User login
Where the latest HCV drug combos fit in
MAUI, HAWAII – The addition of the two latest treatment regimens to receive approval for hepatitis C essentially closes the circle on treatment of this disease, Steven L. Flamm, MD, declared at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease meeting.
“We now have good options available for all the hepatitis C scenarios you will ever see in your practice,” said Dr. Flamm, professor of medicine and chief of the hepatology program at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Moreover, this wide range of highly effective, well-tolerated therapies is having a major clinical impact.
“We’re already seeing a decline in the number of patients who are listed for liver transplantation with hepatitis C as the indication with UNOS [the United Organ Sharing database],” the gastroenterologist noted, citing a study presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease that showed that the proportion of patients who join the transplant wait-list with hepatitis C as their qualifying diagnosis has fallen by 35% since approval of the direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens in late 2013.
What’s special about the two newest DAA treatment regimens – sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir (Vosevi) and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (Mavyret) – is that they are pangenotypic, they are effective in prior treatment failures, they don’t need to be accompanied by ribavirin, and there is no need for baseline pretreatment resistance-associated substitution testing, Dr. Flamm noted.
“So if you have a patient sitting in front of you with any genotype of hepatitis C infection who has failed on NS5a-inhibitor therapy, you can tell them in general their chance of getting an SVR [sustained viral response] with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir is about 97%. And you can give it without worrying about what resistances they might have to begin with,” he said.
His copanelist Norah Terrault, MD, agreed that these two regimens are important additions.
“Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is the first pangenic 8-week regimen for noncirrhotics. This is a major advance. And now having sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir for treatment-experienced patients, that’s another strong advance,” commented Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and director of the Viral Hepatitis Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
Dr. Flamm said the biggest remaining challenge in the treatment of hepatitis C is to gain improved access to therapy.
“The public-aid patients make up 30%-35% of patients with hepatitis C in my part of the country, and they still can’t get therapy unless they have cirrhosis. We can’t even treat people who have stage 2 fibrosis if they’re public-aid patients in Illinois. So we can’t achieve the goal of eliminating hepatitis C,” Dr. Flamm said.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
Encourage your patients to visit AGA’s new online GI Patient Center to learn more about digestive diseases, including HCV, at gastro.org/patient.
MAUI, HAWAII – The addition of the two latest treatment regimens to receive approval for hepatitis C essentially closes the circle on treatment of this disease, Steven L. Flamm, MD, declared at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease meeting.
“We now have good options available for all the hepatitis C scenarios you will ever see in your practice,” said Dr. Flamm, professor of medicine and chief of the hepatology program at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Moreover, this wide range of highly effective, well-tolerated therapies is having a major clinical impact.
“We’re already seeing a decline in the number of patients who are listed for liver transplantation with hepatitis C as the indication with UNOS [the United Organ Sharing database],” the gastroenterologist noted, citing a study presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease that showed that the proportion of patients who join the transplant wait-list with hepatitis C as their qualifying diagnosis has fallen by 35% since approval of the direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens in late 2013.
What’s special about the two newest DAA treatment regimens – sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir (Vosevi) and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (Mavyret) – is that they are pangenotypic, they are effective in prior treatment failures, they don’t need to be accompanied by ribavirin, and there is no need for baseline pretreatment resistance-associated substitution testing, Dr. Flamm noted.
“So if you have a patient sitting in front of you with any genotype of hepatitis C infection who has failed on NS5a-inhibitor therapy, you can tell them in general their chance of getting an SVR [sustained viral response] with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir is about 97%. And you can give it without worrying about what resistances they might have to begin with,” he said.
His copanelist Norah Terrault, MD, agreed that these two regimens are important additions.
“Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is the first pangenic 8-week regimen for noncirrhotics. This is a major advance. And now having sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir for treatment-experienced patients, that’s another strong advance,” commented Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and director of the Viral Hepatitis Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
Dr. Flamm said the biggest remaining challenge in the treatment of hepatitis C is to gain improved access to therapy.
“The public-aid patients make up 30%-35% of patients with hepatitis C in my part of the country, and they still can’t get therapy unless they have cirrhosis. We can’t even treat people who have stage 2 fibrosis if they’re public-aid patients in Illinois. So we can’t achieve the goal of eliminating hepatitis C,” Dr. Flamm said.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
Encourage your patients to visit AGA’s new online GI Patient Center to learn more about digestive diseases, including HCV, at gastro.org/patient.
MAUI, HAWAII – The addition of the two latest treatment regimens to receive approval for hepatitis C essentially closes the circle on treatment of this disease, Steven L. Flamm, MD, declared at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease meeting.
“We now have good options available for all the hepatitis C scenarios you will ever see in your practice,” said Dr. Flamm, professor of medicine and chief of the hepatology program at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Moreover, this wide range of highly effective, well-tolerated therapies is having a major clinical impact.
“We’re already seeing a decline in the number of patients who are listed for liver transplantation with hepatitis C as the indication with UNOS [the United Organ Sharing database],” the gastroenterologist noted, citing a study presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease that showed that the proportion of patients who join the transplant wait-list with hepatitis C as their qualifying diagnosis has fallen by 35% since approval of the direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens in late 2013.
What’s special about the two newest DAA treatment regimens – sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir (Vosevi) and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (Mavyret) – is that they are pangenotypic, they are effective in prior treatment failures, they don’t need to be accompanied by ribavirin, and there is no need for baseline pretreatment resistance-associated substitution testing, Dr. Flamm noted.
“So if you have a patient sitting in front of you with any genotype of hepatitis C infection who has failed on NS5a-inhibitor therapy, you can tell them in general their chance of getting an SVR [sustained viral response] with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir is about 97%. And you can give it without worrying about what resistances they might have to begin with,” he said.
His copanelist Norah Terrault, MD, agreed that these two regimens are important additions.
“Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is the first pangenic 8-week regimen for noncirrhotics. This is a major advance. And now having sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir for treatment-experienced patients, that’s another strong advance,” commented Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and director of the Viral Hepatitis Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
Dr. Flamm said the biggest remaining challenge in the treatment of hepatitis C is to gain improved access to therapy.
“The public-aid patients make up 30%-35% of patients with hepatitis C in my part of the country, and they still can’t get therapy unless they have cirrhosis. We can’t even treat people who have stage 2 fibrosis if they’re public-aid patients in Illinois. So we can’t achieve the goal of eliminating hepatitis C,” Dr. Flamm said.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
Encourage your patients to visit AGA’s new online GI Patient Center to learn more about digestive diseases, including HCV, at gastro.org/patient.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM GUILD 2018
Class III obesity increases risk of acute on chronic liver failure in cirrhotic patients
Class III obesity was significantly, independently associated with acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, and patients with both class III obesity and acute on chronic liver failure also had a significant risk of renal failure, according to a recent retrospective analysis of two databases publised in the Journal of Hepatology.
Vinay Sundaram, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and his colleagues evaluated 387,884 patients who were in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) during 2005-2016; were class I or II obese (body mass index 30-39 kg/m2), class III obese (BMI greater than or equal to 40), or not obese (BMI less than 30); and were on a wait list for liver transplantation.
They used the definition of ACLF outlined in the CANONIC (Consortium Acute on Chronic Liver Failure in Cirrhosis) study, which defined it as having “a single hepatic decompensation, such as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, variceal bleed, or bacterial infection, and one of the following organ failures: single renal failure, single nonrenal organ failure with renal dysfunction or hepatic encephalopathy, or two nonrenal organ failures,” and confirmed the results in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) databases by using diagnostic coding algorithms to identify factors such as hepatic decompensation, obesity, and ACLF in that study population.
Dr. Sundarem and his colleagues identified 116,704 patients (30.1%) with acute on chronic liver failure in both the UNOS and NIS databases. At the time of liver transplantation, there was a significant association between ACLF and class I and class II obesity (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.19; P less than .001) and class III obesity (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.41; P less than .001). Other predictors of ACLF in this population were increased age (HR, 1.01 per year; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01; P = .037), hepatitis C virus (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.16-1.35; P less than .001) and hepatitis C combined with alcoholic liver disease (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.30; P = .002). Regarding organ failure, “renal insufficiency was similar among the three groups,” with increasing obesity class associated with a greater prevalence of renal failure.
“Given the heightened risk of renal failure among obese patients with cirrhosis, we suggest particularly careful management of this fragile population regarding diuretic usage, avoidance of nephrotoxic agents, and administration of an adequate albumin challenge in the setting of acute kidney injury,” the researchers wrote.
The researchers encouraged “an even greater emphasis on weight reduction” for class III obese patients. They noted the association between class III obesity and ACLF is likely caused by an “obesity-related chronic inflammatory state” and said future prospective studies should seek to describe the inflammatory pathways for each condition to predict risk of ACLF in these patients.
The authors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Sundarem V et al. J Hepatol. 2018 April 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.04.016.
Class III obesity was significantly, independently associated with acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, and patients with both class III obesity and acute on chronic liver failure also had a significant risk of renal failure, according to a recent retrospective analysis of two databases publised in the Journal of Hepatology.
Vinay Sundaram, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and his colleagues evaluated 387,884 patients who were in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) during 2005-2016; were class I or II obese (body mass index 30-39 kg/m2), class III obese (BMI greater than or equal to 40), or not obese (BMI less than 30); and were on a wait list for liver transplantation.
They used the definition of ACLF outlined in the CANONIC (Consortium Acute on Chronic Liver Failure in Cirrhosis) study, which defined it as having “a single hepatic decompensation, such as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, variceal bleed, or bacterial infection, and one of the following organ failures: single renal failure, single nonrenal organ failure with renal dysfunction or hepatic encephalopathy, or two nonrenal organ failures,” and confirmed the results in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) databases by using diagnostic coding algorithms to identify factors such as hepatic decompensation, obesity, and ACLF in that study population.
Dr. Sundarem and his colleagues identified 116,704 patients (30.1%) with acute on chronic liver failure in both the UNOS and NIS databases. At the time of liver transplantation, there was a significant association between ACLF and class I and class II obesity (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.19; P less than .001) and class III obesity (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.41; P less than .001). Other predictors of ACLF in this population were increased age (HR, 1.01 per year; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01; P = .037), hepatitis C virus (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.16-1.35; P less than .001) and hepatitis C combined with alcoholic liver disease (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.30; P = .002). Regarding organ failure, “renal insufficiency was similar among the three groups,” with increasing obesity class associated with a greater prevalence of renal failure.
“Given the heightened risk of renal failure among obese patients with cirrhosis, we suggest particularly careful management of this fragile population regarding diuretic usage, avoidance of nephrotoxic agents, and administration of an adequate albumin challenge in the setting of acute kidney injury,” the researchers wrote.
The researchers encouraged “an even greater emphasis on weight reduction” for class III obese patients. They noted the association between class III obesity and ACLF is likely caused by an “obesity-related chronic inflammatory state” and said future prospective studies should seek to describe the inflammatory pathways for each condition to predict risk of ACLF in these patients.
The authors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Sundarem V et al. J Hepatol. 2018 April 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.04.016.
Class III obesity was significantly, independently associated with acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, and patients with both class III obesity and acute on chronic liver failure also had a significant risk of renal failure, according to a recent retrospective analysis of two databases publised in the Journal of Hepatology.
Vinay Sundaram, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and his colleagues evaluated 387,884 patients who were in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) during 2005-2016; were class I or II obese (body mass index 30-39 kg/m2), class III obese (BMI greater than or equal to 40), or not obese (BMI less than 30); and were on a wait list for liver transplantation.
They used the definition of ACLF outlined in the CANONIC (Consortium Acute on Chronic Liver Failure in Cirrhosis) study, which defined it as having “a single hepatic decompensation, such as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, variceal bleed, or bacterial infection, and one of the following organ failures: single renal failure, single nonrenal organ failure with renal dysfunction or hepatic encephalopathy, or two nonrenal organ failures,” and confirmed the results in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) databases by using diagnostic coding algorithms to identify factors such as hepatic decompensation, obesity, and ACLF in that study population.
Dr. Sundarem and his colleagues identified 116,704 patients (30.1%) with acute on chronic liver failure in both the UNOS and NIS databases. At the time of liver transplantation, there was a significant association between ACLF and class I and class II obesity (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.19; P less than .001) and class III obesity (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.41; P less than .001). Other predictors of ACLF in this population were increased age (HR, 1.01 per year; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01; P = .037), hepatitis C virus (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.16-1.35; P less than .001) and hepatitis C combined with alcoholic liver disease (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.30; P = .002). Regarding organ failure, “renal insufficiency was similar among the three groups,” with increasing obesity class associated with a greater prevalence of renal failure.
“Given the heightened risk of renal failure among obese patients with cirrhosis, we suggest particularly careful management of this fragile population regarding diuretic usage, avoidance of nephrotoxic agents, and administration of an adequate albumin challenge in the setting of acute kidney injury,” the researchers wrote.
The researchers encouraged “an even greater emphasis on weight reduction” for class III obese patients. They noted the association between class III obesity and ACLF is likely caused by an “obesity-related chronic inflammatory state” and said future prospective studies should seek to describe the inflammatory pathways for each condition to predict risk of ACLF in these patients.
The authors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Sundarem V et al. J Hepatol. 2018 April 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.04.016.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Key clinical point: Patients with a BMI greater than or equal to 40 kg/m2 with decompensated cirrhosis are at greater risk of developing acute on chronic liver failure.
Major finding: Class III obesity carried a hazard ratio of 1.24 in the UNOS database and an odds ratio of 1.30 in the NIS database at the time of liver transplantation.
Data source: A retrospective cohort database study of 116,704 patients with acute on chronic liver failure listed during 2005-2016.
Disclosures: The authors reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Sundaram V et al. J Hepatol. 2018 Apr 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.04.016.
Very few infants born to HCV-infected mothers receive testing
Despite the increasing prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in pregnant women, infants exposed to the disease are screened at a very low rate, Catherine A. Chappell, MD, and her associates wrote in Pediatrics.
During 2006-2014, 87,924 women gave birth at the Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, of whom 1,043 had HCV. Over this time, the HCV prevalence rate increased 60%, from 1,026 cases per 100,000 women to 1,637 cases per 100,000 women. Women with HCV were more likely to be white, have Medicaid, have opiate use disorder, have other substance use disorders, and be under the age of 30 years.
Infants born to HCV-infected women are significantly more likely to be preterm and of low birth weight.
An additional 32 infants who did not receive well child care did receive HCV testing. A total of nine infants, seven in the well child group and two in the non-well child group, tested positive for HCV.
“Of the infants tested with conclusive results, the HCV transmission rate was 8.4%, with 7.2% having chronic HCV infection,” which is in line with previous reports, according to the researchers.
“Because of the poor rates of pediatric HCV screening described, future researchers should focus on interventions to increase screening in infants who are at risk for perinatal HCV acquisition by including technology to improve the transfer of maternal HCV status to the pediatric record and increase pediatric provider awareness regarding HCV screening guidelines,” the investigators concluded.
SOURCE: Chappell CA et al. Pediatrics. 2018 May 2. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-3273.
Despite the increasing prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in pregnant women, infants exposed to the disease are screened at a very low rate, Catherine A. Chappell, MD, and her associates wrote in Pediatrics.
During 2006-2014, 87,924 women gave birth at the Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, of whom 1,043 had HCV. Over this time, the HCV prevalence rate increased 60%, from 1,026 cases per 100,000 women to 1,637 cases per 100,000 women. Women with HCV were more likely to be white, have Medicaid, have opiate use disorder, have other substance use disorders, and be under the age of 30 years.
Infants born to HCV-infected women are significantly more likely to be preterm and of low birth weight.
An additional 32 infants who did not receive well child care did receive HCV testing. A total of nine infants, seven in the well child group and two in the non-well child group, tested positive for HCV.
“Of the infants tested with conclusive results, the HCV transmission rate was 8.4%, with 7.2% having chronic HCV infection,” which is in line with previous reports, according to the researchers.
“Because of the poor rates of pediatric HCV screening described, future researchers should focus on interventions to increase screening in infants who are at risk for perinatal HCV acquisition by including technology to improve the transfer of maternal HCV status to the pediatric record and increase pediatric provider awareness regarding HCV screening guidelines,” the investigators concluded.
SOURCE: Chappell CA et al. Pediatrics. 2018 May 2. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-3273.
Despite the increasing prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in pregnant women, infants exposed to the disease are screened at a very low rate, Catherine A. Chappell, MD, and her associates wrote in Pediatrics.
During 2006-2014, 87,924 women gave birth at the Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, of whom 1,043 had HCV. Over this time, the HCV prevalence rate increased 60%, from 1,026 cases per 100,000 women to 1,637 cases per 100,000 women. Women with HCV were more likely to be white, have Medicaid, have opiate use disorder, have other substance use disorders, and be under the age of 30 years.
Infants born to HCV-infected women are significantly more likely to be preterm and of low birth weight.
An additional 32 infants who did not receive well child care did receive HCV testing. A total of nine infants, seven in the well child group and two in the non-well child group, tested positive for HCV.
“Of the infants tested with conclusive results, the HCV transmission rate was 8.4%, with 7.2% having chronic HCV infection,” which is in line with previous reports, according to the researchers.
“Because of the poor rates of pediatric HCV screening described, future researchers should focus on interventions to increase screening in infants who are at risk for perinatal HCV acquisition by including technology to improve the transfer of maternal HCV status to the pediatric record and increase pediatric provider awareness regarding HCV screening guidelines,” the investigators concluded.
SOURCE: Chappell CA et al. Pediatrics. 2018 May 2. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-3273.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Treatment of HCV in special populations
MAUI, HAWAII – Treatment of acute rather than chronic hepatitis C infection is well worth considering in selected circumstances, Norah Terrault, MD, asserted at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease meeting.
This is not at present guideline-recommended therapy. Current American Association for the Study of Liver Disease/Infectious Diseases Society of America guidance states that while there is emerging data to support treatment of acute hepatitis C, the evidence isn’t yet sufficiently robust to support a particular regimen or duration. The guidelines currently recommend waiting 6 months to see if the acute infection resolves spontaneously, as happens in a minority of cases, or becomes chronic, at which point it becomes guideline-directed treatment time. But Dr. Terrault believes persuasive evidence to back treatment of acute hepatitis C infection (HCV) is forthcoming, and she noted that the guidelines leave the door ajar by stating, “There are instances wherein a clinician may decide that the benefits of early treatment outweigh waiting for possible spontaneous clearance.”
Treatment of acute HCV
Dr. Terrault deems treatment of acute HCV warranted in circumstances in which there is significant danger of transmission from the acutely infected individual to others. For example, health care providers with a needlestick HCV infection, injecting drug users, and men with acute HCV/HIV coinfection. She also treats acute HCV in patients with underlying chronic liver disease.
“Clearly, I wouldn’t want those individuals to have any worsening of their liver function, so I would treat them acutely,” explained Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and director of the Viral Hepatitis Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
She cited as particularly impressive the results of the SWIFT-C trial presented by Suzanna Naggie, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., at the 2017 AASLD annual meeting. In this modest-size, National Institutes of Health–sponsored, multicenter study of HIV-infected men with acute HCV coinfection, the sustained viral response (SVR) rate with 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvoni) was 100%, regardless of their baseline HCV RNA level.
“I think this is remarkable. They cleared virus quite late and yet they went on to achieve HCV eradication. It highlights how little we really know about the treatment of individuals in this phase and that relying on HCV RNA levels may not tell the whole story. I think this is important data to suggest maybe when we treat acute hepatitis C we can use a shorter duration of treatment for that population. There are also other small studies testing 8 weeks of treatment in non–HIV-infected individuals with acute hepatitis C in which they also showed very high SVR rates,” the hepatologist said.
Copanelist Steven L. Flamm, MD, said that when he encounters a patient with acute HCV he, too, is prepared to offer treatment – he finds the available supporting evidence sufficiently compelling – but he often encounters a problem.
“Sometimes I’m blocked by insurance companies because this isn’t officially approved,” noted Dr. Flamm, professor of medicine and chief of the hepatology program at Northwestern University, Chicago.
“You’re right,” Dr. Terrault commented, “we have to make a pretty compelling argument to the insurer as to why we’re treating. But ‘treat to prevent transmission to others’ usually is successful in our hands.”
HCV in patients with end-stage renal disease
The product labeling for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) says the drug’s safety and efficacy haven’t been established in patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease. However, a small multicenter study presented at the 2017 AASLD meeting demonstrated that 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir achieved a 100% SVR rate in patients with genotype 1 HCV and severe renal impairment, including some on dialysis, with no clinically meaningful change in estimated glomerular filtration rate or any signal of cardiac arrhythmia.
“The serum drug levels went up significantly, but reassuringly they saw no meaningful safety signals,” according to Dr. Terrault. “This, I think, is initial reassuring information that we were all very much waiting for.”
Still, as the AASLD/IDSA guidelines point out, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir is not a recommended option for HCV treatment in end-stage renal disease.
“In general, I think glecapravir/pibrentasvir [Mavyret] has become the go-to drug for patients who have renal dysfunction because it’s a pangenic regimen, it doesn’t require use of sofosbuvir, and there’s no dose adjustment. But I would say you could encounter situations where you might want to use sofosbuvir, and for me that situation is typically those direct-acting, antiviral-experienced patients who have failed other therapies and you really need to use sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir [Vosevi] as your last or rescue therapy,” the hepatologist continued.
HCV in liver transplant recipients
“In the years before the direct-acting antivirals, treating transplant patients was always very challenging,” Dr. Terrault recalled. “They had very low response rates to therapy. That’s all gone away. Now we can say that liver transplant recipients who require treatment have response rates that are the same as in individuals who have not had a transplant. These patients are now being treated earlier and earlier after their transplant because you can do it safely.”
She pointed to a study presented at the 2017 AASLD meeting by Kosh Agarwal, MD, of Kings College London. It involved 79 adults with recurrent genotypes 1-4 HCV infection post–liver transplant who were treated with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (Epclusa) for 12 weeks with a total SVR rate of 96%.
“The nice thing about sofosbuvir/velpatasvir is there are no drug-drug interactions with immunosuppressive drugs. Now it’s very easy to take care of these patients. The SVR rates are excellent,” Dr. Terrault observed.
The other combination that’s been studied specifically in liver transplant recipients, and in kidney transplant recipients as well, is glecapravir/pibrentasvir. In the MAGELLAN-2 study of 100 such patients with genotypes 1-6 HCV, the SVR rate was 99% with no drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation.
Persons who inject drugs
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization want HCV eradicated by 2030. If that’s going to happen, physicians will have to become more comfortable treating the disease in injectable drug users, a population with a high prevalence of HCV. Several studies have now shown that very high SVR rates can be achieved with direct-acting antiviral regimens as short as 8 weeks in these individuals, even if they are concurrently injecting drugs.
“There is increasing evidence that we should be doing more treatment in persons who inject drugs. Many of these individuals have very early disease and their response rates are excellent,” according to Dr. Terrault.
Moreover, their reinfection rates “are not outrageous,” she said: 1% or less in individuals who stopped injecting drugs decades prior to anti-HCV treatment, 5%-10% over the course of 3-5 years in those who continue injecting drugs after achieving SVR, and about 2% in those on methadone substitution therapy.
“These are very acceptable levels of reinfection if our goal is to move toward elimination of hepatitis C in this population,” she said.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
MAUI, HAWAII – Treatment of acute rather than chronic hepatitis C infection is well worth considering in selected circumstances, Norah Terrault, MD, asserted at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease meeting.
This is not at present guideline-recommended therapy. Current American Association for the Study of Liver Disease/Infectious Diseases Society of America guidance states that while there is emerging data to support treatment of acute hepatitis C, the evidence isn’t yet sufficiently robust to support a particular regimen or duration. The guidelines currently recommend waiting 6 months to see if the acute infection resolves spontaneously, as happens in a minority of cases, or becomes chronic, at which point it becomes guideline-directed treatment time. But Dr. Terrault believes persuasive evidence to back treatment of acute hepatitis C infection (HCV) is forthcoming, and she noted that the guidelines leave the door ajar by stating, “There are instances wherein a clinician may decide that the benefits of early treatment outweigh waiting for possible spontaneous clearance.”
Treatment of acute HCV
Dr. Terrault deems treatment of acute HCV warranted in circumstances in which there is significant danger of transmission from the acutely infected individual to others. For example, health care providers with a needlestick HCV infection, injecting drug users, and men with acute HCV/HIV coinfection. She also treats acute HCV in patients with underlying chronic liver disease.
“Clearly, I wouldn’t want those individuals to have any worsening of their liver function, so I would treat them acutely,” explained Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and director of the Viral Hepatitis Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
She cited as particularly impressive the results of the SWIFT-C trial presented by Suzanna Naggie, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., at the 2017 AASLD annual meeting. In this modest-size, National Institutes of Health–sponsored, multicenter study of HIV-infected men with acute HCV coinfection, the sustained viral response (SVR) rate with 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvoni) was 100%, regardless of their baseline HCV RNA level.
“I think this is remarkable. They cleared virus quite late and yet they went on to achieve HCV eradication. It highlights how little we really know about the treatment of individuals in this phase and that relying on HCV RNA levels may not tell the whole story. I think this is important data to suggest maybe when we treat acute hepatitis C we can use a shorter duration of treatment for that population. There are also other small studies testing 8 weeks of treatment in non–HIV-infected individuals with acute hepatitis C in which they also showed very high SVR rates,” the hepatologist said.
Copanelist Steven L. Flamm, MD, said that when he encounters a patient with acute HCV he, too, is prepared to offer treatment – he finds the available supporting evidence sufficiently compelling – but he often encounters a problem.
“Sometimes I’m blocked by insurance companies because this isn’t officially approved,” noted Dr. Flamm, professor of medicine and chief of the hepatology program at Northwestern University, Chicago.
“You’re right,” Dr. Terrault commented, “we have to make a pretty compelling argument to the insurer as to why we’re treating. But ‘treat to prevent transmission to others’ usually is successful in our hands.”
HCV in patients with end-stage renal disease
The product labeling for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) says the drug’s safety and efficacy haven’t been established in patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease. However, a small multicenter study presented at the 2017 AASLD meeting demonstrated that 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir achieved a 100% SVR rate in patients with genotype 1 HCV and severe renal impairment, including some on dialysis, with no clinically meaningful change in estimated glomerular filtration rate or any signal of cardiac arrhythmia.
“The serum drug levels went up significantly, but reassuringly they saw no meaningful safety signals,” according to Dr. Terrault. “This, I think, is initial reassuring information that we were all very much waiting for.”
Still, as the AASLD/IDSA guidelines point out, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir is not a recommended option for HCV treatment in end-stage renal disease.
“In general, I think glecapravir/pibrentasvir [Mavyret] has become the go-to drug for patients who have renal dysfunction because it’s a pangenic regimen, it doesn’t require use of sofosbuvir, and there’s no dose adjustment. But I would say you could encounter situations where you might want to use sofosbuvir, and for me that situation is typically those direct-acting, antiviral-experienced patients who have failed other therapies and you really need to use sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir [Vosevi] as your last or rescue therapy,” the hepatologist continued.
HCV in liver transplant recipients
“In the years before the direct-acting antivirals, treating transplant patients was always very challenging,” Dr. Terrault recalled. “They had very low response rates to therapy. That’s all gone away. Now we can say that liver transplant recipients who require treatment have response rates that are the same as in individuals who have not had a transplant. These patients are now being treated earlier and earlier after their transplant because you can do it safely.”
She pointed to a study presented at the 2017 AASLD meeting by Kosh Agarwal, MD, of Kings College London. It involved 79 adults with recurrent genotypes 1-4 HCV infection post–liver transplant who were treated with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (Epclusa) for 12 weeks with a total SVR rate of 96%.
“The nice thing about sofosbuvir/velpatasvir is there are no drug-drug interactions with immunosuppressive drugs. Now it’s very easy to take care of these patients. The SVR rates are excellent,” Dr. Terrault observed.
The other combination that’s been studied specifically in liver transplant recipients, and in kidney transplant recipients as well, is glecapravir/pibrentasvir. In the MAGELLAN-2 study of 100 such patients with genotypes 1-6 HCV, the SVR rate was 99% with no drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation.
Persons who inject drugs
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization want HCV eradicated by 2030. If that’s going to happen, physicians will have to become more comfortable treating the disease in injectable drug users, a population with a high prevalence of HCV. Several studies have now shown that very high SVR rates can be achieved with direct-acting antiviral regimens as short as 8 weeks in these individuals, even if they are concurrently injecting drugs.
“There is increasing evidence that we should be doing more treatment in persons who inject drugs. Many of these individuals have very early disease and their response rates are excellent,” according to Dr. Terrault.
Moreover, their reinfection rates “are not outrageous,” she said: 1% or less in individuals who stopped injecting drugs decades prior to anti-HCV treatment, 5%-10% over the course of 3-5 years in those who continue injecting drugs after achieving SVR, and about 2% in those on methadone substitution therapy.
“These are very acceptable levels of reinfection if our goal is to move toward elimination of hepatitis C in this population,” she said.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
MAUI, HAWAII – Treatment of acute rather than chronic hepatitis C infection is well worth considering in selected circumstances, Norah Terrault, MD, asserted at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease meeting.
This is not at present guideline-recommended therapy. Current American Association for the Study of Liver Disease/Infectious Diseases Society of America guidance states that while there is emerging data to support treatment of acute hepatitis C, the evidence isn’t yet sufficiently robust to support a particular regimen or duration. The guidelines currently recommend waiting 6 months to see if the acute infection resolves spontaneously, as happens in a minority of cases, or becomes chronic, at which point it becomes guideline-directed treatment time. But Dr. Terrault believes persuasive evidence to back treatment of acute hepatitis C infection (HCV) is forthcoming, and she noted that the guidelines leave the door ajar by stating, “There are instances wherein a clinician may decide that the benefits of early treatment outweigh waiting for possible spontaneous clearance.”
Treatment of acute HCV
Dr. Terrault deems treatment of acute HCV warranted in circumstances in which there is significant danger of transmission from the acutely infected individual to others. For example, health care providers with a needlestick HCV infection, injecting drug users, and men with acute HCV/HIV coinfection. She also treats acute HCV in patients with underlying chronic liver disease.
“Clearly, I wouldn’t want those individuals to have any worsening of their liver function, so I would treat them acutely,” explained Dr. Terrault, professor of medicine and director of the Viral Hepatitis Center at the University of California, San Francisco.
She cited as particularly impressive the results of the SWIFT-C trial presented by Suzanna Naggie, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., at the 2017 AASLD annual meeting. In this modest-size, National Institutes of Health–sponsored, multicenter study of HIV-infected men with acute HCV coinfection, the sustained viral response (SVR) rate with 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvoni) was 100%, regardless of their baseline HCV RNA level.
“I think this is remarkable. They cleared virus quite late and yet they went on to achieve HCV eradication. It highlights how little we really know about the treatment of individuals in this phase and that relying on HCV RNA levels may not tell the whole story. I think this is important data to suggest maybe when we treat acute hepatitis C we can use a shorter duration of treatment for that population. There are also other small studies testing 8 weeks of treatment in non–HIV-infected individuals with acute hepatitis C in which they also showed very high SVR rates,” the hepatologist said.
Copanelist Steven L. Flamm, MD, said that when he encounters a patient with acute HCV he, too, is prepared to offer treatment – he finds the available supporting evidence sufficiently compelling – but he often encounters a problem.
“Sometimes I’m blocked by insurance companies because this isn’t officially approved,” noted Dr. Flamm, professor of medicine and chief of the hepatology program at Northwestern University, Chicago.
“You’re right,” Dr. Terrault commented, “we have to make a pretty compelling argument to the insurer as to why we’re treating. But ‘treat to prevent transmission to others’ usually is successful in our hands.”
HCV in patients with end-stage renal disease
The product labeling for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) says the drug’s safety and efficacy haven’t been established in patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease. However, a small multicenter study presented at the 2017 AASLD meeting demonstrated that 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir achieved a 100% SVR rate in patients with genotype 1 HCV and severe renal impairment, including some on dialysis, with no clinically meaningful change in estimated glomerular filtration rate or any signal of cardiac arrhythmia.
“The serum drug levels went up significantly, but reassuringly they saw no meaningful safety signals,” according to Dr. Terrault. “This, I think, is initial reassuring information that we were all very much waiting for.”
Still, as the AASLD/IDSA guidelines point out, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir is not a recommended option for HCV treatment in end-stage renal disease.
“In general, I think glecapravir/pibrentasvir [Mavyret] has become the go-to drug for patients who have renal dysfunction because it’s a pangenic regimen, it doesn’t require use of sofosbuvir, and there’s no dose adjustment. But I would say you could encounter situations where you might want to use sofosbuvir, and for me that situation is typically those direct-acting, antiviral-experienced patients who have failed other therapies and you really need to use sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir [Vosevi] as your last or rescue therapy,” the hepatologist continued.
HCV in liver transplant recipients
“In the years before the direct-acting antivirals, treating transplant patients was always very challenging,” Dr. Terrault recalled. “They had very low response rates to therapy. That’s all gone away. Now we can say that liver transplant recipients who require treatment have response rates that are the same as in individuals who have not had a transplant. These patients are now being treated earlier and earlier after their transplant because you can do it safely.”
She pointed to a study presented at the 2017 AASLD meeting by Kosh Agarwal, MD, of Kings College London. It involved 79 adults with recurrent genotypes 1-4 HCV infection post–liver transplant who were treated with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (Epclusa) for 12 weeks with a total SVR rate of 96%.
“The nice thing about sofosbuvir/velpatasvir is there are no drug-drug interactions with immunosuppressive drugs. Now it’s very easy to take care of these patients. The SVR rates are excellent,” Dr. Terrault observed.
The other combination that’s been studied specifically in liver transplant recipients, and in kidney transplant recipients as well, is glecapravir/pibrentasvir. In the MAGELLAN-2 study of 100 such patients with genotypes 1-6 HCV, the SVR rate was 99% with no drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation.
Persons who inject drugs
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization want HCV eradicated by 2030. If that’s going to happen, physicians will have to become more comfortable treating the disease in injectable drug users, a population with a high prevalence of HCV. Several studies have now shown that very high SVR rates can be achieved with direct-acting antiviral regimens as short as 8 weeks in these individuals, even if they are concurrently injecting drugs.
“There is increasing evidence that we should be doing more treatment in persons who inject drugs. Many of these individuals have very early disease and their response rates are excellent,” according to Dr. Terrault.
Moreover, their reinfection rates “are not outrageous,” she said: 1% or less in individuals who stopped injecting drugs decades prior to anti-HCV treatment, 5%-10% over the course of 3-5 years in those who continue injecting drugs after achieving SVR, and about 2% in those on methadone substitution therapy.
“These are very acceptable levels of reinfection if our goal is to move toward elimination of hepatitis C in this population,” she said.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM GUILD 2018
Alpha fetoprotein boosted detection of early-stage liver cancer
For patients with cirrhosis, adding serum alpha fetoprotein testing to ultrasound significantly boosted its ability to detect early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis reported in the May issue of Gastroenterology.
Used alone, ultrasound detected only 45% of early-stage hepatocellular carcinomas (95% confidence interval, 30%-62%), reported Kristina Tzartzeva, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, with her associates. Adding alpha fetoprotein (AFP) increased this sensitivity to 63% (95% CI, 48%-75%; P = .002). Few studies evaluated alternative surveillance tools, such as CT or MRI.
Diagnosing liver cancer early is key to survival and thus is a central issue in cirrhosis management. However, the best surveillance strategy remains uncertain, hinging as it does on sensitivity, specificity, and cost. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver recommend that cirrhotic patients undergo twice-yearly ultrasound to screen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but they disagree about the value of adding serum biomarker AFP testing. Meanwhile, more and more clinics are using CT and MRI because of concerns about the unreliability of ultrasound. “Given few direct comparative studies, we are forced to primarily rely on indirect comparisons across studies,” the reviewers wrote.
To do so, they searched MEDLINE and Scopus and identified 32 studies of HCC surveillance that comprised 13,367 patients, nearly all with baseline cirrhosis. The studies were published from 1990 to August 2016.
Ultrasound detected HCC of any stage with a sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 76%-92%), but its sensitivity for detecting early-stage disease was less than 50%. In studies that performed direct comparisons, ultrasound alone was significantly less sensitive than ultrasound plus AFP for detecting all stages of HCC (relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88) and early-stage disease (0.78; 0.66-0.92). However, ultrasound alone was more specific than ultrasound plus AFP (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09).
Four studies of about 900 patients evaluated cross-sectional imaging with CT or MRI. In one single-center, randomized trial, CT had a sensitivity of 63% for detecting early-stage disease, but the 95% CI for this estimate was very wide (30%-87%) and CT did not significantly outperform ultrasound (Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:303-12). In another study, MRI and ultrasound had significantly different sensitivities of 84% and 26% for detecting (usually) early-stage disease (JAMA Oncol. 2017;3[4]:456-63).
“Ultrasound currently forms the backbone of professional society recommendations for HCC surveillance; however, our meta-analysis highlights its suboptimal sensitivity for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma at an early stage. Using ultrasound in combination with AFP appears to significantly improve sensitivity for detecting early HCC with a small, albeit statistically significant, trade-off in specificity. There are currently insufficient data to support routine use of CT- or MRI-based surveillance in all patients with cirrhosis,” the reviewers concluded.
The National Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas provided funding. None of the reviewers had conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Tzartzeva K et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.064.
For patients with cirrhosis, adding serum alpha fetoprotein testing to ultrasound significantly boosted its ability to detect early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis reported in the May issue of Gastroenterology.
Used alone, ultrasound detected only 45% of early-stage hepatocellular carcinomas (95% confidence interval, 30%-62%), reported Kristina Tzartzeva, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, with her associates. Adding alpha fetoprotein (AFP) increased this sensitivity to 63% (95% CI, 48%-75%; P = .002). Few studies evaluated alternative surveillance tools, such as CT or MRI.
Diagnosing liver cancer early is key to survival and thus is a central issue in cirrhosis management. However, the best surveillance strategy remains uncertain, hinging as it does on sensitivity, specificity, and cost. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver recommend that cirrhotic patients undergo twice-yearly ultrasound to screen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but they disagree about the value of adding serum biomarker AFP testing. Meanwhile, more and more clinics are using CT and MRI because of concerns about the unreliability of ultrasound. “Given few direct comparative studies, we are forced to primarily rely on indirect comparisons across studies,” the reviewers wrote.
To do so, they searched MEDLINE and Scopus and identified 32 studies of HCC surveillance that comprised 13,367 patients, nearly all with baseline cirrhosis. The studies were published from 1990 to August 2016.
Ultrasound detected HCC of any stage with a sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 76%-92%), but its sensitivity for detecting early-stage disease was less than 50%. In studies that performed direct comparisons, ultrasound alone was significantly less sensitive than ultrasound plus AFP for detecting all stages of HCC (relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88) and early-stage disease (0.78; 0.66-0.92). However, ultrasound alone was more specific than ultrasound plus AFP (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09).
Four studies of about 900 patients evaluated cross-sectional imaging with CT or MRI. In one single-center, randomized trial, CT had a sensitivity of 63% for detecting early-stage disease, but the 95% CI for this estimate was very wide (30%-87%) and CT did not significantly outperform ultrasound (Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:303-12). In another study, MRI and ultrasound had significantly different sensitivities of 84% and 26% for detecting (usually) early-stage disease (JAMA Oncol. 2017;3[4]:456-63).
“Ultrasound currently forms the backbone of professional society recommendations for HCC surveillance; however, our meta-analysis highlights its suboptimal sensitivity for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma at an early stage. Using ultrasound in combination with AFP appears to significantly improve sensitivity for detecting early HCC with a small, albeit statistically significant, trade-off in specificity. There are currently insufficient data to support routine use of CT- or MRI-based surveillance in all patients with cirrhosis,” the reviewers concluded.
The National Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas provided funding. None of the reviewers had conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Tzartzeva K et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.064.
For patients with cirrhosis, adding serum alpha fetoprotein testing to ultrasound significantly boosted its ability to detect early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis reported in the May issue of Gastroenterology.
Used alone, ultrasound detected only 45% of early-stage hepatocellular carcinomas (95% confidence interval, 30%-62%), reported Kristina Tzartzeva, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, with her associates. Adding alpha fetoprotein (AFP) increased this sensitivity to 63% (95% CI, 48%-75%; P = .002). Few studies evaluated alternative surveillance tools, such as CT or MRI.
Diagnosing liver cancer early is key to survival and thus is a central issue in cirrhosis management. However, the best surveillance strategy remains uncertain, hinging as it does on sensitivity, specificity, and cost. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver recommend that cirrhotic patients undergo twice-yearly ultrasound to screen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but they disagree about the value of adding serum biomarker AFP testing. Meanwhile, more and more clinics are using CT and MRI because of concerns about the unreliability of ultrasound. “Given few direct comparative studies, we are forced to primarily rely on indirect comparisons across studies,” the reviewers wrote.
To do so, they searched MEDLINE and Scopus and identified 32 studies of HCC surveillance that comprised 13,367 patients, nearly all with baseline cirrhosis. The studies were published from 1990 to August 2016.
Ultrasound detected HCC of any stage with a sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 76%-92%), but its sensitivity for detecting early-stage disease was less than 50%. In studies that performed direct comparisons, ultrasound alone was significantly less sensitive than ultrasound plus AFP for detecting all stages of HCC (relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88) and early-stage disease (0.78; 0.66-0.92). However, ultrasound alone was more specific than ultrasound plus AFP (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09).
Four studies of about 900 patients evaluated cross-sectional imaging with CT or MRI. In one single-center, randomized trial, CT had a sensitivity of 63% for detecting early-stage disease, but the 95% CI for this estimate was very wide (30%-87%) and CT did not significantly outperform ultrasound (Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:303-12). In another study, MRI and ultrasound had significantly different sensitivities of 84% and 26% for detecting (usually) early-stage disease (JAMA Oncol. 2017;3[4]:456-63).
“Ultrasound currently forms the backbone of professional society recommendations for HCC surveillance; however, our meta-analysis highlights its suboptimal sensitivity for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma at an early stage. Using ultrasound in combination with AFP appears to significantly improve sensitivity for detecting early HCC with a small, albeit statistically significant, trade-off in specificity. There are currently insufficient data to support routine use of CT- or MRI-based surveillance in all patients with cirrhosis,” the reviewers concluded.
The National Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas provided funding. None of the reviewers had conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Tzartzeva K et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.064.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Key clinical point: Ultrasound unreliably detects hepatocellular carcinoma, but adding alpha fetoprotein increases its sensitivity.
Major finding: Used alone, ultrasound detected only 47% of early-stage cases. Adding alpha fetoprotein increased this sensitivity to 63% (P = .002).
Study details: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies comprising 13,367 patients and spanning from 1990 to August 2016.
Disclosures: The National Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas provided funding. None of the researchers had conflicts of interest.
Source: Tzartzeva K et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.064.
Heavy drinking did not worsen clinical outcomes from drug-induced liver injury
Heavy drinking was not associated with higher proportions of liver-related deaths or liver transplantation among patients with drug-induced liver injury (DILI), according to the results of a prospective multicenter cohort study reported in the May issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Anabolic steroids were the most common cause of DILI among heavy drinkers, defined as men who averaged more than three drinks a day or women who averaged more than two drinks daily, said Lara Dakhoul, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and her associates. There also was no evidence that heavy alcohol consumption increased the risk of liver injury attributable to isoniazid exposure, the researchers wrote in.
Although consuming alcohol significantly increases the risk of acetaminophen-induced liver injury, there is much less clarity about the relationship between drinking and hepatotoxicity from drugs such as duloxetine or antituberculosis medications, the researchers noted. In fact, one recent study found that drinking led to less severe liver injury among individuals with DILI. To better elucidate these links, the investigators studied 1,198 individuals with confirmed or probable DILI who enrolled in the DILI Network study (DILIN) between 2004 and 2016. At enrollment, all participants were asked if they consumed alcohol, and those who reported drinking within the past 12 months were offered a shortened version of the Skinner Alcohol Dependence Scale to collect details on alcohol consumption, including type, amount, and frequency.
In all, 601 persons reported consuming at least one alcoholic drink in the preceding year, of whom 348 completed the Skinner questionnaire. A total of 80 individuals reported heavy alcohol consumption. Heavy drinkers were typically in their early 40s, while nondrinkers tended to be nearly 50 years old (P less than .01). Heavy drinkers were also more often men (63%) while nondrinkers were usually women (65%; P less than .01). Heavy drinkers were significantly more likely to have DILI secondary to anabolic steroid exposure (13%) than were nondrinkers (2%; P less than .001). However, latency, pattern of liver injury, peak enzyme levels, and patterns of recovery from steroid hepatotoxicity were similar regardless of alcohol history.
A total of eight patients with DILI died of liver-related causes or underwent liver transplantation, and proportions of patients with these outcomes were similar regardless of alcohol history. These eight patients had no evidence of hepatitis C virus infection, but three appeared to have underlying alcoholic liver disease with superimposed acute-on-chronic liver failure. Heavy drinkers did not have significantly higher DILI severity scores than nondrinkers, but they did have significantly higher peak serum levels of alanine aminotransferase (1,323 U/L vs. 754, respectively; P = .02) and significantly higher levels of bilirubin (16.1 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P = .03).
The two fatal cases of DILI among heavy drinkers involved a 44-year-old man with underlying alcoholic cirrhosis and steatohepatitis who developed acute-on-chronic liver failure 11 days after starting niacin, and a 76-year-old man with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchitis flare who developed severe liver injury and skin rash 6 days after starting azithromycin.
The study was not able to assess whether heavy alcohol consumption contributed to liver injury from specific agents, the researchers said. Additionally, a substantial number of drinkers did not complete the Skinner questionnaire, and those who did might have underestimated or underreported their own alcohol consumption. “Counterbalancing these issues are the [study’s] unique strengths, such as prospective design, larger sample size, well-characterized DILI phenotype, and careful, structured adjudication of causality and severity,” the researchers wrote.
Funders included the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Dakhoul had no conflicts of interest. On coinvestigator disclosed ties to numerous pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Dakhoul L et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2018 Jan 3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.036.
Heavy drinking was not associated with higher proportions of liver-related deaths or liver transplantation among patients with drug-induced liver injury (DILI), according to the results of a prospective multicenter cohort study reported in the May issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Anabolic steroids were the most common cause of DILI among heavy drinkers, defined as men who averaged more than three drinks a day or women who averaged more than two drinks daily, said Lara Dakhoul, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and her associates. There also was no evidence that heavy alcohol consumption increased the risk of liver injury attributable to isoniazid exposure, the researchers wrote in.
Although consuming alcohol significantly increases the risk of acetaminophen-induced liver injury, there is much less clarity about the relationship between drinking and hepatotoxicity from drugs such as duloxetine or antituberculosis medications, the researchers noted. In fact, one recent study found that drinking led to less severe liver injury among individuals with DILI. To better elucidate these links, the investigators studied 1,198 individuals with confirmed or probable DILI who enrolled in the DILI Network study (DILIN) between 2004 and 2016. At enrollment, all participants were asked if they consumed alcohol, and those who reported drinking within the past 12 months were offered a shortened version of the Skinner Alcohol Dependence Scale to collect details on alcohol consumption, including type, amount, and frequency.
In all, 601 persons reported consuming at least one alcoholic drink in the preceding year, of whom 348 completed the Skinner questionnaire. A total of 80 individuals reported heavy alcohol consumption. Heavy drinkers were typically in their early 40s, while nondrinkers tended to be nearly 50 years old (P less than .01). Heavy drinkers were also more often men (63%) while nondrinkers were usually women (65%; P less than .01). Heavy drinkers were significantly more likely to have DILI secondary to anabolic steroid exposure (13%) than were nondrinkers (2%; P less than .001). However, latency, pattern of liver injury, peak enzyme levels, and patterns of recovery from steroid hepatotoxicity were similar regardless of alcohol history.
A total of eight patients with DILI died of liver-related causes or underwent liver transplantation, and proportions of patients with these outcomes were similar regardless of alcohol history. These eight patients had no evidence of hepatitis C virus infection, but three appeared to have underlying alcoholic liver disease with superimposed acute-on-chronic liver failure. Heavy drinkers did not have significantly higher DILI severity scores than nondrinkers, but they did have significantly higher peak serum levels of alanine aminotransferase (1,323 U/L vs. 754, respectively; P = .02) and significantly higher levels of bilirubin (16.1 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P = .03).
The two fatal cases of DILI among heavy drinkers involved a 44-year-old man with underlying alcoholic cirrhosis and steatohepatitis who developed acute-on-chronic liver failure 11 days after starting niacin, and a 76-year-old man with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchitis flare who developed severe liver injury and skin rash 6 days after starting azithromycin.
The study was not able to assess whether heavy alcohol consumption contributed to liver injury from specific agents, the researchers said. Additionally, a substantial number of drinkers did not complete the Skinner questionnaire, and those who did might have underestimated or underreported their own alcohol consumption. “Counterbalancing these issues are the [study’s] unique strengths, such as prospective design, larger sample size, well-characterized DILI phenotype, and careful, structured adjudication of causality and severity,” the researchers wrote.
Funders included the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Dakhoul had no conflicts of interest. On coinvestigator disclosed ties to numerous pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Dakhoul L et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2018 Jan 3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.036.
Heavy drinking was not associated with higher proportions of liver-related deaths or liver transplantation among patients with drug-induced liver injury (DILI), according to the results of a prospective multicenter cohort study reported in the May issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Anabolic steroids were the most common cause of DILI among heavy drinkers, defined as men who averaged more than three drinks a day or women who averaged more than two drinks daily, said Lara Dakhoul, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and her associates. There also was no evidence that heavy alcohol consumption increased the risk of liver injury attributable to isoniazid exposure, the researchers wrote in.
Although consuming alcohol significantly increases the risk of acetaminophen-induced liver injury, there is much less clarity about the relationship between drinking and hepatotoxicity from drugs such as duloxetine or antituberculosis medications, the researchers noted. In fact, one recent study found that drinking led to less severe liver injury among individuals with DILI. To better elucidate these links, the investigators studied 1,198 individuals with confirmed or probable DILI who enrolled in the DILI Network study (DILIN) between 2004 and 2016. At enrollment, all participants were asked if they consumed alcohol, and those who reported drinking within the past 12 months were offered a shortened version of the Skinner Alcohol Dependence Scale to collect details on alcohol consumption, including type, amount, and frequency.
In all, 601 persons reported consuming at least one alcoholic drink in the preceding year, of whom 348 completed the Skinner questionnaire. A total of 80 individuals reported heavy alcohol consumption. Heavy drinkers were typically in their early 40s, while nondrinkers tended to be nearly 50 years old (P less than .01). Heavy drinkers were also more often men (63%) while nondrinkers were usually women (65%; P less than .01). Heavy drinkers were significantly more likely to have DILI secondary to anabolic steroid exposure (13%) than were nondrinkers (2%; P less than .001). However, latency, pattern of liver injury, peak enzyme levels, and patterns of recovery from steroid hepatotoxicity were similar regardless of alcohol history.
A total of eight patients with DILI died of liver-related causes or underwent liver transplantation, and proportions of patients with these outcomes were similar regardless of alcohol history. These eight patients had no evidence of hepatitis C virus infection, but three appeared to have underlying alcoholic liver disease with superimposed acute-on-chronic liver failure. Heavy drinkers did not have significantly higher DILI severity scores than nondrinkers, but they did have significantly higher peak serum levels of alanine aminotransferase (1,323 U/L vs. 754, respectively; P = .02) and significantly higher levels of bilirubin (16.1 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P = .03).
The two fatal cases of DILI among heavy drinkers involved a 44-year-old man with underlying alcoholic cirrhosis and steatohepatitis who developed acute-on-chronic liver failure 11 days after starting niacin, and a 76-year-old man with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchitis flare who developed severe liver injury and skin rash 6 days after starting azithromycin.
The study was not able to assess whether heavy alcohol consumption contributed to liver injury from specific agents, the researchers said. Additionally, a substantial number of drinkers did not complete the Skinner questionnaire, and those who did might have underestimated or underreported their own alcohol consumption. “Counterbalancing these issues are the [study’s] unique strengths, such as prospective design, larger sample size, well-characterized DILI phenotype, and careful, structured adjudication of causality and severity,” the researchers wrote.
Funders included the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Dakhoul had no conflicts of interest. On coinvestigator disclosed ties to numerous pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Dakhoul L et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2018 Jan 3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.036.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Key clinical point: Heavy alcohol consumption was not associated with worse outcomes of drug-induced liver toxicity.
Major finding: Proportions of patients with liver-related deaths and liver transplantation were statistically similar regardless of alcohol consumption history (P = .18).
Study details: Prospective study of 1,198 individuals with probable drug-induced liver injury.
Disclosures: Funders included the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Dakhoul had no conflicts. One coinvestigator disclosed ties to numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Source: Dakhoul L et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2018 Jan 3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.036.
Hep B therapy: Indefinite or FINITE for e-negative patients?
LAS VEGAS – Current guidelines recommend indefinite continuation of antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients who are hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-negative. But emerging data suggest that this may not always be the case.
“It’s very provocative data, though not at the guideline level,” W. Ray Kim, MD, said in a presentation at the inaugural Perspectives in Digestive Diseases meeting held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
“There are patients who really have begged to go off treatment because they are sick of taking the medication for year after year after year,” said Dr. Kim, professor of medicine, gastroenterology and hepatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.
In light of new data, taking them off medication might be “something to consider” in noncirrhotic patients if they are completely suppressed, have normal ALT, and have a low level of quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), Dr. Kim told attendees.
The most current Association for the Advancement of the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines state that unless there is a competing rationale, antiviral therapy should be continued indefinitely for noncirrhotic adults with HBeAg‐negative immune‐active chronic hepatitis B.
They do also say that treatment discontinuation “may be considered” for individuals with proven loss of HBsAg. “However, there is currently insufficient evidence to definitively guide treatment decisions for such persons,” the guidelines say.
Evidence has emerged since those guideline statements were written. Most recently, German investigators published results of the FINITE study showing some long-term responses after stopping tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in noncirrhotic, HBeAg-negative patients.
In that prospective, controlled study, 62% of patients who stopped TDF therapy (n = 13) stayed off therapy to week 144 of treatment follow-up. Four of the patients achieved HBsAg loss, and median HBsAg change was –0.59log10IU/mL vs. 0.21log10IU/mL in patients who stayed on TDF therapy.
Investigators said that result demonstrated the potential of stopping long-term TDF treatment and seeing either HBsAg loss or sustained virologic response.
Before that, a retrospective study from investigators in Taiwan showed that age plus level of HBsAg were associated with HBV relapse after entecavir treatment in HBeAg-negative patients. According to investigators, those results suggested HBsAg levels could be used to guide timing of entecavir cessation.
If antiviral therapy is stopped in an HBeAg-negative patient, that patient should be monitored every 3 month for a year for recurrent viremia, ALT flares, and hepatic decompensation, Dr. Kim said at the meeting.
Even before stopping, “there are a number of factors to consider, including biological relapse, flare, hepatic decompensation,” he said.
On the other hand, there is the burden of continued therapy, financial concerns of continuing treatment due not only to medication costs but also long-term monitoring, as well as patient and provider preference, he noted in his presentation.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Dr. Kim reported serving as a consultant to Gilead.
LAS VEGAS – Current guidelines recommend indefinite continuation of antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients who are hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-negative. But emerging data suggest that this may not always be the case.
“It’s very provocative data, though not at the guideline level,” W. Ray Kim, MD, said in a presentation at the inaugural Perspectives in Digestive Diseases meeting held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
“There are patients who really have begged to go off treatment because they are sick of taking the medication for year after year after year,” said Dr. Kim, professor of medicine, gastroenterology and hepatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.
In light of new data, taking them off medication might be “something to consider” in noncirrhotic patients if they are completely suppressed, have normal ALT, and have a low level of quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), Dr. Kim told attendees.
The most current Association for the Advancement of the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines state that unless there is a competing rationale, antiviral therapy should be continued indefinitely for noncirrhotic adults with HBeAg‐negative immune‐active chronic hepatitis B.
They do also say that treatment discontinuation “may be considered” for individuals with proven loss of HBsAg. “However, there is currently insufficient evidence to definitively guide treatment decisions for such persons,” the guidelines say.
Evidence has emerged since those guideline statements were written. Most recently, German investigators published results of the FINITE study showing some long-term responses after stopping tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in noncirrhotic, HBeAg-negative patients.
In that prospective, controlled study, 62% of patients who stopped TDF therapy (n = 13) stayed off therapy to week 144 of treatment follow-up. Four of the patients achieved HBsAg loss, and median HBsAg change was –0.59log10IU/mL vs. 0.21log10IU/mL in patients who stayed on TDF therapy.
Investigators said that result demonstrated the potential of stopping long-term TDF treatment and seeing either HBsAg loss or sustained virologic response.
Before that, a retrospective study from investigators in Taiwan showed that age plus level of HBsAg were associated with HBV relapse after entecavir treatment in HBeAg-negative patients. According to investigators, those results suggested HBsAg levels could be used to guide timing of entecavir cessation.
If antiviral therapy is stopped in an HBeAg-negative patient, that patient should be monitored every 3 month for a year for recurrent viremia, ALT flares, and hepatic decompensation, Dr. Kim said at the meeting.
Even before stopping, “there are a number of factors to consider, including biological relapse, flare, hepatic decompensation,” he said.
On the other hand, there is the burden of continued therapy, financial concerns of continuing treatment due not only to medication costs but also long-term monitoring, as well as patient and provider preference, he noted in his presentation.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Dr. Kim reported serving as a consultant to Gilead.
LAS VEGAS – Current guidelines recommend indefinite continuation of antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients who are hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-negative. But emerging data suggest that this may not always be the case.
“It’s very provocative data, though not at the guideline level,” W. Ray Kim, MD, said in a presentation at the inaugural Perspectives in Digestive Diseases meeting held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
“There are patients who really have begged to go off treatment because they are sick of taking the medication for year after year after year,” said Dr. Kim, professor of medicine, gastroenterology and hepatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.
In light of new data, taking them off medication might be “something to consider” in noncirrhotic patients if they are completely suppressed, have normal ALT, and have a low level of quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), Dr. Kim told attendees.
The most current Association for the Advancement of the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines state that unless there is a competing rationale, antiviral therapy should be continued indefinitely for noncirrhotic adults with HBeAg‐negative immune‐active chronic hepatitis B.
They do also say that treatment discontinuation “may be considered” for individuals with proven loss of HBsAg. “However, there is currently insufficient evidence to definitively guide treatment decisions for such persons,” the guidelines say.
Evidence has emerged since those guideline statements were written. Most recently, German investigators published results of the FINITE study showing some long-term responses after stopping tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in noncirrhotic, HBeAg-negative patients.
In that prospective, controlled study, 62% of patients who stopped TDF therapy (n = 13) stayed off therapy to week 144 of treatment follow-up. Four of the patients achieved HBsAg loss, and median HBsAg change was –0.59log10IU/mL vs. 0.21log10IU/mL in patients who stayed on TDF therapy.
Investigators said that result demonstrated the potential of stopping long-term TDF treatment and seeing either HBsAg loss or sustained virologic response.
Before that, a retrospective study from investigators in Taiwan showed that age plus level of HBsAg were associated with HBV relapse after entecavir treatment in HBeAg-negative patients. According to investigators, those results suggested HBsAg levels could be used to guide timing of entecavir cessation.
If antiviral therapy is stopped in an HBeAg-negative patient, that patient should be monitored every 3 month for a year for recurrent viremia, ALT flares, and hepatic decompensation, Dr. Kim said at the meeting.
Even before stopping, “there are a number of factors to consider, including biological relapse, flare, hepatic decompensation,” he said.
On the other hand, there is the burden of continued therapy, financial concerns of continuing treatment due not only to medication costs but also long-term monitoring, as well as patient and provider preference, he noted in his presentation.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Dr. Kim reported serving as a consultant to Gilead.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM PERSPECTIVES IN DIGESTIVE DISEASES
Advanced training in hepatology
Unlike previous hepatologists, who were trained through gastroenterology programs, most new practitioners seek advanced training in a fellowship year focused exclusively on hepatology.
Like practitioners in many medical subspecialties, transplant hepatologists have varied career goals and responsibilities. Hepatologists who continue to specifically practice transplant hepatology are affiliated with a liver transplant center, which is generally a hospital-based practice. However, most hepatologists also treat nontransplant hepatology patients and some who have completed advanced hepatology training focus exclusively on these patients or provide community-based care for transplant recipients from other centers. Caring for patients with end-stage liver disease and liver transplant recipients can be clinically demanding but also very rewarding. There are also many opportunities for academic pursuits within a hepatology career including areas in urgent need of clinical and basic investigation, clinical trials for novel agents to treat common diseases, education (including leadership in advanced hepatology training), and involvement in professional societies such as the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD).
What are the opportunities for advanced hepatology training?
In 1999, the AASLD determined that the practice of transplant hepatology required its own specialized knowledge and that most practicing gastroenterologists did not consider themselves adequately prepared to care for patients with advanced liver disease.1,2 The following year, the AASLD applied to the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) to develop formalized liver transplant training. After several years of debate and development, the first ABIM certification exam in transplant hepatology was held in 2006 and is now offered every 2 years.2
There are currently three pathways to achieve advanced training in hepatology. The traditional pathway is a 1-year Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) transplant fellowship that is separate from, and must follow completion of, a gastroenterology fellowship. There are currently 51 ACGME-accredited 1-year transplant hepatology fellowships in the United States. These fellowships are only at institutions with ACGME-accredited training in internal medicine and gastroenterology as well. The full and updated list of programs can be found on the ACGME website.3 The second pathway is the relatively new ABIM “pilot” program during which the transplant hepatology fellowship year is combined with the third year of gastroenterology fellowship (discussed in detail below). Finally, there remain many 1-year training programs that are not ACGME-accredited, may not be associated with a gastroenterology fellowship program, and do have not regulated requirements for entry. Trainees who complete non-ACGME programs are not candidates for ABIM board certification.
How does one apply for transplant hepatology fellowship?
Transplant hepatology fellowships do not participate in a match system. Therefore, the interviews and offers for training spots may occur at different times depending on the program and the region of the country. In general, fellows apply by the fall of their second year of gastroenterology fellowship in order to begin training after graduating from the third year of fellowship. Each program has its individual approach to the application process and most have this information available on a website as to how to apply. A complete list of ACGME-accredited programs along with the program directors and contact information is available on the ABIM website.3
What is the gastroenterology/transplant hepatology pilot training program?
The AASLD and ABIM have developed a combined gastroenterology and transplant hepatology pilot fellowship training program that allows eligible gastroenterology fellows to spend their third year training in transplant hepatology. This approach has the potential to shorten the total training from 4 years to 3. In addition, if all gastroenterology and transplant hepatology competencies are achieved by the end of the third year, fellows approved to be in this program are eligible to take both gastroenterology and transplant hepatology ABIM certification exams.
Any ACGME-accredited gastroenterology fellowship program that has an accredited hepatology counterpart is eligible to participate in this pilot. Eligible programs and fellows must apply to AASLD during the fellow’s second year. The fellow applicant must complete all clinical gastroenterology requirements before the end of the second year of fellowship and be on a trajectory to meet competency milestones, as the majority of the third year will focus on hepatology.
Since 2012, 59 fellows from 31 programs have participated in this pilot program.4 If you are interested in participating in this pilot program at your institution, it is important to confer with program directors as early as possible to meet all training requirements. In addition, applications are submitted to the Pilot Steering Taskforce during the fellow’s second year for review. This is not meant to be a competitive process and all fellows who meet the criteria are approved.
This track may not be ideal for all fellows interested in advanced and transplant hepatology. In particular, there may be a trade-off between achieving clinical competency in a shortened training period and pursuing scholarly activity. This pilot program is designed to be an intensive clinical track, so fellows who wish to focus on research should discuss with their program directors whether this is the best approach.
What has been your career path after advanced training in hepatology?
I first became interested in hepatology during my inpatient rotations as a medical student. This interest led me to become involved in research in this area very early in my career. The current structure of the fellowship as well as the board certification exam were both developed while I was in training and I adjusted my plans to complete 3 years of gastroenterology fellowship followed by an ACGME-accredited liver transplant fellowship year. Since completing training, I have worked as an attending at an academic medical center in a large liver transplant program and continue to care for patients with all forms of liver disease. In addition, I continued to pursue research as a large component of my job and now have NIH funding and direct the Transplant Clinical Research Center at Columbia University. Finally, I have always been devoted to education and am the program director for the transplant hepatology fellowship at our institution.
What is the future of advanced hepatology training?
The current transplant hepatology training system has evolved significantly since its inception, including development of curricula, ongoing modification of training requirements, and the development of the innovative pilot program. However, there are issues that continue to be debated by the community. For example, it is not certain when or if the combined gastroenterology and transplant hepatology pilot program will become a permanent pathway for training or how best to select fellows for this approach.
Hepatology continues to be a very dynamic area of medicine. With diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma on the rise, the urgent need for training in HCV treatment to combat the global epidemic of viral hepatitis, and the growing number of patients on the liver transplant waiting list, there has never been a more exciting time to choose hepatology as a career.
References
1. Luxon BA. So you want to be a hepatologist? Gastroenterology. 2013;145(6):1182-5.
2. Bacon BR, Grosso LJ, Freedman N, Althouse LA. Subspecialty certification in transplant hepatology. Liver Transpl. 2007;13(11):1479-81.
3. https://apps.acgme.org/ads/public/reports/report/1.
4. https://www.aasld.org/events-professional-development/educational-learning-faq.
Dr. Verna is assistant professor of medicine, program director, transplant hepatology fellowship, director of clinical research, Transplant Clinical Research Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Unlike previous hepatologists, who were trained through gastroenterology programs, most new practitioners seek advanced training in a fellowship year focused exclusively on hepatology.
Like practitioners in many medical subspecialties, transplant hepatologists have varied career goals and responsibilities. Hepatologists who continue to specifically practice transplant hepatology are affiliated with a liver transplant center, which is generally a hospital-based practice. However, most hepatologists also treat nontransplant hepatology patients and some who have completed advanced hepatology training focus exclusively on these patients or provide community-based care for transplant recipients from other centers. Caring for patients with end-stage liver disease and liver transplant recipients can be clinically demanding but also very rewarding. There are also many opportunities for academic pursuits within a hepatology career including areas in urgent need of clinical and basic investigation, clinical trials for novel agents to treat common diseases, education (including leadership in advanced hepatology training), and involvement in professional societies such as the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD).
What are the opportunities for advanced hepatology training?
In 1999, the AASLD determined that the practice of transplant hepatology required its own specialized knowledge and that most practicing gastroenterologists did not consider themselves adequately prepared to care for patients with advanced liver disease.1,2 The following year, the AASLD applied to the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) to develop formalized liver transplant training. After several years of debate and development, the first ABIM certification exam in transplant hepatology was held in 2006 and is now offered every 2 years.2
There are currently three pathways to achieve advanced training in hepatology. The traditional pathway is a 1-year Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) transplant fellowship that is separate from, and must follow completion of, a gastroenterology fellowship. There are currently 51 ACGME-accredited 1-year transplant hepatology fellowships in the United States. These fellowships are only at institutions with ACGME-accredited training in internal medicine and gastroenterology as well. The full and updated list of programs can be found on the ACGME website.3 The second pathway is the relatively new ABIM “pilot” program during which the transplant hepatology fellowship year is combined with the third year of gastroenterology fellowship (discussed in detail below). Finally, there remain many 1-year training programs that are not ACGME-accredited, may not be associated with a gastroenterology fellowship program, and do have not regulated requirements for entry. Trainees who complete non-ACGME programs are not candidates for ABIM board certification.
How does one apply for transplant hepatology fellowship?
Transplant hepatology fellowships do not participate in a match system. Therefore, the interviews and offers for training spots may occur at different times depending on the program and the region of the country. In general, fellows apply by the fall of their second year of gastroenterology fellowship in order to begin training after graduating from the third year of fellowship. Each program has its individual approach to the application process and most have this information available on a website as to how to apply. A complete list of ACGME-accredited programs along with the program directors and contact information is available on the ABIM website.3
What is the gastroenterology/transplant hepatology pilot training program?
The AASLD and ABIM have developed a combined gastroenterology and transplant hepatology pilot fellowship training program that allows eligible gastroenterology fellows to spend their third year training in transplant hepatology. This approach has the potential to shorten the total training from 4 years to 3. In addition, if all gastroenterology and transplant hepatology competencies are achieved by the end of the third year, fellows approved to be in this program are eligible to take both gastroenterology and transplant hepatology ABIM certification exams.
Any ACGME-accredited gastroenterology fellowship program that has an accredited hepatology counterpart is eligible to participate in this pilot. Eligible programs and fellows must apply to AASLD during the fellow’s second year. The fellow applicant must complete all clinical gastroenterology requirements before the end of the second year of fellowship and be on a trajectory to meet competency milestones, as the majority of the third year will focus on hepatology.
Since 2012, 59 fellows from 31 programs have participated in this pilot program.4 If you are interested in participating in this pilot program at your institution, it is important to confer with program directors as early as possible to meet all training requirements. In addition, applications are submitted to the Pilot Steering Taskforce during the fellow’s second year for review. This is not meant to be a competitive process and all fellows who meet the criteria are approved.
This track may not be ideal for all fellows interested in advanced and transplant hepatology. In particular, there may be a trade-off between achieving clinical competency in a shortened training period and pursuing scholarly activity. This pilot program is designed to be an intensive clinical track, so fellows who wish to focus on research should discuss with their program directors whether this is the best approach.
What has been your career path after advanced training in hepatology?
I first became interested in hepatology during my inpatient rotations as a medical student. This interest led me to become involved in research in this area very early in my career. The current structure of the fellowship as well as the board certification exam were both developed while I was in training and I adjusted my plans to complete 3 years of gastroenterology fellowship followed by an ACGME-accredited liver transplant fellowship year. Since completing training, I have worked as an attending at an academic medical center in a large liver transplant program and continue to care for patients with all forms of liver disease. In addition, I continued to pursue research as a large component of my job and now have NIH funding and direct the Transplant Clinical Research Center at Columbia University. Finally, I have always been devoted to education and am the program director for the transplant hepatology fellowship at our institution.
What is the future of advanced hepatology training?
The current transplant hepatology training system has evolved significantly since its inception, including development of curricula, ongoing modification of training requirements, and the development of the innovative pilot program. However, there are issues that continue to be debated by the community. For example, it is not certain when or if the combined gastroenterology and transplant hepatology pilot program will become a permanent pathway for training or how best to select fellows for this approach.
Hepatology continues to be a very dynamic area of medicine. With diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma on the rise, the urgent need for training in HCV treatment to combat the global epidemic of viral hepatitis, and the growing number of patients on the liver transplant waiting list, there has never been a more exciting time to choose hepatology as a career.
References
1. Luxon BA. So you want to be a hepatologist? Gastroenterology. 2013;145(6):1182-5.
2. Bacon BR, Grosso LJ, Freedman N, Althouse LA. Subspecialty certification in transplant hepatology. Liver Transpl. 2007;13(11):1479-81.
3. https://apps.acgme.org/ads/public/reports/report/1.
4. https://www.aasld.org/events-professional-development/educational-learning-faq.
Dr. Verna is assistant professor of medicine, program director, transplant hepatology fellowship, director of clinical research, Transplant Clinical Research Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Unlike previous hepatologists, who were trained through gastroenterology programs, most new practitioners seek advanced training in a fellowship year focused exclusively on hepatology.
Like practitioners in many medical subspecialties, transplant hepatologists have varied career goals and responsibilities. Hepatologists who continue to specifically practice transplant hepatology are affiliated with a liver transplant center, which is generally a hospital-based practice. However, most hepatologists also treat nontransplant hepatology patients and some who have completed advanced hepatology training focus exclusively on these patients or provide community-based care for transplant recipients from other centers. Caring for patients with end-stage liver disease and liver transplant recipients can be clinically demanding but also very rewarding. There are also many opportunities for academic pursuits within a hepatology career including areas in urgent need of clinical and basic investigation, clinical trials for novel agents to treat common diseases, education (including leadership in advanced hepatology training), and involvement in professional societies such as the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD).
What are the opportunities for advanced hepatology training?
In 1999, the AASLD determined that the practice of transplant hepatology required its own specialized knowledge and that most practicing gastroenterologists did not consider themselves adequately prepared to care for patients with advanced liver disease.1,2 The following year, the AASLD applied to the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) to develop formalized liver transplant training. After several years of debate and development, the first ABIM certification exam in transplant hepatology was held in 2006 and is now offered every 2 years.2
There are currently three pathways to achieve advanced training in hepatology. The traditional pathway is a 1-year Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) transplant fellowship that is separate from, and must follow completion of, a gastroenterology fellowship. There are currently 51 ACGME-accredited 1-year transplant hepatology fellowships in the United States. These fellowships are only at institutions with ACGME-accredited training in internal medicine and gastroenterology as well. The full and updated list of programs can be found on the ACGME website.3 The second pathway is the relatively new ABIM “pilot” program during which the transplant hepatology fellowship year is combined with the third year of gastroenterology fellowship (discussed in detail below). Finally, there remain many 1-year training programs that are not ACGME-accredited, may not be associated with a gastroenterology fellowship program, and do have not regulated requirements for entry. Trainees who complete non-ACGME programs are not candidates for ABIM board certification.
How does one apply for transplant hepatology fellowship?
Transplant hepatology fellowships do not participate in a match system. Therefore, the interviews and offers for training spots may occur at different times depending on the program and the region of the country. In general, fellows apply by the fall of their second year of gastroenterology fellowship in order to begin training after graduating from the third year of fellowship. Each program has its individual approach to the application process and most have this information available on a website as to how to apply. A complete list of ACGME-accredited programs along with the program directors and contact information is available on the ABIM website.3
What is the gastroenterology/transplant hepatology pilot training program?
The AASLD and ABIM have developed a combined gastroenterology and transplant hepatology pilot fellowship training program that allows eligible gastroenterology fellows to spend their third year training in transplant hepatology. This approach has the potential to shorten the total training from 4 years to 3. In addition, if all gastroenterology and transplant hepatology competencies are achieved by the end of the third year, fellows approved to be in this program are eligible to take both gastroenterology and transplant hepatology ABIM certification exams.
Any ACGME-accredited gastroenterology fellowship program that has an accredited hepatology counterpart is eligible to participate in this pilot. Eligible programs and fellows must apply to AASLD during the fellow’s second year. The fellow applicant must complete all clinical gastroenterology requirements before the end of the second year of fellowship and be on a trajectory to meet competency milestones, as the majority of the third year will focus on hepatology.
Since 2012, 59 fellows from 31 programs have participated in this pilot program.4 If you are interested in participating in this pilot program at your institution, it is important to confer with program directors as early as possible to meet all training requirements. In addition, applications are submitted to the Pilot Steering Taskforce during the fellow’s second year for review. This is not meant to be a competitive process and all fellows who meet the criteria are approved.
This track may not be ideal for all fellows interested in advanced and transplant hepatology. In particular, there may be a trade-off between achieving clinical competency in a shortened training period and pursuing scholarly activity. This pilot program is designed to be an intensive clinical track, so fellows who wish to focus on research should discuss with their program directors whether this is the best approach.
What has been your career path after advanced training in hepatology?
I first became interested in hepatology during my inpatient rotations as a medical student. This interest led me to become involved in research in this area very early in my career. The current structure of the fellowship as well as the board certification exam were both developed while I was in training and I adjusted my plans to complete 3 years of gastroenterology fellowship followed by an ACGME-accredited liver transplant fellowship year. Since completing training, I have worked as an attending at an academic medical center in a large liver transplant program and continue to care for patients with all forms of liver disease. In addition, I continued to pursue research as a large component of my job and now have NIH funding and direct the Transplant Clinical Research Center at Columbia University. Finally, I have always been devoted to education and am the program director for the transplant hepatology fellowship at our institution.
What is the future of advanced hepatology training?
The current transplant hepatology training system has evolved significantly since its inception, including development of curricula, ongoing modification of training requirements, and the development of the innovative pilot program. However, there are issues that continue to be debated by the community. For example, it is not certain when or if the combined gastroenterology and transplant hepatology pilot program will become a permanent pathway for training or how best to select fellows for this approach.
Hepatology continues to be a very dynamic area of medicine. With diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma on the rise, the urgent need for training in HCV treatment to combat the global epidemic of viral hepatitis, and the growing number of patients on the liver transplant waiting list, there has never been a more exciting time to choose hepatology as a career.
References
1. Luxon BA. So you want to be a hepatologist? Gastroenterology. 2013;145(6):1182-5.
2. Bacon BR, Grosso LJ, Freedman N, Althouse LA. Subspecialty certification in transplant hepatology. Liver Transpl. 2007;13(11):1479-81.
3. https://apps.acgme.org/ads/public/reports/report/1.
4. https://www.aasld.org/events-professional-development/educational-learning-faq.
Dr. Verna is assistant professor of medicine, program director, transplant hepatology fellowship, director of clinical research, Transplant Clinical Research Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Life and health are not even across the U.S.
While U.S. death rates have declined overall, marked geographic disparities exist at the state level in burden of disease, injuries, and risk factors, according to a comprehensive analysis.
Life expectancy varies substantially, for example, ranging from a high of 81.3 years in Hawaii to a low of 74.7 years in Mississippi, according to results from the analysis of data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study (JAMA. 2018;319[14]:1444-72).
Previously decreasing death rates for adults have reversed in 19 states, according to the analysis, which covers the years 1990 to 2016.
Hardest hit were Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wyoming, which had mortality increases of more than 10% among adults aged 20-55 years. Those increases were largely due to causes such as substance use disorders, self-harm, and cirrhosis, according to the US Burden of Disease Collaborators, who authored the report.
“These findings should be used to examine the causes of health variations and to plan, develop, and implement programs and policies to improve health overall and eliminate disparities in the United States,” the authors wrote.
Overall, U.S. death rates have declined from 745.2 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 578.0 per 100,000 persons in 2016, according to the report.
Likewise, health outcomes throughout the United States have improved over time for some conditions, such as ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, and neonatal preterm complications, the report says.
However, those gains are offset by rising death rates due to drug-use disorders, chronic kidney disease, cirrhosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and self-harm.
The three most important risk factors in the United States are high body mass index, smoking, and high fasting plasma glucose, the analysis showed. Of those risk factors, only smoking is decreasing, authors noted.
Many risk factors contributing to disparities in burden among states are amenable to medical treatment that emphasizes supportive behavioral and lifestyle changes, according to the authors.
“Expanding health coverage for certain conditions and medications should be considered and adopted to reduce burden,” they said.
Substance abuse disorders, cirrhosis, and self-harm, the causes of the mortality reversal in Kentucky, New Mexico, and other states, could be addressed via a wide range of interventions, according to the investigators.
Prevention programs could address the root causes of substance use and causes of relapse, while physicians can play a “major role” in addiction control through counseling of patients on pain control medication, they said.
Interventions to treat hepatitis C and decrease excessive alcohol consumption could help address cirrhosis, while for self-harm, the most promising approaches focus on restricting access to lethal means, they said, noting that a large proportion of U.S. suicides are due to firearms.
“While multiple strategies are available for dealing with these problems, they have not until very recently garnered attention,” investigators wrote.
The study was supported in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Some individual study collaborators reported disclosures related to Savient, Takeda, Crealta/Horizon, Regeneron, Allergan, and others.
SOURCE: The US Burden of Disease Collaborators. JAMA 2018;319(14):1444-72.
This report on Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study data profoundly and powerfully illuminates U.S. health trends over time and by geography. There is much unfinished business for us, nationally and at the state level.
Clinicians and policy makers can use the rankings to evaluate why many individuals are still experiencing injury, disease, and deaths that are preventable; in doing so, the entire nation could move closely resemble a United States of health.
Clinicians could use the results to help guide patients through evidence-based disease prevention and early intervention, a strategy that has led to decreases in death due to cancer and cardiovascular disease over the past few decades.
At the same time, policy makers could use GBD 2016 results to reevaluate current national attitudes toward disease prevention.
Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH, is with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Anand K. Parekh, MD, MPH, is with the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. The comments above are derived from an editorial accompanying the report from the US Burden of Disease Collaborators ( JAMA. 2018;319[14]:1438-40 ). Dr. Koh and Dr. Parekh reported no conflicts of interest related to the editorial.
This report on Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study data profoundly and powerfully illuminates U.S. health trends over time and by geography. There is much unfinished business for us, nationally and at the state level.
Clinicians and policy makers can use the rankings to evaluate why many individuals are still experiencing injury, disease, and deaths that are preventable; in doing so, the entire nation could move closely resemble a United States of health.
Clinicians could use the results to help guide patients through evidence-based disease prevention and early intervention, a strategy that has led to decreases in death due to cancer and cardiovascular disease over the past few decades.
At the same time, policy makers could use GBD 2016 results to reevaluate current national attitudes toward disease prevention.
Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH, is with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Anand K. Parekh, MD, MPH, is with the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. The comments above are derived from an editorial accompanying the report from the US Burden of Disease Collaborators ( JAMA. 2018;319[14]:1438-40 ). Dr. Koh and Dr. Parekh reported no conflicts of interest related to the editorial.
This report on Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study data profoundly and powerfully illuminates U.S. health trends over time and by geography. There is much unfinished business for us, nationally and at the state level.
Clinicians and policy makers can use the rankings to evaluate why many individuals are still experiencing injury, disease, and deaths that are preventable; in doing so, the entire nation could move closely resemble a United States of health.
Clinicians could use the results to help guide patients through evidence-based disease prevention and early intervention, a strategy that has led to decreases in death due to cancer and cardiovascular disease over the past few decades.
At the same time, policy makers could use GBD 2016 results to reevaluate current national attitudes toward disease prevention.
Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH, is with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Anand K. Parekh, MD, MPH, is with the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. The comments above are derived from an editorial accompanying the report from the US Burden of Disease Collaborators ( JAMA. 2018;319[14]:1438-40 ). Dr. Koh and Dr. Parekh reported no conflicts of interest related to the editorial.
While U.S. death rates have declined overall, marked geographic disparities exist at the state level in burden of disease, injuries, and risk factors, according to a comprehensive analysis.
Life expectancy varies substantially, for example, ranging from a high of 81.3 years in Hawaii to a low of 74.7 years in Mississippi, according to results from the analysis of data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study (JAMA. 2018;319[14]:1444-72).
Previously decreasing death rates for adults have reversed in 19 states, according to the analysis, which covers the years 1990 to 2016.
Hardest hit were Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wyoming, which had mortality increases of more than 10% among adults aged 20-55 years. Those increases were largely due to causes such as substance use disorders, self-harm, and cirrhosis, according to the US Burden of Disease Collaborators, who authored the report.
“These findings should be used to examine the causes of health variations and to plan, develop, and implement programs and policies to improve health overall and eliminate disparities in the United States,” the authors wrote.
Overall, U.S. death rates have declined from 745.2 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 578.0 per 100,000 persons in 2016, according to the report.
Likewise, health outcomes throughout the United States have improved over time for some conditions, such as ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, and neonatal preterm complications, the report says.
However, those gains are offset by rising death rates due to drug-use disorders, chronic kidney disease, cirrhosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and self-harm.
The three most important risk factors in the United States are high body mass index, smoking, and high fasting plasma glucose, the analysis showed. Of those risk factors, only smoking is decreasing, authors noted.
Many risk factors contributing to disparities in burden among states are amenable to medical treatment that emphasizes supportive behavioral and lifestyle changes, according to the authors.
“Expanding health coverage for certain conditions and medications should be considered and adopted to reduce burden,” they said.
Substance abuse disorders, cirrhosis, and self-harm, the causes of the mortality reversal in Kentucky, New Mexico, and other states, could be addressed via a wide range of interventions, according to the investigators.
Prevention programs could address the root causes of substance use and causes of relapse, while physicians can play a “major role” in addiction control through counseling of patients on pain control medication, they said.
Interventions to treat hepatitis C and decrease excessive alcohol consumption could help address cirrhosis, while for self-harm, the most promising approaches focus on restricting access to lethal means, they said, noting that a large proportion of U.S. suicides are due to firearms.
“While multiple strategies are available for dealing with these problems, they have not until very recently garnered attention,” investigators wrote.
The study was supported in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Some individual study collaborators reported disclosures related to Savient, Takeda, Crealta/Horizon, Regeneron, Allergan, and others.
SOURCE: The US Burden of Disease Collaborators. JAMA 2018;319(14):1444-72.
While U.S. death rates have declined overall, marked geographic disparities exist at the state level in burden of disease, injuries, and risk factors, according to a comprehensive analysis.
Life expectancy varies substantially, for example, ranging from a high of 81.3 years in Hawaii to a low of 74.7 years in Mississippi, according to results from the analysis of data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study (JAMA. 2018;319[14]:1444-72).
Previously decreasing death rates for adults have reversed in 19 states, according to the analysis, which covers the years 1990 to 2016.
Hardest hit were Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wyoming, which had mortality increases of more than 10% among adults aged 20-55 years. Those increases were largely due to causes such as substance use disorders, self-harm, and cirrhosis, according to the US Burden of Disease Collaborators, who authored the report.
“These findings should be used to examine the causes of health variations and to plan, develop, and implement programs and policies to improve health overall and eliminate disparities in the United States,” the authors wrote.
Overall, U.S. death rates have declined from 745.2 per 100,000 persons in 1990 to 578.0 per 100,000 persons in 2016, according to the report.
Likewise, health outcomes throughout the United States have improved over time for some conditions, such as ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, and neonatal preterm complications, the report says.
However, those gains are offset by rising death rates due to drug-use disorders, chronic kidney disease, cirrhosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and self-harm.
The three most important risk factors in the United States are high body mass index, smoking, and high fasting plasma glucose, the analysis showed. Of those risk factors, only smoking is decreasing, authors noted.
Many risk factors contributing to disparities in burden among states are amenable to medical treatment that emphasizes supportive behavioral and lifestyle changes, according to the authors.
“Expanding health coverage for certain conditions and medications should be considered and adopted to reduce burden,” they said.
Substance abuse disorders, cirrhosis, and self-harm, the causes of the mortality reversal in Kentucky, New Mexico, and other states, could be addressed via a wide range of interventions, according to the investigators.
Prevention programs could address the root causes of substance use and causes of relapse, while physicians can play a “major role” in addiction control through counseling of patients on pain control medication, they said.
Interventions to treat hepatitis C and decrease excessive alcohol consumption could help address cirrhosis, while for self-harm, the most promising approaches focus on restricting access to lethal means, they said, noting that a large proportion of U.S. suicides are due to firearms.
“While multiple strategies are available for dealing with these problems, they have not until very recently garnered attention,” investigators wrote.
The study was supported in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Some individual study collaborators reported disclosures related to Savient, Takeda, Crealta/Horizon, Regeneron, Allergan, and others.
SOURCE: The US Burden of Disease Collaborators. JAMA 2018;319(14):1444-72.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point: While U.S. death rates have declined overall, marked geographic disparities exist at the state level in burden of disease, injuries, and risk factors.
Major finding: Life expectancy ranged from a high of 81.3 years in Hawaii to a low of 74.7 years in Mississippi, and previously decreasing death rates for adults have reversed in 19 states.
Study details: A U.S. state-level analysis of results from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study illustrating trends in diseases, injuries, risk factors, and deaths from 1990 to 2016.
Disclosures: The study was supported in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Study authors reported disclosures related to Savient, Takeda, Crealta/Horizon, Regeneron, Allergan, and others.
Source: The US Burden of Disease Collaborators. JAMA 2018;319(14):1444-1472.
VIDEO: Biomarker accurately predicted primary nonfunction after liver transplant
, researchers reported in Gastroenterology.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Glycomic alterations of immunoglobulin G “represent inflammatory disturbances in the liver that [mean it] will fail after transplantation,” wrote Xavier Verhelst, MD, of Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, and his associates. The new glycomarker “could be a tool to safely select high-risk organs for liver transplantation that otherwise would be discarded from the donor pool based on a conventional clinical assessment,” and also could help prevent engraftment failures. “To our knowledge, not a single biomarker has demonstrated the same accuracy today,” they wrote in the April issue of Gastroenterology.
Chronic shortages of donor livers contribute to morbidity and death worldwide. However, relaxing donor criteria is controversial because of the increased risk of primary nonfunction, which affects some 2%-10% of liver transplantation patients, and early allograft dysfunction, which is even more common. Although no reliable scoring systems or biomarkers have been able to predict these outcomes prior to transplantation, clinical glycomics of serum has proven useful for diagnosing hepatic fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and for distinguishing hepatic steatosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. “Perfusate biomarkers are an attractive alternative [to] liver biopsy or serum markers, because perfusate is believed to represent the condition of the entire liver parenchyma and is easy to collect in large volumes,” the researchers wrote.
Accordingly, they studied 66 patients who underwent liver transplantation at a single center in Belgium and a separate validation cohort of 56 transplantation recipients from two centers. The most common reason for liver transplantation was decompensated cirrhosis secondary to alcoholism, followed by chronic hepatitis C or B virus infection, acute liver failure, and polycystic liver disease. Donor grafts were transported using cold static storage (21° C), and hepatic veins were flushed to collect perfusate before transplantation. Protein-linked N-glycans was isolated from these perfusate samples and analyzed with a multicapillary electrophoresis-based ABI3130 sequencer.
The four patients in the primary study cohort who developed primary nonfunction resembled the others in terms of all clinical and demographic parameters except that they had a markedly increased concentration (P less than .0001) of a single-glycan, agalacto core-alpha-1,6-fucosylated biantennary glycan, dubbed NGA2F. The single patient in the validation cohort who developed primary nonfunction also had a significantly increased concentration of NGA2F (P = .037). There were no false positives in either cohort, and a 13% cutoff for perfusate NGA2F level identified primary nonfunction with 100% accuracy, the researchers said. In a multivariable model of donor risk index and perfusate markers, only NGA2F was prognostic for developing primary nonfunction (P less than .0001).
The researchers found no specific glycomic signature for early allograft dysfunction, perhaps because it is more complex and multifactorial, they wrote. Although electrophoresis testing took 48 hours, work is underway to shorten this to a “clinically acceptable time frame,” they added. They recommended multicenter studies to validate their findings.
Funders included the Research Fund – Flanders and Ghent University. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Verhelst X et al. Gastroenterology 2018 Jan 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.027.
, researchers reported in Gastroenterology.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Glycomic alterations of immunoglobulin G “represent inflammatory disturbances in the liver that [mean it] will fail after transplantation,” wrote Xavier Verhelst, MD, of Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, and his associates. The new glycomarker “could be a tool to safely select high-risk organs for liver transplantation that otherwise would be discarded from the donor pool based on a conventional clinical assessment,” and also could help prevent engraftment failures. “To our knowledge, not a single biomarker has demonstrated the same accuracy today,” they wrote in the April issue of Gastroenterology.
Chronic shortages of donor livers contribute to morbidity and death worldwide. However, relaxing donor criteria is controversial because of the increased risk of primary nonfunction, which affects some 2%-10% of liver transplantation patients, and early allograft dysfunction, which is even more common. Although no reliable scoring systems or biomarkers have been able to predict these outcomes prior to transplantation, clinical glycomics of serum has proven useful for diagnosing hepatic fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and for distinguishing hepatic steatosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. “Perfusate biomarkers are an attractive alternative [to] liver biopsy or serum markers, because perfusate is believed to represent the condition of the entire liver parenchyma and is easy to collect in large volumes,” the researchers wrote.
Accordingly, they studied 66 patients who underwent liver transplantation at a single center in Belgium and a separate validation cohort of 56 transplantation recipients from two centers. The most common reason for liver transplantation was decompensated cirrhosis secondary to alcoholism, followed by chronic hepatitis C or B virus infection, acute liver failure, and polycystic liver disease. Donor grafts were transported using cold static storage (21° C), and hepatic veins were flushed to collect perfusate before transplantation. Protein-linked N-glycans was isolated from these perfusate samples and analyzed with a multicapillary electrophoresis-based ABI3130 sequencer.
The four patients in the primary study cohort who developed primary nonfunction resembled the others in terms of all clinical and demographic parameters except that they had a markedly increased concentration (P less than .0001) of a single-glycan, agalacto core-alpha-1,6-fucosylated biantennary glycan, dubbed NGA2F. The single patient in the validation cohort who developed primary nonfunction also had a significantly increased concentration of NGA2F (P = .037). There were no false positives in either cohort, and a 13% cutoff for perfusate NGA2F level identified primary nonfunction with 100% accuracy, the researchers said. In a multivariable model of donor risk index and perfusate markers, only NGA2F was prognostic for developing primary nonfunction (P less than .0001).
The researchers found no specific glycomic signature for early allograft dysfunction, perhaps because it is more complex and multifactorial, they wrote. Although electrophoresis testing took 48 hours, work is underway to shorten this to a “clinically acceptable time frame,” they added. They recommended multicenter studies to validate their findings.
Funders included the Research Fund – Flanders and Ghent University. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Verhelst X et al. Gastroenterology 2018 Jan 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.027.
, researchers reported in Gastroenterology.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Glycomic alterations of immunoglobulin G “represent inflammatory disturbances in the liver that [mean it] will fail after transplantation,” wrote Xavier Verhelst, MD, of Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, and his associates. The new glycomarker “could be a tool to safely select high-risk organs for liver transplantation that otherwise would be discarded from the donor pool based on a conventional clinical assessment,” and also could help prevent engraftment failures. “To our knowledge, not a single biomarker has demonstrated the same accuracy today,” they wrote in the April issue of Gastroenterology.
Chronic shortages of donor livers contribute to morbidity and death worldwide. However, relaxing donor criteria is controversial because of the increased risk of primary nonfunction, which affects some 2%-10% of liver transplantation patients, and early allograft dysfunction, which is even more common. Although no reliable scoring systems or biomarkers have been able to predict these outcomes prior to transplantation, clinical glycomics of serum has proven useful for diagnosing hepatic fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and for distinguishing hepatic steatosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. “Perfusate biomarkers are an attractive alternative [to] liver biopsy or serum markers, because perfusate is believed to represent the condition of the entire liver parenchyma and is easy to collect in large volumes,” the researchers wrote.
Accordingly, they studied 66 patients who underwent liver transplantation at a single center in Belgium and a separate validation cohort of 56 transplantation recipients from two centers. The most common reason for liver transplantation was decompensated cirrhosis secondary to alcoholism, followed by chronic hepatitis C or B virus infection, acute liver failure, and polycystic liver disease. Donor grafts were transported using cold static storage (21° C), and hepatic veins were flushed to collect perfusate before transplantation. Protein-linked N-glycans was isolated from these perfusate samples and analyzed with a multicapillary electrophoresis-based ABI3130 sequencer.
The four patients in the primary study cohort who developed primary nonfunction resembled the others in terms of all clinical and demographic parameters except that they had a markedly increased concentration (P less than .0001) of a single-glycan, agalacto core-alpha-1,6-fucosylated biantennary glycan, dubbed NGA2F. The single patient in the validation cohort who developed primary nonfunction also had a significantly increased concentration of NGA2F (P = .037). There were no false positives in either cohort, and a 13% cutoff for perfusate NGA2F level identified primary nonfunction with 100% accuracy, the researchers said. In a multivariable model of donor risk index and perfusate markers, only NGA2F was prognostic for developing primary nonfunction (P less than .0001).
The researchers found no specific glycomic signature for early allograft dysfunction, perhaps because it is more complex and multifactorial, they wrote. Although electrophoresis testing took 48 hours, work is underway to shorten this to a “clinically acceptable time frame,” they added. They recommended multicenter studies to validate their findings.
Funders included the Research Fund – Flanders and Ghent University. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Verhelst X et al. Gastroenterology 2018 Jan 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.027.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Key clinical point: A glycomarker in donor liver perfusate was 100% accurate at predicting primary nonfunction after liver transplantation.
Major finding: In a multivariable model of donor risk index and perfusate markers, only the single-glycan, NGA2F was a significant predictor of primary nonfunction (P less than .0001).
Data source: A dual-center, prospective study of 66 liver transplant patients and a 55-member validation cohort.
Disclosures: Funders included the Research Fund – Flanders and Ghent University. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
Source: Verhelst X et al. Gastroenterology 2018 Jan 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.027.
