95.4% diagnosis rate, compared with 78.8% for lab-based RNA testing, which is the standard of care. Applied to Malaysia, the proposed method would boost diagnosis rates from 57.0% to 91.2%, reported Madeline Adee, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital’s Institute for Technology Assessment in Boston and colleagues.

“We found that a novel core antigen rapid diagnostic test for HCV could improve the diagnosis rate and result in cost savings. Although not yet developed, such a test could be a game changer and have a substantial impact on the feasibility and cost of HCV elimination, especially in low and middle-income countries,” they wrote in a poster presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Although rapid diagnostic tests for HCV can improve diagnosis and treatment rates, currently available molecular tests are expensive and require a solid clinical laboratory infrastructure, which can put such tests out of the reach for clinicians in low- or middle-income countries. Rapid immunoassays based on HCV core antigens are comparative bargains, but their sensitivity ranges from 70% to 90%; in contrast, the third-generation HCV enzyme immunoassay has about a 98% sensitivity.
 

Could it work?

The proposed testing method would be likely to improve diagnosis, but whether that would translate into increased treatment is uncertain, commented Lesley Miller, MD, who specializes in HCV screening and treatment in underserved populations at Emory University, Atlanta.

“When we’re talking about hepatitis C, it’s all about the care cascade, the drop-off at each step from those who have the disease and aren’t diagnosed, to those who are tested and only partially diagnosed because they don’t have a confirmed infection, to those that get into care, get treated, and get cured,” she said in an interview.

“It’s all about closing the gaps in the care cascade in order to achieve elimination of the virus, which is what we’re all trying to do,” she added.

She pointed that there are certain at-risk populations in the United States, such as injectable-drug users, who might be able to benefit from such a system.

“These folks often have less access to traditional care, so bringing rapid testing and care to where those folks are is really important, so if we can deploy mobile units to areas where there is high prevalence and do it at the point of care, it simplifies the entire process,” she said.

Thomas J. Hoerger, PhD, a senior fellow in health economics and financing at the nonprofit research group RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview that the proposed model could eliminate the step in testing in which patients are required to return for confirmation.

“People don’t always come back for further testing, so if you can do it immediately and have the results of a screening test, you might be able to get people to come back more quickly. You still have the problem of the high cost of treatment, but this would at least make it a little more convenient,” he said.

He noted that the success of the strategy would be dependent on the sensitivity of the rapid core antigen test, it’s cost relative to HCV RNA testing, and whether the availability of the rapid test would translate into an improvement in follow-up.

Neither Dr. Miller nor Dr. Hoerger were involved in the study.
 

Evaluating the approach

To determine whether a lower-cost rapid test could be cost effective, the researchers created a microsimulation model of the natural history of HCV to compare potential outcomes from either core antigen rapid diagnostic testing with a base case sensitivity for HCV viremia of 80% with lab-based RNA confirmation for negative results or the current standard of care with lab-based RNA confirmation only.

The model incorporated METAVIR stage F0-F4, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death. The investigators determined the baseline characteristics of HCV patients in each country based on different distributions of sex, HCV genotype, and METAVIR fibrosis stage.

They simulated outcomes for 10,000 adults in the Republic of Georgia, with an HCV prevalence of 5.4%, and Malaysia, with an HCV prevalence of 1.5%.

The model considers costs from a health care payer’s perspective, and the investigations performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate how the cost-effectiveness of testing pathways might change when various factors were plugged into the model.

As noted before, the investigators determined that the core antigen rapid test algorithm would improve diagnosis rates in Georgia from 78.8% to 95.4% and in Malaysia from 57.9% to 91.2%.

The use of the rapid test would also increase quality-adjusted life-years in Georgia by 207 per 10,000 and in Malaysia by 146 per 10,000.

Cost savings, primarily from averting the costs of care for patients with HCV, begin within the first year of the model. Over 50 years, the lifetime horizon cost savings in Georgia would be $232,000 per 10,000 people, and the corresponding savings in Malaysia would be $504,000 per 10,000 people.

Even when allowing for variations in parameters, the core antigen rapid diagnostic test approach remained the preferred model, the investigators reported.

The study was supported by the global health agency Unitaid. The researchers, Dr. Miller, and Dr. Hoerger reported no conflicts of interest relevant to the study.

The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the health of patients with liver disease worldwide, researchers say.

Not only does liver disease make people more vulnerable to the virus that causes COVID-19, precautions to prevent its spread have delayed health care and worsened alcohol abuse.

At this year’s virtual International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021, experts from around the world documented this toll on their patients.

Surgeons have seen a surge in patients needing transplants because of alcoholic liver disease, the campaign to snuff out hepatitis C slowed down, and procedures such as endoscopy and ultrasound exams postponed, said Mario Mondelli, MD, PhD, a professor and consultant physician of infectious diseases at the University of Pavia, Italy.

“We were able to ensure only emergency treatments, not routine surveillance,” he said in an interview.

Of 1,994 people with chronic liver disease who responded to a survey through the Global Liver Registry, 11% reported that the pandemic had affected their liver health.

This proportion was not statistically different for the 165 patients (8.2%) who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with those who had not. But many of those who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 reported that it severely affected them. They reported worse overall heath, more mental illness, and greater need for supportive service than those who evaded the virus. Thirty-three respondents (20.8%) were hospitalized.

The global effort to eradicate hepatitis C slowed as a result of the pandemic. Already in 2019, the United States was behind the World Health Organization schedule for eliminating this virus. In 2020, it slipped further, with 25% fewer patients starting treatment for hepatitis C than in 2019, according to researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Similar delays in eliminating hepatitis C occurred around the world, Dr. Mondelli said, noting that the majority of countries will not be able to reach the WHO objectives.

One striking result of the pandemic was an uptick of patients needing liver transplants as a result of alcoholic liver disease, said George Cholankeril, MD, a liver transplant surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Before the pandemic, he and his colleagues had noted an increase in the number of people needing liver transplants because of alcohol abuse. During the pandemic, that trend accelerated.

They defined the pre-COVID era as June 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020, and the COVID era as after April 1, 2020. In the COVID era, alcoholic liver disease accounted for 40% of patients whom the hospital put on its list for liver transplant. Hepatitis C and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease combined accounted for only 36%.

The change has resulted in part from the effectiveness of hepatitis C treatments, which have reduced the number of patients with livers damaged by that virus. But the change also resulted from the increased severity of illness in the patients with alcoholic liver disease, Dr. Cholankeril said in an interview. Overall, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores – which are used to predict survival – worsened for patients with alcoholic liver disease but remained the same for patients with nonalcoholic liver disease.

In the pre-COVID era, patients with alcoholic liver disease had a 10% higher chance for undergoing transplant, compared with patients with nonalcoholic liver disease. In the COVID era, they had a 50% higher chance, a statistically significant change (P < .001).

The finding parallels those of other studies that have shown a spike in consults for alcohol-related gastrointestinal and liver diseases, as reported by this news organization.

“We feel that the increase in alcoholic hepatitis is possibly from binge drinking and alcoholic consumption during the pandemic,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “Anecdotally, I can’t tell you how many patients say that the video meetings for Alcoholic Anonymous just don’t work. It’s not the same as in person. They don’t feel that they’re getting the support that they need.”

In Europe, fewer of the people who need liver transplants may be receiving them, said Dr. Mondelli.

“There are several papers indicating, particularly in Italy, in France, and in the United Kingdom, that during the pandemic, the offer for organs significantly declined,” he said.

Other studies have shown increases in mortality from liver disease during the pandemic, Dr. Mondelli said. The same is true of myocardial infarction, cancer, and most other life-threatening illnesses, he pointed out.

“Because of the enormous tsunami that has affected hospital services during the peaks of the pandemic, there has been an increase in deceased patients from a variety of other diseases, not only liver disease,” he said.

But Dr. Mondelli also added that physicians had improved in their ability to safely care for their patients while protecting themselves over the course of the pandemic.

Dr. Mondelli and Dr. Cholankeril have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the health of patients with liver disease worldwide, researchers say.

Not only does liver disease make people more vulnerable to the virus that causes COVID-19, precautions to prevent its spread have delayed health care and worsened alcohol abuse.

At this year’s virtual International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021, experts from around the world documented this toll on their patients.

Surgeons have seen a surge in patients needing transplants because of alcoholic liver disease, the campaign to snuff out hepatitis C slowed down, and procedures such as endoscopy and ultrasound exams postponed, said Mario Mondelli, MD, PhD, a professor and consultant physician of infectious diseases at the University of Pavia, Italy.

“We were able to ensure only emergency treatments, not routine surveillance,” he said in an interview.

Of 1,994 people with chronic liver disease who responded to a survey through the Global Liver Registry, 11% reported that the pandemic had affected their liver health.

This proportion was not statistically different for the 165 patients (8.2%) who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with those who had not. But many of those who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 reported that it severely affected them. They reported worse overall heath, more mental illness, and greater need for supportive service than those who evaded the virus. Thirty-three respondents (20.8%) were hospitalized.

The global effort to eradicate hepatitis C slowed as a result of the pandemic. Already in 2019, the United States was behind the World Health Organization schedule for eliminating this virus. In 2020, it slipped further, with 25% fewer patients starting treatment for hepatitis C than in 2019, according to researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Similar delays in eliminating hepatitis C occurred around the world, Dr. Mondelli said, noting that the majority of countries will not be able to reach the WHO objectives.

One striking result of the pandemic was an uptick of patients needing liver transplants as a result of alcoholic liver disease, said George Cholankeril, MD, a liver transplant surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Before the pandemic, he and his colleagues had noted an increase in the number of people needing liver transplants because of alcohol abuse. During the pandemic, that trend accelerated.

They defined the pre-COVID era as June 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020, and the COVID era as after April 1, 2020. In the COVID era, alcoholic liver disease accounted for 40% of patients whom the hospital put on its list for liver transplant. Hepatitis C and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease combined accounted for only 36%.

The change has resulted in part from the effectiveness of hepatitis C treatments, which have reduced the number of patients with livers damaged by that virus. But the change also resulted from the increased severity of illness in the patients with alcoholic liver disease, Dr. Cholankeril said in an interview. Overall, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores – which are used to predict survival – worsened for patients with alcoholic liver disease but remained the same for patients with nonalcoholic liver disease.

In the pre-COVID era, patients with alcoholic liver disease had a 10% higher chance for undergoing transplant, compared with patients with nonalcoholic liver disease. In the COVID era, they had a 50% higher chance, a statistically significant change (P < .001).

The finding parallels those of other studies that have shown a spike in consults for alcohol-related gastrointestinal and liver diseases, as reported by this news organization.

“We feel that the increase in alcoholic hepatitis is possibly from binge drinking and alcoholic consumption during the pandemic,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “Anecdotally, I can’t tell you how many patients say that the video meetings for Alcoholic Anonymous just don’t work. It’s not the same as in person. They don’t feel that they’re getting the support that they need.”

In Europe, fewer of the people who need liver transplants may be receiving them, said Dr. Mondelli.

“There are several papers indicating, particularly in Italy, in France, and in the United Kingdom, that during the pandemic, the offer for organs significantly declined,” he said.

Other studies have shown increases in mortality from liver disease during the pandemic, Dr. Mondelli said. The same is true of myocardial infarction, cancer, and most other life-threatening illnesses, he pointed out.

“Because of the enormous tsunami that has affected hospital services during the peaks of the pandemic, there has been an increase in deceased patients from a variety of other diseases, not only liver disease,” he said.

But Dr. Mondelli also added that physicians had improved in their ability to safely care for their patients while protecting themselves over the course of the pandemic.

Dr. Mondelli and Dr. Cholankeril have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the health of patients with liver disease worldwide, researchers say.

Not only does liver disease make people more vulnerable to the virus that causes COVID-19, precautions to prevent its spread have delayed health care and worsened alcohol abuse.

At this year’s virtual International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021, experts from around the world documented this toll on their patients.

Surgeons have seen a surge in patients needing transplants because of alcoholic liver disease, the campaign to snuff out hepatitis C slowed down, and procedures such as endoscopy and ultrasound exams postponed, said Mario Mondelli, MD, PhD, a professor and consultant physician of infectious diseases at the University of Pavia, Italy.

“We were able to ensure only emergency treatments, not routine surveillance,” he said in an interview.

Of 1,994 people with chronic liver disease who responded to a survey through the Global Liver Registry, 11% reported that the pandemic had affected their liver health.

This proportion was not statistically different for the 165 patients (8.2%) who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with those who had not. But many of those who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 reported that it severely affected them. They reported worse overall heath, more mental illness, and greater need for supportive service than those who evaded the virus. Thirty-three respondents (20.8%) were hospitalized.

The global effort to eradicate hepatitis C slowed as a result of the pandemic. Already in 2019, the United States was behind the World Health Organization schedule for eliminating this virus. In 2020, it slipped further, with 25% fewer patients starting treatment for hepatitis C than in 2019, according to researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Similar delays in eliminating hepatitis C occurred around the world, Dr. Mondelli said, noting that the majority of countries will not be able to reach the WHO objectives.

One striking result of the pandemic was an uptick of patients needing liver transplants as a result of alcoholic liver disease, said George Cholankeril, MD, a liver transplant surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Before the pandemic, he and his colleagues had noted an increase in the number of people needing liver transplants because of alcohol abuse. During the pandemic, that trend accelerated.

They defined the pre-COVID era as June 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020, and the COVID era as after April 1, 2020. In the COVID era, alcoholic liver disease accounted for 40% of patients whom the hospital put on its list for liver transplant. Hepatitis C and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease combined accounted for only 36%.

The change has resulted in part from the effectiveness of hepatitis C treatments, which have reduced the number of patients with livers damaged by that virus. But the change also resulted from the increased severity of illness in the patients with alcoholic liver disease, Dr. Cholankeril said in an interview. Overall, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores – which are used to predict survival – worsened for patients with alcoholic liver disease but remained the same for patients with nonalcoholic liver disease.

In the pre-COVID era, patients with alcoholic liver disease had a 10% higher chance for undergoing transplant, compared with patients with nonalcoholic liver disease. In the COVID era, they had a 50% higher chance, a statistically significant change (P < .001).

The finding parallels those of other studies that have shown a spike in consults for alcohol-related gastrointestinal and liver diseases, as reported by this news organization.

“We feel that the increase in alcoholic hepatitis is possibly from binge drinking and alcoholic consumption during the pandemic,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “Anecdotally, I can’t tell you how many patients say that the video meetings for Alcoholic Anonymous just don’t work. It’s not the same as in person. They don’t feel that they’re getting the support that they need.”

In Europe, fewer of the people who need liver transplants may be receiving them, said Dr. Mondelli.

“There are several papers indicating, particularly in Italy, in France, and in the United Kingdom, that during the pandemic, the offer for organs significantly declined,” he said.

Other studies have shown increases in mortality from liver disease during the pandemic, Dr. Mondelli said. The same is true of myocardial infarction, cancer, and most other life-threatening illnesses, he pointed out.

“Because of the enormous tsunami that has affected hospital services during the peaks of the pandemic, there has been an increase in deceased patients from a variety of other diseases, not only liver disease,” he said.

But Dr. Mondelli also added that physicians had improved in their ability to safely care for their patients while protecting themselves over the course of the pandemic.

Dr. Mondelli and Dr. Cholankeril have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An investigational liver dialysis device (DIALIVE) was associated with significantly greater survival of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), compared with the standard of care in a multicenter randomized study.

Among 30 evaluable patients with ACLF from alcoholic cirrhosis randomized to treatment with the DIALIVE system or standard of care, two-thirds of patients assigned to DIALIVE had both survived and experienced resolution of ACLF by 28 days, compared with one-third of patients assigned to standard of care, reported Banwari Agarwal, MBBS, MD from the Royal Free Hospital in London at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
 

Different from MARS

The DIALIVE system differs from the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) liver dialysis system in that DIALIVE removes and replaces albumin, including proinflammatory albumin, rather than filtering and recirculating it, he explained.

“It addresses systemic inflammation, which wasn’t quite the case with MARS,” he said in the question-and-answer portion of his presentation in a general session.

In patients with ACLF, the risk of 28-day mortality increases substantially as the grade of ACLF increases.

“ACLF, however, is potentially reversible, and the initial grade at presentation undergoes changes over time during the natural course of the illness, with some patients deteriorating, some improving, and some even achieving complete ACLF resolution. The final grade is reached by days 3-7, and it is this final grade which determines their future outcome trajectory. I therefore propose that ACLF resolution in itself is an important therapeutic target,” he said.
 

Study details

Dr. Agarwal and coinvestigators from eight centers in six European countries enrolled patients with a history indicative of alcohol-related cirrhosis, at least one acute decompensation event, and progression to ACLF grades 1, 2, or 3a.

Patients with an international normalized ratio above 3 were excluded, as were those with more than three organ failures, uncontrolled infections, patients with primary respiratory organ failure, and those with hemodynamic instability refractory to volume resuscitation and low-dose vasopressors.

A total of 32 patients, of whom 30 were evaluable, were randomized to receive liver dialysis in three to five DIALIVE sessions lasting 8-12 hours each (15 evaluable patients) or to standard of care at participating institutions (15 patients).

The investigators looked at safety of the device (the primary endpoint) in all patients who received at least one DIALIVE treatment (safety population), and a modified safety population of patients who received at least three DIALIVE treatments.

The median patient age in each arm was 49 years, and all patients had alcoholic cirrhosis, with alcoholic hepatitis accounting for at least one decompensation event. In addition, about 25% of patients in each arm had decompensation with infections and/or sepsis as precipitating factors.
 

Safety

Serious adverse events on days 1-10 occurred in 11 of 17 patients in the DIALIVE arm, and in 8 in the standard-of-care arm. In the DIALIVE arm, there were seven treatment-related serious device events, three unexpected serious device events (anemia, septic shock, and hypotension), and one patient discontinued dialysis after having unsafe levels of thrombocytopenia.

Four patients in the DIALIVE arm died on study. The first two died on day 1 one from hypotension, coagulopathy, and multiorgan failure, and this prompted a change in the protocol mandating that DIALIVE be conducted only in an ICU setting with more invasive monitoring and more frequent lab analysis of clotting and other biochemical parameters. Of the two other patients in the DIALIVE arm who on died on study, one died from non-MI cardiac arrest on day 8, and one patient with ACLF grade 3 and a European Foundation for the study of chronic liver failure (CLIF)–ACLF score of 68 died from multiorgan failure.

“I must emphasize that even this very sick patient tolerated the device very, very well,” Dr. Agarwal said.

In the standard-of-care arm, two patients died from progressive liver failure on days 17 and 27, respectively, and one died on day 17 from bacterial infections, bleeding, and progressive liver failure.

There were eight instances of filters clotting out of 64 filters used in total, and four episodes of device deficiency, including two instances where tubing could not be disconnected from an Oxiris filter during setup of the DIALIVE circuit, requiring use of new DIALIVE kits; one use of an incorrect dialysis fluid; and one incorrect setup of the DIALIVE circuit.
 

Significant improvements in many scores

In the DIALIVE group, there were significant improvements over baseline at day 10 in both liver scores (P < .05) and brain scores (P < .001). In contrast, in the standard-of-care group there were no improvements in individual organ scores, and respiration scores were significantly worse (P < .01).

DIALIVE was also associated with significant improvements in CLIF-C organ failure scores, compared with standard of care at day 5 and day 10 (P = .021 and .001, respectively); CLIF-C–ACLF scores at days 5 and 10 (P = .045 and .023); and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at day 5 (P = .028).

In the DIALIVE group, ­40% of patients had ACLF resolution by day 5, and 66.7% had resolution by day 10. In the standard-of-care arm, 15% had resolution on day 5, and 33.3% had resolution on day 10. DIALIVE was also associated with a significantly faster median time to resolution, compared with standard of care (10 days vs. not reached; P = .0307). At 28 days, 10 of 15 evaluable patients were alive and had resolution of ACLF with DIALIVE versus 5 of 15 with standard of care (P = .0281).

Dr. Agarwal said that the data justify the implementation of late-phase clinical trials of the liver dialysis device.
 

‘Hopeful’ findings

“It’s very early, but we’re really desperate in finding something to bridge to transplantation,” commented Tobias Boettler, MD, from the University of Freiburg (Germany), who was not involved in the study.

“I think this is very hopeful,” said Dr. Boettler, who moderated the briefing where Dr. Agarwal summarized the study findings.

In the question and answer following the talk in a general session, moderator Philip N. Newsome, MD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England) asked whether patients who were not treated should have been included in the analysis.

Dr. Agarwal replied that “the whole idea behind this study was to understand what this device does to these patients, and how these patients react to this device, so really not looking at the efficacy.”

The study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 initiative. Dr. Agarwal received a study grant from the initiative, but had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Boettler and Dr. Newsome had no disclosures relevant to the study.

An investigational liver dialysis device (DIALIVE) was associated with significantly greater survival of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), compared with the standard of care in a multicenter randomized study.

Among 30 evaluable patients with ACLF from alcoholic cirrhosis randomized to treatment with the DIALIVE system or standard of care, two-thirds of patients assigned to DIALIVE had both survived and experienced resolution of ACLF by 28 days, compared with one-third of patients assigned to standard of care, reported Banwari Agarwal, MBBS, MD from the Royal Free Hospital in London at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
 

Different from MARS

The DIALIVE system differs from the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) liver dialysis system in that DIALIVE removes and replaces albumin, including proinflammatory albumin, rather than filtering and recirculating it, he explained.

“It addresses systemic inflammation, which wasn’t quite the case with MARS,” he said in the question-and-answer portion of his presentation in a general session.

In patients with ACLF, the risk of 28-day mortality increases substantially as the grade of ACLF increases.

“ACLF, however, is potentially reversible, and the initial grade at presentation undergoes changes over time during the natural course of the illness, with some patients deteriorating, some improving, and some even achieving complete ACLF resolution. The final grade is reached by days 3-7, and it is this final grade which determines their future outcome trajectory. I therefore propose that ACLF resolution in itself is an important therapeutic target,” he said.
 

Study details

Dr. Agarwal and coinvestigators from eight centers in six European countries enrolled patients with a history indicative of alcohol-related cirrhosis, at least one acute decompensation event, and progression to ACLF grades 1, 2, or 3a.

Patients with an international normalized ratio above 3 were excluded, as were those with more than three organ failures, uncontrolled infections, patients with primary respiratory organ failure, and those with hemodynamic instability refractory to volume resuscitation and low-dose vasopressors.

A total of 32 patients, of whom 30 were evaluable, were randomized to receive liver dialysis in three to five DIALIVE sessions lasting 8-12 hours each (15 evaluable patients) or to standard of care at participating institutions (15 patients).

The investigators looked at safety of the device (the primary endpoint) in all patients who received at least one DIALIVE treatment (safety population), and a modified safety population of patients who received at least three DIALIVE treatments.

The median patient age in each arm was 49 years, and all patients had alcoholic cirrhosis, with alcoholic hepatitis accounting for at least one decompensation event. In addition, about 25% of patients in each arm had decompensation with infections and/or sepsis as precipitating factors.
 

Safety

Serious adverse events on days 1-10 occurred in 11 of 17 patients in the DIALIVE arm, and in 8 in the standard-of-care arm. In the DIALIVE arm, there were seven treatment-related serious device events, three unexpected serious device events (anemia, septic shock, and hypotension), and one patient discontinued dialysis after having unsafe levels of thrombocytopenia.

Four patients in the DIALIVE arm died on study. The first two died on day 1 one from hypotension, coagulopathy, and multiorgan failure, and this prompted a change in the protocol mandating that DIALIVE be conducted only in an ICU setting with more invasive monitoring and more frequent lab analysis of clotting and other biochemical parameters. Of the two other patients in the DIALIVE arm who on died on study, one died from non-MI cardiac arrest on day 8, and one patient with ACLF grade 3 and a European Foundation for the study of chronic liver failure (CLIF)–ACLF score of 68 died from multiorgan failure.

“I must emphasize that even this very sick patient tolerated the device very, very well,” Dr. Agarwal said.

In the standard-of-care arm, two patients died from progressive liver failure on days 17 and 27, respectively, and one died on day 17 from bacterial infections, bleeding, and progressive liver failure.

There were eight instances of filters clotting out of 64 filters used in total, and four episodes of device deficiency, including two instances where tubing could not be disconnected from an Oxiris filter during setup of the DIALIVE circuit, requiring use of new DIALIVE kits; one use of an incorrect dialysis fluid; and one incorrect setup of the DIALIVE circuit.
 

Significant improvements in many scores

In the DIALIVE group, there were significant improvements over baseline at day 10 in both liver scores (P < .05) and brain scores (P < .001). In contrast, in the standard-of-care group there were no improvements in individual organ scores, and respiration scores were significantly worse (P < .01).

DIALIVE was also associated with significant improvements in CLIF-C organ failure scores, compared with standard of care at day 5 and day 10 (P = .021 and .001, respectively); CLIF-C–ACLF scores at days 5 and 10 (P = .045 and .023); and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at day 5 (P = .028).

In the DIALIVE group, ­40% of patients had ACLF resolution by day 5, and 66.7% had resolution by day 10. In the standard-of-care arm, 15% had resolution on day 5, and 33.3% had resolution on day 10. DIALIVE was also associated with a significantly faster median time to resolution, compared with standard of care (10 days vs. not reached; P = .0307). At 28 days, 10 of 15 evaluable patients were alive and had resolution of ACLF with DIALIVE versus 5 of 15 with standard of care (P = .0281).

Dr. Agarwal said that the data justify the implementation of late-phase clinical trials of the liver dialysis device.
 

‘Hopeful’ findings

“It’s very early, but we’re really desperate in finding something to bridge to transplantation,” commented Tobias Boettler, MD, from the University of Freiburg (Germany), who was not involved in the study.

“I think this is very hopeful,” said Dr. Boettler, who moderated the briefing where Dr. Agarwal summarized the study findings.

In the question and answer following the talk in a general session, moderator Philip N. Newsome, MD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England) asked whether patients who were not treated should have been included in the analysis.

Dr. Agarwal replied that “the whole idea behind this study was to understand what this device does to these patients, and how these patients react to this device, so really not looking at the efficacy.”

The study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 initiative. Dr. Agarwal received a study grant from the initiative, but had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Boettler and Dr. Newsome had no disclosures relevant to the study.

An investigational liver dialysis device (DIALIVE) was associated with significantly greater survival of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), compared with the standard of care in a multicenter randomized study.

Among 30 evaluable patients with ACLF from alcoholic cirrhosis randomized to treatment with the DIALIVE system or standard of care, two-thirds of patients assigned to DIALIVE had both survived and experienced resolution of ACLF by 28 days, compared with one-third of patients assigned to standard of care, reported Banwari Agarwal, MBBS, MD from the Royal Free Hospital in London at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
 

Different from MARS

The DIALIVE system differs from the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) liver dialysis system in that DIALIVE removes and replaces albumin, including proinflammatory albumin, rather than filtering and recirculating it, he explained.

“It addresses systemic inflammation, which wasn’t quite the case with MARS,” he said in the question-and-answer portion of his presentation in a general session.

In patients with ACLF, the risk of 28-day mortality increases substantially as the grade of ACLF increases.

“ACLF, however, is potentially reversible, and the initial grade at presentation undergoes changes over time during the natural course of the illness, with some patients deteriorating, some improving, and some even achieving complete ACLF resolution. The final grade is reached by days 3-7, and it is this final grade which determines their future outcome trajectory. I therefore propose that ACLF resolution in itself is an important therapeutic target,” he said.
 

Study details

Dr. Agarwal and coinvestigators from eight centers in six European countries enrolled patients with a history indicative of alcohol-related cirrhosis, at least one acute decompensation event, and progression to ACLF grades 1, 2, or 3a.

Patients with an international normalized ratio above 3 were excluded, as were those with more than three organ failures, uncontrolled infections, patients with primary respiratory organ failure, and those with hemodynamic instability refractory to volume resuscitation and low-dose vasopressors.

A total of 32 patients, of whom 30 were evaluable, were randomized to receive liver dialysis in three to five DIALIVE sessions lasting 8-12 hours each (15 evaluable patients) or to standard of care at participating institutions (15 patients).

The investigators looked at safety of the device (the primary endpoint) in all patients who received at least one DIALIVE treatment (safety population), and a modified safety population of patients who received at least three DIALIVE treatments.

The median patient age in each arm was 49 years, and all patients had alcoholic cirrhosis, with alcoholic hepatitis accounting for at least one decompensation event. In addition, about 25% of patients in each arm had decompensation with infections and/or sepsis as precipitating factors.
 

Safety

Serious adverse events on days 1-10 occurred in 11 of 17 patients in the DIALIVE arm, and in 8 in the standard-of-care arm. In the DIALIVE arm, there were seven treatment-related serious device events, three unexpected serious device events (anemia, septic shock, and hypotension), and one patient discontinued dialysis after having unsafe levels of thrombocytopenia.

Four patients in the DIALIVE arm died on study. The first two died on day 1 one from hypotension, coagulopathy, and multiorgan failure, and this prompted a change in the protocol mandating that DIALIVE be conducted only in an ICU setting with more invasive monitoring and more frequent lab analysis of clotting and other biochemical parameters. Of the two other patients in the DIALIVE arm who on died on study, one died from non-MI cardiac arrest on day 8, and one patient with ACLF grade 3 and a European Foundation for the study of chronic liver failure (CLIF)–ACLF score of 68 died from multiorgan failure.

“I must emphasize that even this very sick patient tolerated the device very, very well,” Dr. Agarwal said.

In the standard-of-care arm, two patients died from progressive liver failure on days 17 and 27, respectively, and one died on day 17 from bacterial infections, bleeding, and progressive liver failure.

There were eight instances of filters clotting out of 64 filters used in total, and four episodes of device deficiency, including two instances where tubing could not be disconnected from an Oxiris filter during setup of the DIALIVE circuit, requiring use of new DIALIVE kits; one use of an incorrect dialysis fluid; and one incorrect setup of the DIALIVE circuit.
 

Significant improvements in many scores

In the DIALIVE group, there were significant improvements over baseline at day 10 in both liver scores (P < .05) and brain scores (P < .001). In contrast, in the standard-of-care group there were no improvements in individual organ scores, and respiration scores were significantly worse (P < .01).

DIALIVE was also associated with significant improvements in CLIF-C organ failure scores, compared with standard of care at day 5 and day 10 (P = .021 and .001, respectively); CLIF-C–ACLF scores at days 5 and 10 (P = .045 and .023); and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at day 5 (P = .028).

In the DIALIVE group, ­40% of patients had ACLF resolution by day 5, and 66.7% had resolution by day 10. In the standard-of-care arm, 15% had resolution on day 5, and 33.3% had resolution on day 10. DIALIVE was also associated with a significantly faster median time to resolution, compared with standard of care (10 days vs. not reached; P = .0307). At 28 days, 10 of 15 evaluable patients were alive and had resolution of ACLF with DIALIVE versus 5 of 15 with standard of care (P = .0281).

Dr. Agarwal said that the data justify the implementation of late-phase clinical trials of the liver dialysis device.
 

‘Hopeful’ findings

“It’s very early, but we’re really desperate in finding something to bridge to transplantation,” commented Tobias Boettler, MD, from the University of Freiburg (Germany), who was not involved in the study.

“I think this is very hopeful,” said Dr. Boettler, who moderated the briefing where Dr. Agarwal summarized the study findings.

In the question and answer following the talk in a general session, moderator Philip N. Newsome, MD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England) asked whether patients who were not treated should have been included in the analysis.

Dr. Agarwal replied that “the whole idea behind this study was to understand what this device does to these patients, and how these patients react to this device, so really not looking at the efficacy.”

The study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 initiative. Dr. Agarwal received a study grant from the initiative, but had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Boettler and Dr. Newsome had no disclosures relevant to the study.

Autoimmune hepatitis that recurs following a liver transplant can impair both graft survival and overall survival, results of a large international study showed.

Among 736 patients with autoimmune hepatitis who underwent liver transplant and were followed for up to 20 years, those who had recurrent AIH had a more than 10-fold higher risk for graft failure and a more than twofold higher risk of death, compared with patients who did not have recurrences, reported Aldo J. Montano-Loza, MD, MSc, PhD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

“Recurrent disease impacts graft and overall survival, highlighting the need for improved management strategies,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

AIH is characterized by the presence of high IgG levels, autoantibodies, and histologic evidence of interface hepatitis. Most patients with AIH respond to immunosuppressive therapy, but some have progression to end-stage liver disease; for these patients, a liver transplant can be lifesaving, with 1-year survival of approximately 90%, and 5-year survival of about 70%, he said.

AIH frequently recurs after transplant, and although previous studies have suggested that recurrent disease does not adversely affect either graft survival or long-term survival, those studies had limited patient numbers and inadequate follow-up, Dr. Montano-Loza said.

He cited two recent studies, one from UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, and the other from ELTR, the European Liver Transplant Registry, that showed that overall survival after liver transplant was worse for patients with AIH, compared with those who underwent transplant for other autoimmune liver diseases.
 

Multicenter retrospective study

To get a better picture of long-term posttransplant outcomes in patients with AIH, investigators in 33 centers in North and South America, Europe, and Asia conducted a retrospective cohort study. Their goal was to establish the frequency of recurrent AIH, identify clinical factors and biomarkers for higher risk of recurrence, and evaluate the association between recurrent AIH and both patient and graft survival.

They accomplished this by performing chart reviews, including data on demographics, IgG levels before transplant, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores.

They also collected data on serum liver function tests within the first year after transplant, posttransplant infections, rejection episodes, and immunosuppressive regimens, as well as variables such as donor age and sex, sex mismatch between donor and recipients, calendar year of transplant, and transplant volume for AIH at each center.

Of the 736 patients, 563 (76%) were female. The mean age at AIH diagnosis was 34 years, and the mean age at transplant was 42 years. About one-fifth of patients (21%) had concomitant autoimmune diseases.

Posttransplant immunosuppression regimens included the usual suspects: tacrolimus in 78% of patients, cyclosporine in 11%, prednisone in 76%, mycophenolate mofetil in 55%, and azathioprine in 10%.

In all, 147 of the 736 patients had a diagnosis of recurrent AIH. The investigators found that the cumulative probability of recurrent AIH was 49% after 20 years of follow-up.
 

Risk factors identified

In multivariate analysis controlling for age, concomitant disease, immunosuppressive regimens, organ-sex mismatch, acute rejection, liver function tests, bilirubin, and IgG, factors significantly associated with AIH recurrence included age 42 or younger at the time of transplant (hazard ratio, 3.15; P = .02), use of mycophenolate mofetil after transplant (HR, 3.06; P = .005), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.57; P = .003), and high IgG levels pretransplant (HR, 1.04; P = .004).

Among 529 patients who had a liver biopsy after transplant, factors that remained as significant predictors of AIH recurrence were posttransplant mycophenolate mofetil (HR, 2.75; P = .003), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.03; P = .02), and pretransplant IgG levels (HR, 1.04 per each g/L; P = .001).

An analysis of features associated with graft survival showed that recurrent AIH was associated with significantly increased risk for graft failure (HR, 10.79; P < .001). Patients with high bilirubin levels 1 year after transplantation were also at higher risk for failure (HR, 1.004 per micromol/L; P < .001).

Factors significantly associated with survival were recurrence of AIH (HR for death, 2.53; P = .001), elevated ALT at 12 months after transplant (HR, 1.002; P = .004), and elevated bilirubin at 12 months (HR, 1.003 per micromol/L; P < .001).

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective design and by the fact that the diagnosis of recurrent AIH may have differed between centers that performed liver biopsy according to protocol and those that performed them only when clinically indicated, which may have resulted in differences in time to diagnosis.
 

Possible explanations for risk factors

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, comoderator moderator Philip N. Newsome, PhD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England), asked: “In terms of age, is that a reflection of worse disease, or is it adherence, or is it a combination, and should we be managing those patients more aggressively with immunosuppression?”

“We consider age is more a reflection of an aggressive disease,” Dr. Montano-Loza said. “Basically, in the univariate analysis we found that patients with a diagnosis at a younger age and even a transplant at a younger age were definitely associated with a higher risk of recurrence, so we think this is more related to an aggressive [disease] behavior in younger patient that translates into worse clinical outcomes.”

He added that patients younger than 40 who require transplants should be closely monitored for recurrence.

“Actually, we could make the argument that maybe these patients will benefit from protocol biopsies,” he said.

He noted that 15% of patients had significant fibrosis at the time of recurrent AIH diagnosis, and that the recurrences were not detected by laboratory monitoring alone.

Asked by an audience member why mycophenolate mofetil was associated with increased risk for recurrence, Dr. Montano-Loza replied that the retrospective nature of the data precludes the possibility of a definitive answer, but he noted that, for patients with other autoimmune liver diseases, the type of immunosuppression used has an impact on recurrence rates.

“For example, cyclosporine has a protective effect for patients transplanted for primary biliary cholangitis,” he said.

He said it may also be possible that there is a rebound effect leading to recurrence when patients are taken off mycophenolate or switched to another agent.

The study was supported by grants to individual researchers. Dr. Montano-Loza and Dr. Newsome reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Autoimmune hepatitis that recurs following a liver transplant can impair both graft survival and overall survival, results of a large international study showed.

Among 736 patients with autoimmune hepatitis who underwent liver transplant and were followed for up to 20 years, those who had recurrent AIH had a more than 10-fold higher risk for graft failure and a more than twofold higher risk of death, compared with patients who did not have recurrences, reported Aldo J. Montano-Loza, MD, MSc, PhD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

“Recurrent disease impacts graft and overall survival, highlighting the need for improved management strategies,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

AIH is characterized by the presence of high IgG levels, autoantibodies, and histologic evidence of interface hepatitis. Most patients with AIH respond to immunosuppressive therapy, but some have progression to end-stage liver disease; for these patients, a liver transplant can be lifesaving, with 1-year survival of approximately 90%, and 5-year survival of about 70%, he said.

AIH frequently recurs after transplant, and although previous studies have suggested that recurrent disease does not adversely affect either graft survival or long-term survival, those studies had limited patient numbers and inadequate follow-up, Dr. Montano-Loza said.

He cited two recent studies, one from UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, and the other from ELTR, the European Liver Transplant Registry, that showed that overall survival after liver transplant was worse for patients with AIH, compared with those who underwent transplant for other autoimmune liver diseases.
 

Multicenter retrospective study

To get a better picture of long-term posttransplant outcomes in patients with AIH, investigators in 33 centers in North and South America, Europe, and Asia conducted a retrospective cohort study. Their goal was to establish the frequency of recurrent AIH, identify clinical factors and biomarkers for higher risk of recurrence, and evaluate the association between recurrent AIH and both patient and graft survival.

They accomplished this by performing chart reviews, including data on demographics, IgG levels before transplant, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores.

They also collected data on serum liver function tests within the first year after transplant, posttransplant infections, rejection episodes, and immunosuppressive regimens, as well as variables such as donor age and sex, sex mismatch between donor and recipients, calendar year of transplant, and transplant volume for AIH at each center.

Of the 736 patients, 563 (76%) were female. The mean age at AIH diagnosis was 34 years, and the mean age at transplant was 42 years. About one-fifth of patients (21%) had concomitant autoimmune diseases.

Posttransplant immunosuppression regimens included the usual suspects: tacrolimus in 78% of patients, cyclosporine in 11%, prednisone in 76%, mycophenolate mofetil in 55%, and azathioprine in 10%.

In all, 147 of the 736 patients had a diagnosis of recurrent AIH. The investigators found that the cumulative probability of recurrent AIH was 49% after 20 years of follow-up.
 

Risk factors identified

In multivariate analysis controlling for age, concomitant disease, immunosuppressive regimens, organ-sex mismatch, acute rejection, liver function tests, bilirubin, and IgG, factors significantly associated with AIH recurrence included age 42 or younger at the time of transplant (hazard ratio, 3.15; P = .02), use of mycophenolate mofetil after transplant (HR, 3.06; P = .005), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.57; P = .003), and high IgG levels pretransplant (HR, 1.04; P = .004).

Among 529 patients who had a liver biopsy after transplant, factors that remained as significant predictors of AIH recurrence were posttransplant mycophenolate mofetil (HR, 2.75; P = .003), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.03; P = .02), and pretransplant IgG levels (HR, 1.04 per each g/L; P = .001).

An analysis of features associated with graft survival showed that recurrent AIH was associated with significantly increased risk for graft failure (HR, 10.79; P < .001). Patients with high bilirubin levels 1 year after transplantation were also at higher risk for failure (HR, 1.004 per micromol/L; P < .001).

Factors significantly associated with survival were recurrence of AIH (HR for death, 2.53; P = .001), elevated ALT at 12 months after transplant (HR, 1.002; P = .004), and elevated bilirubin at 12 months (HR, 1.003 per micromol/L; P < .001).

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective design and by the fact that the diagnosis of recurrent AIH may have differed between centers that performed liver biopsy according to protocol and those that performed them only when clinically indicated, which may have resulted in differences in time to diagnosis.
 

Possible explanations for risk factors

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, comoderator moderator Philip N. Newsome, PhD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England), asked: “In terms of age, is that a reflection of worse disease, or is it adherence, or is it a combination, and should we be managing those patients more aggressively with immunosuppression?”

“We consider age is more a reflection of an aggressive disease,” Dr. Montano-Loza said. “Basically, in the univariate analysis we found that patients with a diagnosis at a younger age and even a transplant at a younger age were definitely associated with a higher risk of recurrence, so we think this is more related to an aggressive [disease] behavior in younger patient that translates into worse clinical outcomes.”

He added that patients younger than 40 who require transplants should be closely monitored for recurrence.

“Actually, we could make the argument that maybe these patients will benefit from protocol biopsies,” he said.

He noted that 15% of patients had significant fibrosis at the time of recurrent AIH diagnosis, and that the recurrences were not detected by laboratory monitoring alone.

Asked by an audience member why mycophenolate mofetil was associated with increased risk for recurrence, Dr. Montano-Loza replied that the retrospective nature of the data precludes the possibility of a definitive answer, but he noted that, for patients with other autoimmune liver diseases, the type of immunosuppression used has an impact on recurrence rates.

“For example, cyclosporine has a protective effect for patients transplanted for primary biliary cholangitis,” he said.

He said it may also be possible that there is a rebound effect leading to recurrence when patients are taken off mycophenolate or switched to another agent.

The study was supported by grants to individual researchers. Dr. Montano-Loza and Dr. Newsome reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Autoimmune hepatitis that recurs following a liver transplant can impair both graft survival and overall survival, results of a large international study showed.

Among 736 patients with autoimmune hepatitis who underwent liver transplant and were followed for up to 20 years, those who had recurrent AIH had a more than 10-fold higher risk for graft failure and a more than twofold higher risk of death, compared with patients who did not have recurrences, reported Aldo J. Montano-Loza, MD, MSc, PhD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

“Recurrent disease impacts graft and overall survival, highlighting the need for improved management strategies,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

AIH is characterized by the presence of high IgG levels, autoantibodies, and histologic evidence of interface hepatitis. Most patients with AIH respond to immunosuppressive therapy, but some have progression to end-stage liver disease; for these patients, a liver transplant can be lifesaving, with 1-year survival of approximately 90%, and 5-year survival of about 70%, he said.

AIH frequently recurs after transplant, and although previous studies have suggested that recurrent disease does not adversely affect either graft survival or long-term survival, those studies had limited patient numbers and inadequate follow-up, Dr. Montano-Loza said.

He cited two recent studies, one from UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, and the other from ELTR, the European Liver Transplant Registry, that showed that overall survival after liver transplant was worse for patients with AIH, compared with those who underwent transplant for other autoimmune liver diseases.
 

Multicenter retrospective study

To get a better picture of long-term posttransplant outcomes in patients with AIH, investigators in 33 centers in North and South America, Europe, and Asia conducted a retrospective cohort study. Their goal was to establish the frequency of recurrent AIH, identify clinical factors and biomarkers for higher risk of recurrence, and evaluate the association between recurrent AIH and both patient and graft survival.

They accomplished this by performing chart reviews, including data on demographics, IgG levels before transplant, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores.

They also collected data on serum liver function tests within the first year after transplant, posttransplant infections, rejection episodes, and immunosuppressive regimens, as well as variables such as donor age and sex, sex mismatch between donor and recipients, calendar year of transplant, and transplant volume for AIH at each center.

Of the 736 patients, 563 (76%) were female. The mean age at AIH diagnosis was 34 years, and the mean age at transplant was 42 years. About one-fifth of patients (21%) had concomitant autoimmune diseases.

Posttransplant immunosuppression regimens included the usual suspects: tacrolimus in 78% of patients, cyclosporine in 11%, prednisone in 76%, mycophenolate mofetil in 55%, and azathioprine in 10%.

In all, 147 of the 736 patients had a diagnosis of recurrent AIH. The investigators found that the cumulative probability of recurrent AIH was 49% after 20 years of follow-up.
 

Risk factors identified

In multivariate analysis controlling for age, concomitant disease, immunosuppressive regimens, organ-sex mismatch, acute rejection, liver function tests, bilirubin, and IgG, factors significantly associated with AIH recurrence included age 42 or younger at the time of transplant (hazard ratio, 3.15; P = .02), use of mycophenolate mofetil after transplant (HR, 3.06; P = .005), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.57; P = .003), and high IgG levels pretransplant (HR, 1.04; P = .004).

Among 529 patients who had a liver biopsy after transplant, factors that remained as significant predictors of AIH recurrence were posttransplant mycophenolate mofetil (HR, 2.75; P = .003), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.03; P = .02), and pretransplant IgG levels (HR, 1.04 per each g/L; P = .001).

An analysis of features associated with graft survival showed that recurrent AIH was associated with significantly increased risk for graft failure (HR, 10.79; P < .001). Patients with high bilirubin levels 1 year after transplantation were also at higher risk for failure (HR, 1.004 per micromol/L; P < .001).

Factors significantly associated with survival were recurrence of AIH (HR for death, 2.53; P = .001), elevated ALT at 12 months after transplant (HR, 1.002; P = .004), and elevated bilirubin at 12 months (HR, 1.003 per micromol/L; P < .001).

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective design and by the fact that the diagnosis of recurrent AIH may have differed between centers that performed liver biopsy according to protocol and those that performed them only when clinically indicated, which may have resulted in differences in time to diagnosis.
 

Possible explanations for risk factors

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, comoderator moderator Philip N. Newsome, PhD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England), asked: “In terms of age, is that a reflection of worse disease, or is it adherence, or is it a combination, and should we be managing those patients more aggressively with immunosuppression?”

“We consider age is more a reflection of an aggressive disease,” Dr. Montano-Loza said. “Basically, in the univariate analysis we found that patients with a diagnosis at a younger age and even a transplant at a younger age were definitely associated with a higher risk of recurrence, so we think this is more related to an aggressive [disease] behavior in younger patient that translates into worse clinical outcomes.”

He added that patients younger than 40 who require transplants should be closely monitored for recurrence.

“Actually, we could make the argument that maybe these patients will benefit from protocol biopsies,” he said.

He noted that 15% of patients had significant fibrosis at the time of recurrent AIH diagnosis, and that the recurrences were not detected by laboratory monitoring alone.

Asked by an audience member why mycophenolate mofetil was associated with increased risk for recurrence, Dr. Montano-Loza replied that the retrospective nature of the data precludes the possibility of a definitive answer, but he noted that, for patients with other autoimmune liver diseases, the type of immunosuppression used has an impact on recurrence rates.

“For example, cyclosporine has a protective effect for patients transplanted for primary biliary cholangitis,” he said.

He said it may also be possible that there is a rebound effect leading to recurrence when patients are taken off mycophenolate or switched to another agent.

The study was supported by grants to individual researchers. Dr. Montano-Loza and Dr. Newsome reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Intermittent calorie restriction offers only modest advantages over a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet for treating nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), researchers say.

The intermittent diet offers more benefit for liver stiffness and LDL cholesterol, and might be easier to maintain, said Magnus Holmer, MD, head of the hepatology unit at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

But the intermittent diet also has drawbacks and the differences between the two were slight, he said in an interview.

“They were more or less identically effective in reducing liver steatosis in NAFLD and also reducing body weight,” he said. “And from this, we can say that the composition of macronutrients such as fat or sugar seems to be less important than how many calories you eat.”

Dr. Holmer and colleagues presented their findings at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver and published them in JHEP Reports

While previous studies have shown that dieting can effectively treat NAFLD, researchers have debated whether popular LCHF diets might cause more harm than good.

At the same time, intermittent-calorie restriction diets have also been gaining in popularity, particularly the 5:2 diet in which participants eat normally for 5 days a week and restrict their calories the other 2 days.
 

How do the two diets compare?

To see if one was more effective than the other, the researchers recruited 74 people with NAFLD. They diagnosed the patients either by radiologic assessment or a combination of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) greater than 280 dB/m and obesity, or a CAP greater than 280 dB/m, elevated ALT, and overweight. Sixteen of the patients were being treated with statins.

The researchers randomly assigned 25 people to an LCHF diet, 25 to a 5:2 diet, and 24 to standard care. The groups were similar in diet, age, body mass index, liver stiffness, and most other criteria at baseline, although there were more women in the standard-care group.

At the start of the study, the participants in the standard-care group consulted with a hepatologist who advised them to avoid sweets and saturated fats, eat three meals a day, and avoid large portions.

The researchers asked women in the 5:2 diet to eat up to 500 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,000 kcal/day each of the other 5 days. They asked men in the group to eat up to 600 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,400 kcal/day the other 5 days.

They provided all the 5:2 participants with recipes that followed the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, an adaptation of the Mediterranean diet that emphasizes foods traditional in Nordic countries, particularly grains such as whole-grain rye, oats, and barley; fruits such as apples, pears, berries, and plums; root vegetables, cabbages, onions, peas, beans, fish, boiled potatoes, and dairy products; and the use of rapeseed (canola) oil. The calories provided in the recipes were composed of 45%-60% carbohydrates, 25% fat, and 10%-20% protein.

The researchers asked women in the LCHF diet to eat an average of 1,600 kcal/day and men to eat an average of 1,900 kcal/day. All the participants used recipes based on meat, fish, eggs, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and dairy fat. Participants avoided sugar, bread, pasta, rice, pies, potatoes, and fruit. The calories in the recipes were composed of 5%-10% carbohydrates, 50%-80% fat, and 15%-40% protein.

All the participants reported what they ate over the previous 3 days, both at the start of the study and after 12 weeks. Participants in the 5:2 and LCHF groups also received follow-up calls to report their past 24 hours of eating at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and also at week 6, when they visited a dietitian.

In addition, the researchers measured the participants’ linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid intake to verify that the participants’ diets were different among the groups.

After 12 weeks, all three groups lost a significant amount of liver fat, but the LCHF and 5:2 groups lost more than the standard care group. Liver stiffness decreased significantly in the 5:2 and standard care groups, but not in the LCHF group.

The differences in steatosis change between the standard care and LCHF groups was statistically significant (P = .001), as it was between the standard care and 5:2 groups (P = .029). The differences between the LCHF and 5:2 groups were not statistically significant for weight or steatosis, but they were statistically significant for liver stiffness.

In addition, the 5:2 group significantly reduced total and LDL cholesterol, while the standard care group did not. In the LCHF group, levels of LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol all increased.

The long-term implications of the cholesterol findings are unclear, Dr. Holmer said. He hopes to follow up on these patients after 18-24 months. But the initial cholesterol findings are perhaps enough to constitute a red flag for anyone with a history of cardiovascular disease.
 

Diet adherence

Only one person dropped out of the 5:2 group, compared with five in the LCHF group and four in the standard-care group. More people in the LCHF group reported adverse events, such as gastrointestinal upset.

“With LCHF, it’s a drastic change for most people,” Dr. Holmer said. “Many patients are a bit shocked when they realize how much fat they are supposed to eat for breakfast, for lunch, and for dinner. They might eat bacon and eggs for breakfast every day.” The diet could be challenging for people who want to reduce their consumption of meat for environmental reasons.

The 5:2 group offers the advantage that people can choose what they want to eat as long as they adhere to the calorie restrictions, he pointed out. Still, he cautioned that the diet would not work well for people with insulin-dependent diabetes because of the difficulty of adjusting insulin levels on fasting days. He also recommended against this diet for people with cirrhosis because they need to eat frequent meals.
 

LCHF and 5:2 diets can work

But for most people the good news is that a variety of diets will work to treat NAFLD, Dr. Holmer said.

“I begin with saying to my patients that this can be completely cured, as long as you’re able to lose weight,” he said. “Then the next question is, how are they going to go ahead with that task? And if they’re already interested in some sort of specific diet, then I can, based on these findings, encourage that.”

Stephen Harrison, MD, a visiting professor of hepatology at Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, England, said that longer-term results will be important. For example, it will be interesting to see if the diets had effects on ballooning or inflammation.

Another limitation of the study is that it is relatively small in size, he said. He pointed out that people with NAFLD should increase their physical activity as well as eating less.

Still, Dr. Harrison greeted the findings enthusiastically, saying: “This is an important study.”

It’s useful to compare two popular diets head to head, and it’s also encouraging to get confirmation that either one can work, he added.

The study was supported by grants from the Stockholm County Council, the Dietary Science Foundation (Kostfonden), the Skandia Research Foundation, and the Åke Wiberg Foundation. Dr. Holmer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Harrison is a consultant to Madrigal Pharmaceuticals.

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

Intermittent calorie restriction offers only modest advantages over a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet for treating nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), researchers say.

The intermittent diet offers more benefit for liver stiffness and LDL cholesterol, and might be easier to maintain, said Magnus Holmer, MD, head of the hepatology unit at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

But the intermittent diet also has drawbacks and the differences between the two were slight, he said in an interview.

“They were more or less identically effective in reducing liver steatosis in NAFLD and also reducing body weight,” he said. “And from this, we can say that the composition of macronutrients such as fat or sugar seems to be less important than how many calories you eat.”

Dr. Holmer and colleagues presented their findings at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver and published them in JHEP Reports

While previous studies have shown that dieting can effectively treat NAFLD, researchers have debated whether popular LCHF diets might cause more harm than good.

At the same time, intermittent-calorie restriction diets have also been gaining in popularity, particularly the 5:2 diet in which participants eat normally for 5 days a week and restrict their calories the other 2 days.
 

How do the two diets compare?

To see if one was more effective than the other, the researchers recruited 74 people with NAFLD. They diagnosed the patients either by radiologic assessment or a combination of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) greater than 280 dB/m and obesity, or a CAP greater than 280 dB/m, elevated ALT, and overweight. Sixteen of the patients were being treated with statins.

The researchers randomly assigned 25 people to an LCHF diet, 25 to a 5:2 diet, and 24 to standard care. The groups were similar in diet, age, body mass index, liver stiffness, and most other criteria at baseline, although there were more women in the standard-care group.

At the start of the study, the participants in the standard-care group consulted with a hepatologist who advised them to avoid sweets and saturated fats, eat three meals a day, and avoid large portions.

The researchers asked women in the 5:2 diet to eat up to 500 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,000 kcal/day each of the other 5 days. They asked men in the group to eat up to 600 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,400 kcal/day the other 5 days.

They provided all the 5:2 participants with recipes that followed the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, an adaptation of the Mediterranean diet that emphasizes foods traditional in Nordic countries, particularly grains such as whole-grain rye, oats, and barley; fruits such as apples, pears, berries, and plums; root vegetables, cabbages, onions, peas, beans, fish, boiled potatoes, and dairy products; and the use of rapeseed (canola) oil. The calories provided in the recipes were composed of 45%-60% carbohydrates, 25% fat, and 10%-20% protein.

The researchers asked women in the LCHF diet to eat an average of 1,600 kcal/day and men to eat an average of 1,900 kcal/day. All the participants used recipes based on meat, fish, eggs, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and dairy fat. Participants avoided sugar, bread, pasta, rice, pies, potatoes, and fruit. The calories in the recipes were composed of 5%-10% carbohydrates, 50%-80% fat, and 15%-40% protein.

All the participants reported what they ate over the previous 3 days, both at the start of the study and after 12 weeks. Participants in the 5:2 and LCHF groups also received follow-up calls to report their past 24 hours of eating at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and also at week 6, when they visited a dietitian.

In addition, the researchers measured the participants’ linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid intake to verify that the participants’ diets were different among the groups.

After 12 weeks, all three groups lost a significant amount of liver fat, but the LCHF and 5:2 groups lost more than the standard care group. Liver stiffness decreased significantly in the 5:2 and standard care groups, but not in the LCHF group.

The differences in steatosis change between the standard care and LCHF groups was statistically significant (P = .001), as it was between the standard care and 5:2 groups (P = .029). The differences between the LCHF and 5:2 groups were not statistically significant for weight or steatosis, but they were statistically significant for liver stiffness.

In addition, the 5:2 group significantly reduced total and LDL cholesterol, while the standard care group did not. In the LCHF group, levels of LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol all increased.

The long-term implications of the cholesterol findings are unclear, Dr. Holmer said. He hopes to follow up on these patients after 18-24 months. But the initial cholesterol findings are perhaps enough to constitute a red flag for anyone with a history of cardiovascular disease.
 

Diet adherence

Only one person dropped out of the 5:2 group, compared with five in the LCHF group and four in the standard-care group. More people in the LCHF group reported adverse events, such as gastrointestinal upset.

“With LCHF, it’s a drastic change for most people,” Dr. Holmer said. “Many patients are a bit shocked when they realize how much fat they are supposed to eat for breakfast, for lunch, and for dinner. They might eat bacon and eggs for breakfast every day.” The diet could be challenging for people who want to reduce their consumption of meat for environmental reasons.

The 5:2 group offers the advantage that people can choose what they want to eat as long as they adhere to the calorie restrictions, he pointed out. Still, he cautioned that the diet would not work well for people with insulin-dependent diabetes because of the difficulty of adjusting insulin levels on fasting days. He also recommended against this diet for people with cirrhosis because they need to eat frequent meals.
 

LCHF and 5:2 diets can work

But for most people the good news is that a variety of diets will work to treat NAFLD, Dr. Holmer said.

“I begin with saying to my patients that this can be completely cured, as long as you’re able to lose weight,” he said. “Then the next question is, how are they going to go ahead with that task? And if they’re already interested in some sort of specific diet, then I can, based on these findings, encourage that.”

Stephen Harrison, MD, a visiting professor of hepatology at Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, England, said that longer-term results will be important. For example, it will be interesting to see if the diets had effects on ballooning or inflammation.

Another limitation of the study is that it is relatively small in size, he said. He pointed out that people with NAFLD should increase their physical activity as well as eating less.

Still, Dr. Harrison greeted the findings enthusiastically, saying: “This is an important study.”

It’s useful to compare two popular diets head to head, and it’s also encouraging to get confirmation that either one can work, he added.

The study was supported by grants from the Stockholm County Council, the Dietary Science Foundation (Kostfonden), the Skandia Research Foundation, and the Åke Wiberg Foundation. Dr. Holmer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Harrison is a consultant to Madrigal Pharmaceuticals.

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

Intermittent calorie restriction offers only modest advantages over a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet for treating nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), researchers say.

The intermittent diet offers more benefit for liver stiffness and LDL cholesterol, and might be easier to maintain, said Magnus Holmer, MD, head of the hepatology unit at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

But the intermittent diet also has drawbacks and the differences between the two were slight, he said in an interview.

“They were more or less identically effective in reducing liver steatosis in NAFLD and also reducing body weight,” he said. “And from this, we can say that the composition of macronutrients such as fat or sugar seems to be less important than how many calories you eat.”

Dr. Holmer and colleagues presented their findings at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver and published them in JHEP Reports

While previous studies have shown that dieting can effectively treat NAFLD, researchers have debated whether popular LCHF diets might cause more harm than good.

At the same time, intermittent-calorie restriction diets have also been gaining in popularity, particularly the 5:2 diet in which participants eat normally for 5 days a week and restrict their calories the other 2 days.
 

How do the two diets compare?

To see if one was more effective than the other, the researchers recruited 74 people with NAFLD. They diagnosed the patients either by radiologic assessment or a combination of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) greater than 280 dB/m and obesity, or a CAP greater than 280 dB/m, elevated ALT, and overweight. Sixteen of the patients were being treated with statins.

The researchers randomly assigned 25 people to an LCHF diet, 25 to a 5:2 diet, and 24 to standard care. The groups were similar in diet, age, body mass index, liver stiffness, and most other criteria at baseline, although there were more women in the standard-care group.

At the start of the study, the participants in the standard-care group consulted with a hepatologist who advised them to avoid sweets and saturated fats, eat three meals a day, and avoid large portions.

The researchers asked women in the 5:2 diet to eat up to 500 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,000 kcal/day each of the other 5 days. They asked men in the group to eat up to 600 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,400 kcal/day the other 5 days.

They provided all the 5:2 participants with recipes that followed the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, an adaptation of the Mediterranean diet that emphasizes foods traditional in Nordic countries, particularly grains such as whole-grain rye, oats, and barley; fruits such as apples, pears, berries, and plums; root vegetables, cabbages, onions, peas, beans, fish, boiled potatoes, and dairy products; and the use of rapeseed (canola) oil. The calories provided in the recipes were composed of 45%-60% carbohydrates, 25% fat, and 10%-20% protein.

The researchers asked women in the LCHF diet to eat an average of 1,600 kcal/day and men to eat an average of 1,900 kcal/day. All the participants used recipes based on meat, fish, eggs, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and dairy fat. Participants avoided sugar, bread, pasta, rice, pies, potatoes, and fruit. The calories in the recipes were composed of 5%-10% carbohydrates, 50%-80% fat, and 15%-40% protein.

All the participants reported what they ate over the previous 3 days, both at the start of the study and after 12 weeks. Participants in the 5:2 and LCHF groups also received follow-up calls to report their past 24 hours of eating at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and also at week 6, when they visited a dietitian.

In addition, the researchers measured the participants’ linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid intake to verify that the participants’ diets were different among the groups.

After 12 weeks, all three groups lost a significant amount of liver fat, but the LCHF and 5:2 groups lost more than the standard care group. Liver stiffness decreased significantly in the 5:2 and standard care groups, but not in the LCHF group.

The differences in steatosis change between the standard care and LCHF groups was statistically significant (P = .001), as it was between the standard care and 5:2 groups (P = .029). The differences between the LCHF and 5:2 groups were not statistically significant for weight or steatosis, but they were statistically significant for liver stiffness.

In addition, the 5:2 group significantly reduced total and LDL cholesterol, while the standard care group did not. In the LCHF group, levels of LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol all increased.

The long-term implications of the cholesterol findings are unclear, Dr. Holmer said. He hopes to follow up on these patients after 18-24 months. But the initial cholesterol findings are perhaps enough to constitute a red flag for anyone with a history of cardiovascular disease.
 

Diet adherence

Only one person dropped out of the 5:2 group, compared with five in the LCHF group and four in the standard-care group. More people in the LCHF group reported adverse events, such as gastrointestinal upset.

“With LCHF, it’s a drastic change for most people,” Dr. Holmer said. “Many patients are a bit shocked when they realize how much fat they are supposed to eat for breakfast, for lunch, and for dinner. They might eat bacon and eggs for breakfast every day.” The diet could be challenging for people who want to reduce their consumption of meat for environmental reasons.

The 5:2 group offers the advantage that people can choose what they want to eat as long as they adhere to the calorie restrictions, he pointed out. Still, he cautioned that the diet would not work well for people with insulin-dependent diabetes because of the difficulty of adjusting insulin levels on fasting days. He also recommended against this diet for people with cirrhosis because they need to eat frequent meals.
 

LCHF and 5:2 diets can work

But for most people the good news is that a variety of diets will work to treat NAFLD, Dr. Holmer said.

“I begin with saying to my patients that this can be completely cured, as long as you’re able to lose weight,” he said. “Then the next question is, how are they going to go ahead with that task? And if they’re already interested in some sort of specific diet, then I can, based on these findings, encourage that.”

Stephen Harrison, MD, a visiting professor of hepatology at Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, England, said that longer-term results will be important. For example, it will be interesting to see if the diets had effects on ballooning or inflammation.

Another limitation of the study is that it is relatively small in size, he said. He pointed out that people with NAFLD should increase their physical activity as well as eating less.

Still, Dr. Harrison greeted the findings enthusiastically, saying: “This is an important study.”

It’s useful to compare two popular diets head to head, and it’s also encouraging to get confirmation that either one can work, he added.

The study was supported by grants from the Stockholm County Council, the Dietary Science Foundation (Kostfonden), the Skandia Research Foundation, and the Åke Wiberg Foundation. Dr. Holmer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Harrison is a consultant to Madrigal Pharmaceuticals.

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

Patients who have received liver transplants or have advanced liver fibrosis may not get adequate protection against COVID-19 from two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, researchers say.

Physicians should test these patients and consider administering a third vaccine dose for those with low levels of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, said Rifaat Safadi, MD, director of the Liver Unit in the Institute of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases at Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

“If they are not responding, if the serology is going down to zero over the next year, you should revaccinate them or boost them,” Dr. Safadi said in an interview.

The suggestion contradicts the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of vaccination against the virus and has not approved a three-dose regimen or booster of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

But Dr. Safadi said he is more convinced by the data, which he presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver, than by the FDA’s recommendation.

“I’m not sure how scientific this recommendation is,” he said.

Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have proven highly effective in clinical trials and real-world studies. But some vaccinated people have sickened and even died from breakthrough infections, despite receiving Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines, which have produced the most impressive results.

Few researchers have explored whether patients with weakened immune systems achieve the same level of protection as the general population. Fibrosis impairs the immune function of the liver, and people with transplants take immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection of the transplant.
 

New data on vaccine efficacy in the immunocompromised

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Safadi and his colleagues measured antibodies (immunoglobulins) to the spike protein in the virus (S IgG) in vaccinated people who had liver transplants and in other vaccinated people whose liver fibrosis they had assessed with blood tests and biopsies.

About 32 of 90 people who received liver transplants at Hadassah University Medical Center and had received the Pfizer vaccine had an anti–S IgG less than 19 AU/mL, the researchers’ cutoff for a “good” antibody response to the vaccine.

Five other vaccinated people with liver transplants were diagnosed with COVID-19 after receiving the vaccine, one after the first dose and four after the second dose. Altogether, this added up to a 41.1% failure rate of the vaccine, Dr. Safadi said.

To determine the effectiveness of the vaccine in a larger population, Dr. Safadi and colleagues measured the S IgG levels in 719 employees of Hadassah University Medical Center who had received their second doses of the vaccine at least 7 days before (72% had received it 14 days before).

Of these, 708 (98.5%) had titers greater than 19 AU/mL.

Another eight (1.1%) had titers less than 12 AU/mL, which the researchers defined as a negative response. All eight had suppressed immune systems: two had kidney transplants, one had rheumatoid arthritis, two had lymphoma, two had metabolic syndrome, and one had both multiple sclerosis and metabolic syndrome.

The remaining three (0.4%) had S IgG titers from 12 to 19 AU/mL. Of this group, one person each had hemodialysis and cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cryoglobulinemia, and metabolic syndrome.

Of those patients with S IgG titers greater than 19 AU/mL, Fibrosis-4 (Fib-4) scores were available for 501 (the Fib-4 score is a measure of liver fibrosis based on levels of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase, platelet counts, and age). Those with higher Fib-4 scores had lower mean S IgG levels. Of those with Fib-4 scores less than 1.3, 68.0% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL, and of those with Fib-4 scores greater than 2, 44.2% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL. The difference was statistically significant (P = .002).

The researchers found a similar correlation when they measured liver health by biopsy for 140 vaccinated people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). They found that lower NAFLD activity scores corresponded to higher S IgG titers. Using FibroScan, they also found a trend toward lower S IgG titers with higher fibrosis kilopascals.

In addition, Dr. Safadi and colleagues noted that older age and male sex correlated with lower S IgG titers.
 

Differing opinions on value of antibody titers, third doses

The virus is likely to remain a threat for a year or more to come, and antibody tests may give some indication of who is likely to have the longest-lasting protection, Dr. Safadi said.

“I believe that stronger responders will maintain longer, while the weaker responders will maintain shorter and maybe will need a third shot at some time,” he added.

Pauline Vetter, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Geneva University Hospitals, questioned whether antibody titers can be used to estimate an individual’s level of resistance to the virus. There is some evidence that higher titers correlate with better protection, but it’s not clear to what degree, she said.

“There’s no definitive cutoff,” Dr. Vetter said in an interview. “I can’t say if you have more than a titer of 5, then you’re protected or you’re more protected – or if you have less, then you’re not protected.”

Testing to see whether a person has any S IgG antibodies at all following a vaccination might be worthwhile, she said. She noted that people who know that they did not have an antibody response may be more careful.

Dr. Vetter concluded that not enough is yet known to recommend a third dose or booster for people whose immunity is suppressed.

“There might be a benefit in these populations. But the question is, when and in which situations?” she said.

Dr. Vetter and Dr. Safadi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Patients who have received liver transplants or have advanced liver fibrosis may not get adequate protection against COVID-19 from two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, researchers say.

Physicians should test these patients and consider administering a third vaccine dose for those with low levels of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, said Rifaat Safadi, MD, director of the Liver Unit in the Institute of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases at Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

“If they are not responding, if the serology is going down to zero over the next year, you should revaccinate them or boost them,” Dr. Safadi said in an interview.

The suggestion contradicts the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of vaccination against the virus and has not approved a three-dose regimen or booster of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

But Dr. Safadi said he is more convinced by the data, which he presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver, than by the FDA’s recommendation.

“I’m not sure how scientific this recommendation is,” he said.

Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have proven highly effective in clinical trials and real-world studies. But some vaccinated people have sickened and even died from breakthrough infections, despite receiving Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines, which have produced the most impressive results.

Few researchers have explored whether patients with weakened immune systems achieve the same level of protection as the general population. Fibrosis impairs the immune function of the liver, and people with transplants take immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection of the transplant.
 

New data on vaccine efficacy in the immunocompromised

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Safadi and his colleagues measured antibodies (immunoglobulins) to the spike protein in the virus (S IgG) in vaccinated people who had liver transplants and in other vaccinated people whose liver fibrosis they had assessed with blood tests and biopsies.

About 32 of 90 people who received liver transplants at Hadassah University Medical Center and had received the Pfizer vaccine had an anti–S IgG less than 19 AU/mL, the researchers’ cutoff for a “good” antibody response to the vaccine.

Five other vaccinated people with liver transplants were diagnosed with COVID-19 after receiving the vaccine, one after the first dose and four after the second dose. Altogether, this added up to a 41.1% failure rate of the vaccine, Dr. Safadi said.

To determine the effectiveness of the vaccine in a larger population, Dr. Safadi and colleagues measured the S IgG levels in 719 employees of Hadassah University Medical Center who had received their second doses of the vaccine at least 7 days before (72% had received it 14 days before).

Of these, 708 (98.5%) had titers greater than 19 AU/mL.

Another eight (1.1%) had titers less than 12 AU/mL, which the researchers defined as a negative response. All eight had suppressed immune systems: two had kidney transplants, one had rheumatoid arthritis, two had lymphoma, two had metabolic syndrome, and one had both multiple sclerosis and metabolic syndrome.

The remaining three (0.4%) had S IgG titers from 12 to 19 AU/mL. Of this group, one person each had hemodialysis and cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cryoglobulinemia, and metabolic syndrome.

Of those patients with S IgG titers greater than 19 AU/mL, Fibrosis-4 (Fib-4) scores were available for 501 (the Fib-4 score is a measure of liver fibrosis based on levels of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase, platelet counts, and age). Those with higher Fib-4 scores had lower mean S IgG levels. Of those with Fib-4 scores less than 1.3, 68.0% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL, and of those with Fib-4 scores greater than 2, 44.2% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL. The difference was statistically significant (P = .002).

The researchers found a similar correlation when they measured liver health by biopsy for 140 vaccinated people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). They found that lower NAFLD activity scores corresponded to higher S IgG titers. Using FibroScan, they also found a trend toward lower S IgG titers with higher fibrosis kilopascals.

In addition, Dr. Safadi and colleagues noted that older age and male sex correlated with lower S IgG titers.
 

Differing opinions on value of antibody titers, third doses

The virus is likely to remain a threat for a year or more to come, and antibody tests may give some indication of who is likely to have the longest-lasting protection, Dr. Safadi said.

“I believe that stronger responders will maintain longer, while the weaker responders will maintain shorter and maybe will need a third shot at some time,” he added.

Pauline Vetter, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Geneva University Hospitals, questioned whether antibody titers can be used to estimate an individual’s level of resistance to the virus. There is some evidence that higher titers correlate with better protection, but it’s not clear to what degree, she said.

“There’s no definitive cutoff,” Dr. Vetter said in an interview. “I can’t say if you have more than a titer of 5, then you’re protected or you’re more protected – or if you have less, then you’re not protected.”

Testing to see whether a person has any S IgG antibodies at all following a vaccination might be worthwhile, she said. She noted that people who know that they did not have an antibody response may be more careful.

Dr. Vetter concluded that not enough is yet known to recommend a third dose or booster for people whose immunity is suppressed.

“There might be a benefit in these populations. But the question is, when and in which situations?” she said.

Dr. Vetter and Dr. Safadi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Patients who have received liver transplants or have advanced liver fibrosis may not get adequate protection against COVID-19 from two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, researchers say.

Physicians should test these patients and consider administering a third vaccine dose for those with low levels of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, said Rifaat Safadi, MD, director of the Liver Unit in the Institute of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases at Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

“If they are not responding, if the serology is going down to zero over the next year, you should revaccinate them or boost them,” Dr. Safadi said in an interview.

The suggestion contradicts the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of vaccination against the virus and has not approved a three-dose regimen or booster of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

But Dr. Safadi said he is more convinced by the data, which he presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver, than by the FDA’s recommendation.

“I’m not sure how scientific this recommendation is,” he said.

Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have proven highly effective in clinical trials and real-world studies. But some vaccinated people have sickened and even died from breakthrough infections, despite receiving Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines, which have produced the most impressive results.

Few researchers have explored whether patients with weakened immune systems achieve the same level of protection as the general population. Fibrosis impairs the immune function of the liver, and people with transplants take immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection of the transplant.
 

New data on vaccine efficacy in the immunocompromised

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Safadi and his colleagues measured antibodies (immunoglobulins) to the spike protein in the virus (S IgG) in vaccinated people who had liver transplants and in other vaccinated people whose liver fibrosis they had assessed with blood tests and biopsies.

About 32 of 90 people who received liver transplants at Hadassah University Medical Center and had received the Pfizer vaccine had an anti–S IgG less than 19 AU/mL, the researchers’ cutoff for a “good” antibody response to the vaccine.

Five other vaccinated people with liver transplants were diagnosed with COVID-19 after receiving the vaccine, one after the first dose and four after the second dose. Altogether, this added up to a 41.1% failure rate of the vaccine, Dr. Safadi said.

To determine the effectiveness of the vaccine in a larger population, Dr. Safadi and colleagues measured the S IgG levels in 719 employees of Hadassah University Medical Center who had received their second doses of the vaccine at least 7 days before (72% had received it 14 days before).

Of these, 708 (98.5%) had titers greater than 19 AU/mL.

Another eight (1.1%) had titers less than 12 AU/mL, which the researchers defined as a negative response. All eight had suppressed immune systems: two had kidney transplants, one had rheumatoid arthritis, two had lymphoma, two had metabolic syndrome, and one had both multiple sclerosis and metabolic syndrome.

The remaining three (0.4%) had S IgG titers from 12 to 19 AU/mL. Of this group, one person each had hemodialysis and cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cryoglobulinemia, and metabolic syndrome.

Of those patients with S IgG titers greater than 19 AU/mL, Fibrosis-4 (Fib-4) scores were available for 501 (the Fib-4 score is a measure of liver fibrosis based on levels of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase, platelet counts, and age). Those with higher Fib-4 scores had lower mean S IgG levels. Of those with Fib-4 scores less than 1.3, 68.0% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL, and of those with Fib-4 scores greater than 2, 44.2% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL. The difference was statistically significant (P = .002).

The researchers found a similar correlation when they measured liver health by biopsy for 140 vaccinated people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). They found that lower NAFLD activity scores corresponded to higher S IgG titers. Using FibroScan, they also found a trend toward lower S IgG titers with higher fibrosis kilopascals.

In addition, Dr. Safadi and colleagues noted that older age and male sex correlated with lower S IgG titers.
 

Differing opinions on value of antibody titers, third doses

The virus is likely to remain a threat for a year or more to come, and antibody tests may give some indication of who is likely to have the longest-lasting protection, Dr. Safadi said.

“I believe that stronger responders will maintain longer, while the weaker responders will maintain shorter and maybe will need a third shot at some time,” he added.

Pauline Vetter, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Geneva University Hospitals, questioned whether antibody titers can be used to estimate an individual’s level of resistance to the virus. There is some evidence that higher titers correlate with better protection, but it’s not clear to what degree, she said.

“There’s no definitive cutoff,” Dr. Vetter said in an interview. “I can’t say if you have more than a titer of 5, then you’re protected or you’re more protected – or if you have less, then you’re not protected.”

Testing to see whether a person has any S IgG antibodies at all following a vaccination might be worthwhile, she said. She noted that people who know that they did not have an antibody response may be more careful.

Dr. Vetter concluded that not enough is yet known to recommend a third dose or booster for people whose immunity is suppressed.

“There might be a benefit in these populations. But the question is, when and in which situations?” she said.

Dr. Vetter and Dr. Safadi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Patients with cirrhosis treated at hospitals with the highest safety-net burden, defined by their proportion of Medicaid or uninsured patients, had a 5% higher mortality rate than patients who were treated at hospitals with the lowest burden, according to a study of over 300,000 patients.

The study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, analyzed inpatient data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database focusing on a 4-year time span between 2012 and 2016. The hospitals were categorized by safety-net burden, which was defined as having either a high, medium, or low number of uninsured patients or patients with Medicaid.

This is the first-known study to evaluate the impact of a hospital’s safety-net burden on hospitalization outcomes in cirrhosis patients, wrote authors Robert J. Wong, MD, MS, of Stanford (Calif.) University and Grishma Hirode, MAS, of the University of Toronto. Previous studies have shown that safety-net hospitals, especially those with a high safety-net burden, have poorer patient outcomes. These hospitals also serve a patient population that is at high risk for chronic liver disease and cirrhosis.

The new analysis included 322,944 individual hospitalizations of patients with cirrhosis. Of these, 57.8% were male, 63.7% were White, 9.9% were Black, and 15.6% were Hispanic. In terms of safety-net burden, 107,446 hospitalizations were at high-burden hospitals, 103,508 were at medium-burden hospitals, and 111,990 hospitalizations were at low-burden hospitals.

Overall, cirrhosis-related hospitalizations in hospitals with the highest burden were found to have significantly greater odds of in-hospital mortality than the lowest tertile hospitals (odds ratio, 1.05, P = .044). The patients were also younger (mean age, 56.7 years vs. 59.8 years in low-burden hospitals). They also had a higher proportion of male patients, minority patients, Hispanic patients, and patients with Medicaid or no insurance.

The odds of hospitalization in the highest tertile hospitals were found to be significantly higher, compared with the middle and lowest tertiles for Blacks and Hispanics, compared with Whites (OR 1.26 and OR 1.63, respectively). Black patients (OR, 1.26; 95%CI, 1.17-1.35; P < .001) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.50-1.78; P< .001) were more likely to be admitted for care at high-burden hospitals (26% to 54%). In-hospital mortality rates among all hospitalizations were 5.95% and the rate did not significantly differ by hospital burden status.

“Despite adjusting for safety-net burden, our study continued to demonstrate ethnic disparities in in-hospital mortality among cirrhosis-related hospitalizations,” the researchers wrote. Overall, the odds of in-hospital mortality were 27% higher in Black patients as compared with White patients.

However, significantly lower mortality was observed in Hispanic patients as compared with White patients (4.9% vs. 6.0%, P < .001), but why this occurred was not entirely clear. “Hispanic patients may be more likely to have NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]-related cirrhosis, which generally has a slower disease progression, compared with [hepatitis C virus] or alcoholic cirrhosis. As such, it is likely that NASH-cirrhosis Hispanic patients had less severe disease at presentation,” the researchers wrote.
 

Study design has limitations, but shows concerning trends

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to show causality based on the observational study design and cross-sectional nature of the database, the researchers said. The NIS database records individual hospitalizations, not individual patient data which means that it may include repeat hospitalizations from the same patient. In addition, the study was limited by a lack of data on outpatient cirrhosis outcomes and non–liver-related comorbidities.

However, the finding that ethnic minorities with cirrhosis were significantly more likely to be hospitalized in high safety-net hospitals than White patients is concerning, and more research is needed, they said.

“These observations highlight that, while disparities in resources and health care delivery inherent to safety-net health systems may partly explain and provide opportunities to improve cirrhosis hospitalization care, they alone do not explain all of the ethnic disparities in cirrhosis outcomes observed,” they concluded.

The current study was important to conduct at this time because rates of cirrhosis are on the rise, Michael Volk, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said in an interview. “Millions of patients receive care in safety-net hospitals across the country.”

Dr. Volk said that he was not surprised by the overall outcomes. “Unfortunately, I expected that patient outcomes would be worse at safety-net hospitals than wealthier hospitals. However, I was surprised that Blacks had higher in-hospital mortality than Whites, even after adjusting for the hospital.”

Dr. Volk echoed the study’s stated limitation of the lack of data to address disparities.

“Additional research is needed to determine whether the higher in-hospital mortality among Blacks is related to biological differences such as differential rates of disease progression, or social differences such as access to outpatient care,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Volk had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with cirrhosis treated at hospitals with the highest safety-net burden, defined by their proportion of Medicaid or uninsured patients, had a 5% higher mortality rate than patients who were treated at hospitals with the lowest burden, according to a study of over 300,000 patients.

The study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, analyzed inpatient data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database focusing on a 4-year time span between 2012 and 2016. The hospitals were categorized by safety-net burden, which was defined as having either a high, medium, or low number of uninsured patients or patients with Medicaid.

This is the first-known study to evaluate the impact of a hospital’s safety-net burden on hospitalization outcomes in cirrhosis patients, wrote authors Robert J. Wong, MD, MS, of Stanford (Calif.) University and Grishma Hirode, MAS, of the University of Toronto. Previous studies have shown that safety-net hospitals, especially those with a high safety-net burden, have poorer patient outcomes. These hospitals also serve a patient population that is at high risk for chronic liver disease and cirrhosis.

The new analysis included 322,944 individual hospitalizations of patients with cirrhosis. Of these, 57.8% were male, 63.7% were White, 9.9% were Black, and 15.6% were Hispanic. In terms of safety-net burden, 107,446 hospitalizations were at high-burden hospitals, 103,508 were at medium-burden hospitals, and 111,990 hospitalizations were at low-burden hospitals.

Overall, cirrhosis-related hospitalizations in hospitals with the highest burden were found to have significantly greater odds of in-hospital mortality than the lowest tertile hospitals (odds ratio, 1.05, P = .044). The patients were also younger (mean age, 56.7 years vs. 59.8 years in low-burden hospitals). They also had a higher proportion of male patients, minority patients, Hispanic patients, and patients with Medicaid or no insurance.

The odds of hospitalization in the highest tertile hospitals were found to be significantly higher, compared with the middle and lowest tertiles for Blacks and Hispanics, compared with Whites (OR 1.26 and OR 1.63, respectively). Black patients (OR, 1.26; 95%CI, 1.17-1.35; P < .001) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.50-1.78; P< .001) were more likely to be admitted for care at high-burden hospitals (26% to 54%). In-hospital mortality rates among all hospitalizations were 5.95% and the rate did not significantly differ by hospital burden status.

“Despite adjusting for safety-net burden, our study continued to demonstrate ethnic disparities in in-hospital mortality among cirrhosis-related hospitalizations,” the researchers wrote. Overall, the odds of in-hospital mortality were 27% higher in Black patients as compared with White patients.

However, significantly lower mortality was observed in Hispanic patients as compared with White patients (4.9% vs. 6.0%, P < .001), but why this occurred was not entirely clear. “Hispanic patients may be more likely to have NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]-related cirrhosis, which generally has a slower disease progression, compared with [hepatitis C virus] or alcoholic cirrhosis. As such, it is likely that NASH-cirrhosis Hispanic patients had less severe disease at presentation,” the researchers wrote.
 

Study design has limitations, but shows concerning trends

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to show causality based on the observational study design and cross-sectional nature of the database, the researchers said. The NIS database records individual hospitalizations, not individual patient data which means that it may include repeat hospitalizations from the same patient. In addition, the study was limited by a lack of data on outpatient cirrhosis outcomes and non–liver-related comorbidities.

However, the finding that ethnic minorities with cirrhosis were significantly more likely to be hospitalized in high safety-net hospitals than White patients is concerning, and more research is needed, they said.

“These observations highlight that, while disparities in resources and health care delivery inherent to safety-net health systems may partly explain and provide opportunities to improve cirrhosis hospitalization care, they alone do not explain all of the ethnic disparities in cirrhosis outcomes observed,” they concluded.

The current study was important to conduct at this time because rates of cirrhosis are on the rise, Michael Volk, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said in an interview. “Millions of patients receive care in safety-net hospitals across the country.”

Dr. Volk said that he was not surprised by the overall outcomes. “Unfortunately, I expected that patient outcomes would be worse at safety-net hospitals than wealthier hospitals. However, I was surprised that Blacks had higher in-hospital mortality than Whites, even after adjusting for the hospital.”

Dr. Volk echoed the study’s stated limitation of the lack of data to address disparities.

“Additional research is needed to determine whether the higher in-hospital mortality among Blacks is related to biological differences such as differential rates of disease progression, or social differences such as access to outpatient care,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Volk had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with cirrhosis treated at hospitals with the highest safety-net burden, defined by their proportion of Medicaid or uninsured patients, had a 5% higher mortality rate than patients who were treated at hospitals with the lowest burden, according to a study of over 300,000 patients.

The study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, analyzed inpatient data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database focusing on a 4-year time span between 2012 and 2016. The hospitals were categorized by safety-net burden, which was defined as having either a high, medium, or low number of uninsured patients or patients with Medicaid.

This is the first-known study to evaluate the impact of a hospital’s safety-net burden on hospitalization outcomes in cirrhosis patients, wrote authors Robert J. Wong, MD, MS, of Stanford (Calif.) University and Grishma Hirode, MAS, of the University of Toronto. Previous studies have shown that safety-net hospitals, especially those with a high safety-net burden, have poorer patient outcomes. These hospitals also serve a patient population that is at high risk for chronic liver disease and cirrhosis.

The new analysis included 322,944 individual hospitalizations of patients with cirrhosis. Of these, 57.8% were male, 63.7% were White, 9.9% were Black, and 15.6% were Hispanic. In terms of safety-net burden, 107,446 hospitalizations were at high-burden hospitals, 103,508 were at medium-burden hospitals, and 111,990 hospitalizations were at low-burden hospitals.

Overall, cirrhosis-related hospitalizations in hospitals with the highest burden were found to have significantly greater odds of in-hospital mortality than the lowest tertile hospitals (odds ratio, 1.05, P = .044). The patients were also younger (mean age, 56.7 years vs. 59.8 years in low-burden hospitals). They also had a higher proportion of male patients, minority patients, Hispanic patients, and patients with Medicaid or no insurance.

The odds of hospitalization in the highest tertile hospitals were found to be significantly higher, compared with the middle and lowest tertiles for Blacks and Hispanics, compared with Whites (OR 1.26 and OR 1.63, respectively). Black patients (OR, 1.26; 95%CI, 1.17-1.35; P < .001) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.50-1.78; P< .001) were more likely to be admitted for care at high-burden hospitals (26% to 54%). In-hospital mortality rates among all hospitalizations were 5.95% and the rate did not significantly differ by hospital burden status.

“Despite adjusting for safety-net burden, our study continued to demonstrate ethnic disparities in in-hospital mortality among cirrhosis-related hospitalizations,” the researchers wrote. Overall, the odds of in-hospital mortality were 27% higher in Black patients as compared with White patients.

However, significantly lower mortality was observed in Hispanic patients as compared with White patients (4.9% vs. 6.0%, P < .001), but why this occurred was not entirely clear. “Hispanic patients may be more likely to have NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]-related cirrhosis, which generally has a slower disease progression, compared with [hepatitis C virus] or alcoholic cirrhosis. As such, it is likely that NASH-cirrhosis Hispanic patients had less severe disease at presentation,” the researchers wrote.
 

Study design has limitations, but shows concerning trends

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to show causality based on the observational study design and cross-sectional nature of the database, the researchers said. The NIS database records individual hospitalizations, not individual patient data which means that it may include repeat hospitalizations from the same patient. In addition, the study was limited by a lack of data on outpatient cirrhosis outcomes and non–liver-related comorbidities.

However, the finding that ethnic minorities with cirrhosis were significantly more likely to be hospitalized in high safety-net hospitals than White patients is concerning, and more research is needed, they said.

“These observations highlight that, while disparities in resources and health care delivery inherent to safety-net health systems may partly explain and provide opportunities to improve cirrhosis hospitalization care, they alone do not explain all of the ethnic disparities in cirrhosis outcomes observed,” they concluded.

The current study was important to conduct at this time because rates of cirrhosis are on the rise, Michael Volk, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said in an interview. “Millions of patients receive care in safety-net hospitals across the country.”

Dr. Volk said that he was not surprised by the overall outcomes. “Unfortunately, I expected that patient outcomes would be worse at safety-net hospitals than wealthier hospitals. However, I was surprised that Blacks had higher in-hospital mortality than Whites, even after adjusting for the hospital.”

Dr. Volk echoed the study’s stated limitation of the lack of data to address disparities.

“Additional research is needed to determine whether the higher in-hospital mortality among Blacks is related to biological differences such as differential rates of disease progression, or social differences such as access to outpatient care,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Volk had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

New guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology on idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) emphasize that idiosyncratic DILI is increasingly driven by the burgeoning popularity of herbal and dietary supplements, as well as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors used to treat cancer.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Science Photo Library

The guidelines, which represent an update from 2014, are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

DILI is commonly seen by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, but it is challenging to diagnose because there are many potential causes, and no objective diagnostic tests. Its incidence in the general population is low, but it must be considered when facing unexplained liver injury. Its potential presence should also be considered when prescribing gastrointestinal medications like azathioprine, anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, and sulfonamides.

DILI can be characterized as intrinsic or idiosyncratic. Intrinsic DILI is somewhat predictable, based on human or animal studies that have revealed the potential for liver toxicity at higher doses. The best-known example is acetaminophen. Idiosyncratic DILI is rarer and shows up in individuals with a preexisting susceptibility. Clinical signs of idiosyncratic DILI are more diverse than intrinsic DILI. The ACG guideline focuses on idiosyncratic DILI, since guidelines are already available for intrinsic DILI.

Idiosyncratic DILI diagnosis can have a wide range of presentations, including asymptomatic liver biochemistry, jaundice, liver failure, and chronic hepatitis. Diagnosis is made by eliminating other potential causes.

In the presence of hepatocellular jaundice, mortality can reach 10%. DILI patients who develop progressive jaundice, regardless of concomitant coagulopathy, should be sent to a tertiary center and may be a candidate for liver transplantation.

Corticosteroids may be considered when there is uncertainty if a liver injury is from DILI or autoimmune hepatitis, but this remains controversial because some studies have shown benefit, while others have not, according to Bubu Banini, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine and research director of the metabolic health and weight management program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed for further elucidation of the role of steroids in DILI. For now, the guideline recommends consideration of steroid therapy, particularly in patients with features of autoimmune hepatitis,” she added.

An important factor driving DILI is the increasing popularity of herbal supplements, as well as increased use of some cancer therapies. “With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors as effective therapies for a variety of malignancies, physicians need to be aware of the potential side effects of these agents and the possibility of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related drug induced liver injury,” Dr. Banini said. The updated ACG guideline summarizes current FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors and their potential to cause DILI. The drugs can also lead to reactivation of hepatitis B infection. Studies have shown liver enzyme elevation occurs in about 30% of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The guidelines recommend assessing DILI patients for hepatitis B and C, and treating patients prior to, or in combination with, immune checkpoint inhibitors or other chemotherapy drugs. The recommendations are in line with preliminary data from the ICI field, according to Dr. Banini.

Dr. Banini also noted there has been an increase in the use of herbal and dietary supplements in the United States over the past decade, and these now account for about one-fifth of DILI cases. The guidelines recommend that severe cholestatic disease from these agents should be managed similarly to cases caused by prescription drugs, and patients should be considered for liver transplant if necessary.

A web-based 6-month mortality calculator for suspected DILI is available. It uses Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, Charlson comorbidity Index, and serum albumin data. Those variables predict mortality in liver disease, and an independent analysis showed they predict 6-month mortality in DILI.

DILI is difficult to diagnose, but physicians should keep it in mind when faced with a case of liver enzyme abnormality, where other possibilities have been excluded. “With over a thousand medications potentially causing DILI, physicians should be familiar with LiverTox as a very useful and practical resource. The DILI mortality calculator can serve as a clinical tool to predict 6-month mortality in patients with suspected DILI,” Dr. Banini said.

Some authors disclosed relationships with several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Banini reports having nothing to disclose.

New guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology on idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) emphasize that idiosyncratic DILI is increasingly driven by the burgeoning popularity of herbal and dietary supplements, as well as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors used to treat cancer.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Science Photo Library

The guidelines, which represent an update from 2014, are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

DILI is commonly seen by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, but it is challenging to diagnose because there are many potential causes, and no objective diagnostic tests. Its incidence in the general population is low, but it must be considered when facing unexplained liver injury. Its potential presence should also be considered when prescribing gastrointestinal medications like azathioprine, anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, and sulfonamides.

DILI can be characterized as intrinsic or idiosyncratic. Intrinsic DILI is somewhat predictable, based on human or animal studies that have revealed the potential for liver toxicity at higher doses. The best-known example is acetaminophen. Idiosyncratic DILI is rarer and shows up in individuals with a preexisting susceptibility. Clinical signs of idiosyncratic DILI are more diverse than intrinsic DILI. The ACG guideline focuses on idiosyncratic DILI, since guidelines are already available for intrinsic DILI.

Idiosyncratic DILI diagnosis can have a wide range of presentations, including asymptomatic liver biochemistry, jaundice, liver failure, and chronic hepatitis. Diagnosis is made by eliminating other potential causes.

In the presence of hepatocellular jaundice, mortality can reach 10%. DILI patients who develop progressive jaundice, regardless of concomitant coagulopathy, should be sent to a tertiary center and may be a candidate for liver transplantation.

Corticosteroids may be considered when there is uncertainty if a liver injury is from DILI or autoimmune hepatitis, but this remains controversial because some studies have shown benefit, while others have not, according to Bubu Banini, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine and research director of the metabolic health and weight management program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed for further elucidation of the role of steroids in DILI. For now, the guideline recommends consideration of steroid therapy, particularly in patients with features of autoimmune hepatitis,” she added.

An important factor driving DILI is the increasing popularity of herbal supplements, as well as increased use of some cancer therapies. “With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors as effective therapies for a variety of malignancies, physicians need to be aware of the potential side effects of these agents and the possibility of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related drug induced liver injury,” Dr. Banini said. The updated ACG guideline summarizes current FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors and their potential to cause DILI. The drugs can also lead to reactivation of hepatitis B infection. Studies have shown liver enzyme elevation occurs in about 30% of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The guidelines recommend assessing DILI patients for hepatitis B and C, and treating patients prior to, or in combination with, immune checkpoint inhibitors or other chemotherapy drugs. The recommendations are in line with preliminary data from the ICI field, according to Dr. Banini.

Dr. Banini also noted there has been an increase in the use of herbal and dietary supplements in the United States over the past decade, and these now account for about one-fifth of DILI cases. The guidelines recommend that severe cholestatic disease from these agents should be managed similarly to cases caused by prescription drugs, and patients should be considered for liver transplant if necessary.

A web-based 6-month mortality calculator for suspected DILI is available. It uses Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, Charlson comorbidity Index, and serum albumin data. Those variables predict mortality in liver disease, and an independent analysis showed they predict 6-month mortality in DILI.

DILI is difficult to diagnose, but physicians should keep it in mind when faced with a case of liver enzyme abnormality, where other possibilities have been excluded. “With over a thousand medications potentially causing DILI, physicians should be familiar with LiverTox as a very useful and practical resource. The DILI mortality calculator can serve as a clinical tool to predict 6-month mortality in patients with suspected DILI,” Dr. Banini said.

Some authors disclosed relationships with several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Banini reports having nothing to disclose.

New guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology on idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) emphasize that idiosyncratic DILI is increasingly driven by the burgeoning popularity of herbal and dietary supplements, as well as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors used to treat cancer.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Science Photo Library

The guidelines, which represent an update from 2014, are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

DILI is commonly seen by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, but it is challenging to diagnose because there are many potential causes, and no objective diagnostic tests. Its incidence in the general population is low, but it must be considered when facing unexplained liver injury. Its potential presence should also be considered when prescribing gastrointestinal medications like azathioprine, anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, and sulfonamides.

DILI can be characterized as intrinsic or idiosyncratic. Intrinsic DILI is somewhat predictable, based on human or animal studies that have revealed the potential for liver toxicity at higher doses. The best-known example is acetaminophen. Idiosyncratic DILI is rarer and shows up in individuals with a preexisting susceptibility. Clinical signs of idiosyncratic DILI are more diverse than intrinsic DILI. The ACG guideline focuses on idiosyncratic DILI, since guidelines are already available for intrinsic DILI.

Idiosyncratic DILI diagnosis can have a wide range of presentations, including asymptomatic liver biochemistry, jaundice, liver failure, and chronic hepatitis. Diagnosis is made by eliminating other potential causes.

In the presence of hepatocellular jaundice, mortality can reach 10%. DILI patients who develop progressive jaundice, regardless of concomitant coagulopathy, should be sent to a tertiary center and may be a candidate for liver transplantation.

Corticosteroids may be considered when there is uncertainty if a liver injury is from DILI or autoimmune hepatitis, but this remains controversial because some studies have shown benefit, while others have not, according to Bubu Banini, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine and research director of the metabolic health and weight management program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed for further elucidation of the role of steroids in DILI. For now, the guideline recommends consideration of steroid therapy, particularly in patients with features of autoimmune hepatitis,” she added.

An important factor driving DILI is the increasing popularity of herbal supplements, as well as increased use of some cancer therapies. “With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors as effective therapies for a variety of malignancies, physicians need to be aware of the potential side effects of these agents and the possibility of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related drug induced liver injury,” Dr. Banini said. The updated ACG guideline summarizes current FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors and their potential to cause DILI. The drugs can also lead to reactivation of hepatitis B infection. Studies have shown liver enzyme elevation occurs in about 30% of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The guidelines recommend assessing DILI patients for hepatitis B and C, and treating patients prior to, or in combination with, immune checkpoint inhibitors or other chemotherapy drugs. The recommendations are in line with preliminary data from the ICI field, according to Dr. Banini.

Dr. Banini also noted there has been an increase in the use of herbal and dietary supplements in the United States over the past decade, and these now account for about one-fifth of DILI cases. The guidelines recommend that severe cholestatic disease from these agents should be managed similarly to cases caused by prescription drugs, and patients should be considered for liver transplant if necessary.

A web-based 6-month mortality calculator for suspected DILI is available. It uses Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, Charlson comorbidity Index, and serum albumin data. Those variables predict mortality in liver disease, and an independent analysis showed they predict 6-month mortality in DILI.

DILI is difficult to diagnose, but physicians should keep it in mind when faced with a case of liver enzyme abnormality, where other possibilities have been excluded. “With over a thousand medications potentially causing DILI, physicians should be familiar with LiverTox as a very useful and practical resource. The DILI mortality calculator can serve as a clinical tool to predict 6-month mortality in patients with suspected DILI,” Dr. Banini said.

Some authors disclosed relationships with several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Banini reports having nothing to disclose.