Liver Disease

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

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

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

What is paired donation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges to building a national program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated 2/15/23.

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

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

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

What is paired donation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges to building a national program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated 2/15/23.

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

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

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

What is paired donation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges to building a national program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated 2/15/23.

A noninvasive test for liver disease may be a useful, low-cost screening tool to select asymptomatic candidates for a detailed examination of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), say authors of a report published in Gastro Hep Advances.

The fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk, wrote Chisato Okamoto, MD, of the department of medical biochemistry at Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Japan, and colleagues.

“Recognition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction at an early stage in mass screening is desirable, but difficult to achieve,” the authors wrote. “The FIB-4 index is calculated using only four parameters that are routinely evaluated in general health check-up programs.”

HFpEF is an emerging disease in recent years with a poor prognosis, they wrote. Early diagnosis can be challenging for several reasons, particularly because HFpEF patients are often asymptomatic until late in the disease process and have normal left ventricular filling pressures at rest. By using a tool to select probable cases from subclinical participants in a health check-up program, clinicians can refer patients for a diastolic stress test, which is considered the gold standard for diagnosing HFpEF.

Previous studies have found that the FIB-4 index, a noninvasive tool to estimate liver stiffness and fibrosis, is associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with HFpEF. In addition, patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) have a twofold higher prevalence of HFpEF than the general population.

Dr. Okamoto and colleagues examined the association between the FIB-4 index and HFpEF risk based on the Heart Failure Association’s diagnostic algorithm for HFpEF in patients with breathlessness (HFA-PEFF). The researchers looked at the prognostic impact of the FIB-4 index in 710 patients who participated in a health check-up program in the rural community of Arita-cho, Japan, between 2006 and 2007. They excluded participants with a history of cardiovascular disease or reduced left ventricular systolic function (LVEF < 50%). Researchers calculated the FIB-4 index and HFA-PEFF score for all participants.

First, using the HFA-PEFF scores, the researchers sorted participants into five groups by HFpEF risk: 215 (30%) with zero points, 100 (14%) with 1 point, 171 (24%) with 2 points, 163 (23%) with 3 points, and 61 (9%) with 4-6 points. Participants in the high-risk group (scores 4-6) were older, mostly men, and had higher blood pressure, alcohol intake, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and liver disease. The higher the HFpEF risk group, the higher the rates of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and MACE.

Overall, the FIB-4 index was correlated with the HFpEF risk groups and showed a stepwise increase across the groups, with .94 for the low-risk group, 1.45 for the intermediate-risk group, and 1.99 for the high-risk group, the authors wrote. The FIB-4 index also correlated with markers associated with components of the HFA-PEFF scoring system.

Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, the FIB-4 index was associated with a high HFpEF risk, and an increase in FIB-4 was associated with increased odds of high HFpEF risk. The association remained significant across four separate models that accounted for risk factors associated with lifestyle-related diseases, blood parameters associated with liver disease, and chronic conditions such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and liver disease.

In additional area under the curve (AUC) analyses, the FIB-4 index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk. At cutoff values typically used for advanced liver fibrosis in NAFLD, a FIB-4 cutoff of 1.3 or less had a sensitivity of 85.2%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of 2.67 or higher had a specificity of 94.8%. At alternate cutoff values typically used for patients with HIV/hepatitis C virus infection, a FIB-4 cutoff of less than 1.45 had a sensitivity of 75.4%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of greater than 3.25 had a specificity of 98%.

Using cutoffs of 1.3 and 2.67, a higher FIB-4 was associated with higher rates of clinical events and MACE, as well as a higher HFpEF risk. Using the alternate cutoffs of 1.45 and 3.25, prognostic stratification of clinical events and MACE was also possible.

When all variables were included in the multivariate model, the FIB-4 index remained a significant prognostic predictor. The FIB-4 index stratified clinical prognosis was also an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure.

Although additional studies are needed to reveal the interaction between liver and heart function, the study authors wrote, the findings provide valuable insights that can help discover the cardiohepatic interaction to reduce the development of HFpEF.

“Since it can be easily, quickly, and inexpensively measured, routine or repeated measurements of the FIB-4 index could help in selecting preferred candidates for detailed examination of HFpEF risk, which may improve clinical outcomes by diagnosing HFpEF at an early stage,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Osaka Medical Research Foundation for Intractable Disease, the Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Japan Heart Foundation. The authors disclosed no conflicts.

A noninvasive test for liver disease may be a useful, low-cost screening tool to select asymptomatic candidates for a detailed examination of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), say authors of a report published in Gastro Hep Advances.

The fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk, wrote Chisato Okamoto, MD, of the department of medical biochemistry at Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Japan, and colleagues.

“Recognition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction at an early stage in mass screening is desirable, but difficult to achieve,” the authors wrote. “The FIB-4 index is calculated using only four parameters that are routinely evaluated in general health check-up programs.”

HFpEF is an emerging disease in recent years with a poor prognosis, they wrote. Early diagnosis can be challenging for several reasons, particularly because HFpEF patients are often asymptomatic until late in the disease process and have normal left ventricular filling pressures at rest. By using a tool to select probable cases from subclinical participants in a health check-up program, clinicians can refer patients for a diastolic stress test, which is considered the gold standard for diagnosing HFpEF.

Previous studies have found that the FIB-4 index, a noninvasive tool to estimate liver stiffness and fibrosis, is associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with HFpEF. In addition, patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) have a twofold higher prevalence of HFpEF than the general population.

Dr. Okamoto and colleagues examined the association between the FIB-4 index and HFpEF risk based on the Heart Failure Association’s diagnostic algorithm for HFpEF in patients with breathlessness (HFA-PEFF). The researchers looked at the prognostic impact of the FIB-4 index in 710 patients who participated in a health check-up program in the rural community of Arita-cho, Japan, between 2006 and 2007. They excluded participants with a history of cardiovascular disease or reduced left ventricular systolic function (LVEF < 50%). Researchers calculated the FIB-4 index and HFA-PEFF score for all participants.

First, using the HFA-PEFF scores, the researchers sorted participants into five groups by HFpEF risk: 215 (30%) with zero points, 100 (14%) with 1 point, 171 (24%) with 2 points, 163 (23%) with 3 points, and 61 (9%) with 4-6 points. Participants in the high-risk group (scores 4-6) were older, mostly men, and had higher blood pressure, alcohol intake, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and liver disease. The higher the HFpEF risk group, the higher the rates of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and MACE.

Overall, the FIB-4 index was correlated with the HFpEF risk groups and showed a stepwise increase across the groups, with .94 for the low-risk group, 1.45 for the intermediate-risk group, and 1.99 for the high-risk group, the authors wrote. The FIB-4 index also correlated with markers associated with components of the HFA-PEFF scoring system.

Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, the FIB-4 index was associated with a high HFpEF risk, and an increase in FIB-4 was associated with increased odds of high HFpEF risk. The association remained significant across four separate models that accounted for risk factors associated with lifestyle-related diseases, blood parameters associated with liver disease, and chronic conditions such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and liver disease.

In additional area under the curve (AUC) analyses, the FIB-4 index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk. At cutoff values typically used for advanced liver fibrosis in NAFLD, a FIB-4 cutoff of 1.3 or less had a sensitivity of 85.2%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of 2.67 or higher had a specificity of 94.8%. At alternate cutoff values typically used for patients with HIV/hepatitis C virus infection, a FIB-4 cutoff of less than 1.45 had a sensitivity of 75.4%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of greater than 3.25 had a specificity of 98%.

Using cutoffs of 1.3 and 2.67, a higher FIB-4 was associated with higher rates of clinical events and MACE, as well as a higher HFpEF risk. Using the alternate cutoffs of 1.45 and 3.25, prognostic stratification of clinical events and MACE was also possible.

When all variables were included in the multivariate model, the FIB-4 index remained a significant prognostic predictor. The FIB-4 index stratified clinical prognosis was also an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure.

Although additional studies are needed to reveal the interaction between liver and heart function, the study authors wrote, the findings provide valuable insights that can help discover the cardiohepatic interaction to reduce the development of HFpEF.

“Since it can be easily, quickly, and inexpensively measured, routine or repeated measurements of the FIB-4 index could help in selecting preferred candidates for detailed examination of HFpEF risk, which may improve clinical outcomes by diagnosing HFpEF at an early stage,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Osaka Medical Research Foundation for Intractable Disease, the Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Japan Heart Foundation. The authors disclosed no conflicts.

A noninvasive test for liver disease may be a useful, low-cost screening tool to select asymptomatic candidates for a detailed examination of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), say authors of a report published in Gastro Hep Advances.

The fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk, wrote Chisato Okamoto, MD, of the department of medical biochemistry at Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Japan, and colleagues.

“Recognition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction at an early stage in mass screening is desirable, but difficult to achieve,” the authors wrote. “The FIB-4 index is calculated using only four parameters that are routinely evaluated in general health check-up programs.”

HFpEF is an emerging disease in recent years with a poor prognosis, they wrote. Early diagnosis can be challenging for several reasons, particularly because HFpEF patients are often asymptomatic until late in the disease process and have normal left ventricular filling pressures at rest. By using a tool to select probable cases from subclinical participants in a health check-up program, clinicians can refer patients for a diastolic stress test, which is considered the gold standard for diagnosing HFpEF.

Previous studies have found that the FIB-4 index, a noninvasive tool to estimate liver stiffness and fibrosis, is associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with HFpEF. In addition, patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) have a twofold higher prevalence of HFpEF than the general population.

Dr. Okamoto and colleagues examined the association between the FIB-4 index and HFpEF risk based on the Heart Failure Association’s diagnostic algorithm for HFpEF in patients with breathlessness (HFA-PEFF). The researchers looked at the prognostic impact of the FIB-4 index in 710 patients who participated in a health check-up program in the rural community of Arita-cho, Japan, between 2006 and 2007. They excluded participants with a history of cardiovascular disease or reduced left ventricular systolic function (LVEF < 50%). Researchers calculated the FIB-4 index and HFA-PEFF score for all participants.

First, using the HFA-PEFF scores, the researchers sorted participants into five groups by HFpEF risk: 215 (30%) with zero points, 100 (14%) with 1 point, 171 (24%) with 2 points, 163 (23%) with 3 points, and 61 (9%) with 4-6 points. Participants in the high-risk group (scores 4-6) were older, mostly men, and had higher blood pressure, alcohol intake, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and liver disease. The higher the HFpEF risk group, the higher the rates of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and MACE.

Overall, the FIB-4 index was correlated with the HFpEF risk groups and showed a stepwise increase across the groups, with .94 for the low-risk group, 1.45 for the intermediate-risk group, and 1.99 for the high-risk group, the authors wrote. The FIB-4 index also correlated with markers associated with components of the HFA-PEFF scoring system.

Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, the FIB-4 index was associated with a high HFpEF risk, and an increase in FIB-4 was associated with increased odds of high HFpEF risk. The association remained significant across four separate models that accounted for risk factors associated with lifestyle-related diseases, blood parameters associated with liver disease, and chronic conditions such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and liver disease.

In additional area under the curve (AUC) analyses, the FIB-4 index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk. At cutoff values typically used for advanced liver fibrosis in NAFLD, a FIB-4 cutoff of 1.3 or less had a sensitivity of 85.2%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of 2.67 or higher had a specificity of 94.8%. At alternate cutoff values typically used for patients with HIV/hepatitis C virus infection, a FIB-4 cutoff of less than 1.45 had a sensitivity of 75.4%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of greater than 3.25 had a specificity of 98%.

Using cutoffs of 1.3 and 2.67, a higher FIB-4 was associated with higher rates of clinical events and MACE, as well as a higher HFpEF risk. Using the alternate cutoffs of 1.45 and 3.25, prognostic stratification of clinical events and MACE was also possible.

When all variables were included in the multivariate model, the FIB-4 index remained a significant prognostic predictor. The FIB-4 index stratified clinical prognosis was also an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure.

Although additional studies are needed to reveal the interaction between liver and heart function, the study authors wrote, the findings provide valuable insights that can help discover the cardiohepatic interaction to reduce the development of HFpEF.

“Since it can be easily, quickly, and inexpensively measured, routine or repeated measurements of the FIB-4 index could help in selecting preferred candidates for detailed examination of HFpEF risk, which may improve clinical outcomes by diagnosing HFpEF at an early stage,” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Osaka Medical Research Foundation for Intractable Disease, the Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Japan Heart Foundation. The authors disclosed no conflicts.

Although rare, acute hepatic porphyrias (AHPs) may be more common than previously thought, particularly among women between ages 15 and 50, according to a new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

For acute attacks, treatment should include intravenous hemin, and for patients with recurrent attacks, a newly-approved therapy called givosiran should be considered, wrote the authors of the update, which was published Jan. 13 in Gastroenterology.

“Diagnoses of AHPs are often missed, with a delay of more than 15 years from initial presentation. The key to early diagnosis is to consider the diagnosis, especially in patients with recurring severe abdominal pain not ascribable to other causes,” wrote the authors, who were led by Bruce Wang, MD, a hepatologist with the University of California, San Francisco.

AHPs are inherited disorders of heme-metabolism, which include acute intermittent porphyria, hereditary coproporphyria, variegate porphyria, and porphyria due to severe deficiency of 5-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase.

Acute intermittent porphyria (AIP) is the most common type, with an estimated prevalence of symptomatic AHP of 1 in 100,000 patients. However, population-level genetic studies show that the prevalence of pathogenic variants for AIP is between 1 in 1,300 and 1 in 1,785.

The major clinical presentation includes attacks of severe abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, muscle weakness, neuropathy, tachycardia, and hypertension, yet without peritoneal signs or abnormalities on cross-sectional imaging.

Recent advances in treatment have improved the outlook for patients with AHP. To provide timely guidance, the authors developed 12 clinical practice advice statements on the diagnosis and management of AHPs based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, AHP screening should be considered in the evaluation of all patients, particularly among women in their childbearing years between ages 15 and 50 with unexplained, recurrent severe abdominal pain that doesn’t have a clear etiology. About 90% of patients with symptomatic AHP are women, and more than 90% of them experience only one or a few acute attacks in their lifetime, which are often precipitated by factors that increase the activity of the enzyme ALAS1 in the liver.

For initial AHP diagnosis, biochemical testing should measure porphobilinogen (PBG) and delta-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) corrected to creatine on a random urine sample. All patients with significantly elevated urinary PBG or ALA should initially be presumed to have AHP, and during acute attacks, both will be elevated at least five-fold of the upper limit of normal. Because ALA and PBG are porphyrin precursors, urine porphyrin testing should not be used alone for AHP screening.

After that, genetic testing should be used to confirm the AHP diagnosis, as well as the specific type of AHP. Sequencing of the four genes ALAD, HMBS, CPOX, and PPOX leads to aminolevulinic acid dehydrase deficiency, acute intermittent porphyria, hereditary coproporphyria, and variegate porphyria, respectively. When whole-gene sequencing is performed, about 95%-99% of cases can be identified. First-degree family members should be screened with genetic testing, and those who are mutation carriers should be counseled.

For acute attacks of AHP that are severe enough to require hospitalization, the currently approved treatment is intravenous hemin infusion, usually given once daily at a dose of 3-4 mg/kg body weight for 3-5 days. Due to potential thrombophlebitis, it’s best to administer hemin in a high-flow central vein via a peripherally inserted central catheter or central port.

In addition, treatment for acute attacks should include analgesics, antiemetics, and management of systemic arterial hypertension, tachycardia, hyponatremia, and hypomagnesemia. The primary goal of treatment during an acute attack is to decrease ALA production. Patients should be counseled to avoid identifiable triggers, such as porphyrinogenic medications, excess alcohol intake, tobacco use, and caloric deprivation.

Although recent advances have improved treatment for acute attacks, management for patients with frequent attacks remains challenging, the study authors wrote. About 3%-5% of patients with symptomatic AHP experience recurrent attacks, which is defined as four or more attacks per year. These attacks aren’t typically associated with identifiable triggers, although some that occur during the luteal phase of a patient’s menstrual cycle are believed to be triggered by progesterone. However, treatment with hormonal suppression therapy, such as GnRH agonists, has had limited success.

Off-label use of prophylactic intravenous heme therapy is common, although the effectiveness in preventing recurrent attacks isn’t well-established. In addition, chronic hemin use is associated with several complications, including infections, iron overload, and the need for indwelling central venous catheters.

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration approved givosiran, a small interfering RNA-based therapy that targets delta-aminolevulinate synthase 1, for treatment in adults with AHP. Monthly subcutaneous therapy appears to significantly lower rates of acute attacks among patients who experience recurrent attacks.

“We suggest prescribing givosiran only for those patients with recurrent acute attacks that are both biochemically and genetically confirmed,” the authors wrote. “Due to limited safety data, givosiran should not be used in women who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy.”

In the most severe cases, liver transplantation should be limited to patients with intractable symptoms and a significantly decreased quality of life who are refractory to pharmacotherapy. If living donor transplantation is considered, genetic testing should be used to screen related living donors since HMBS pathogenic variants in asymptomatic donors could results in poor posttransplantation outcomes.

In the long-term, patients with AHP should be monitored annually for liver disease and chronic kidney disease with serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate monitored. Patients also face an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and should start screening at age 50, with a liver ultrasound every 6 months.

“Fortunately, most people with genetic defects never experience severe acute attacks or may experience only one or a few attacks throughout their lives,” the authors wrote.

The authors (Bruce Wang, MD, Herbert L. Bonkovsky, MD, AGAF, and Manisha Balwani, MD, MS) reported that they are part of the Porphyrias Consortium. The Porphyrias Consortium is part of the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network, an initiative of the Division of Rare Diseases Research Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The consortium is funded through a collaboration between the center and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Several authors disclosed funding support and honoraria for advisory board roles with various pharmaceutical companies, including Alnylam, which makes givosiran.

This article was updated 2/3/23.

Although rare, acute hepatic porphyrias (AHPs) may be more common than previously thought, particularly among women between ages 15 and 50, according to a new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

For acute attacks, treatment should include intravenous hemin, and for patients with recurrent attacks, a newly-approved therapy called givosiran should be considered, wrote the authors of the update, which was published Jan. 13 in Gastroenterology.

“Diagnoses of AHPs are often missed, with a delay of more than 15 years from initial presentation. The key to early diagnosis is to consider the diagnosis, especially in patients with recurring severe abdominal pain not ascribable to other causes,” wrote the authors, who were led by Bruce Wang, MD, a hepatologist with the University of California, San Francisco.

AHPs are inherited disorders of heme-metabolism, which include acute intermittent porphyria, hereditary coproporphyria, variegate porphyria, and porphyria due to severe deficiency of 5-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase.

Acute intermittent porphyria (AIP) is the most common type, with an estimated prevalence of symptomatic AHP of 1 in 100,000 patients. However, population-level genetic studies show that the prevalence of pathogenic variants for AIP is between 1 in 1,300 and 1 in 1,785.

The major clinical presentation includes attacks of severe abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, muscle weakness, neuropathy, tachycardia, and hypertension, yet without peritoneal signs or abnormalities on cross-sectional imaging.

Recent advances in treatment have improved the outlook for patients with AHP. To provide timely guidance, the authors developed 12 clinical practice advice statements on the diagnosis and management of AHPs based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, AHP screening should be considered in the evaluation of all patients, particularly among women in their childbearing years between ages 15 and 50 with unexplained, recurrent severe abdominal pain that doesn’t have a clear etiology. About 90% of patients with symptomatic AHP are women, and more than 90% of them experience only one or a few acute attacks in their lifetime, which are often precipitated by factors that increase the activity of the enzyme ALAS1 in the liver.

For initial AHP diagnosis, biochemical testing should measure porphobilinogen (PBG) and delta-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) corrected to creatine on a random urine sample. All patients with significantly elevated urinary PBG or ALA should initially be presumed to have AHP, and during acute attacks, both will be elevated at least five-fold of the upper limit of normal. Because ALA and PBG are porphyrin precursors, urine porphyrin testing should not be used alone for AHP screening.

After that, genetic testing should be used to confirm the AHP diagnosis, as well as the specific type of AHP. Sequencing of the four genes ALAD, HMBS, CPOX, and PPOX leads to aminolevulinic acid dehydrase deficiency, acute intermittent porphyria, hereditary coproporphyria, and variegate porphyria, respectively. When whole-gene sequencing is performed, about 95%-99% of cases can be identified. First-degree family members should be screened with genetic testing, and those who are mutation carriers should be counseled.

For acute attacks of AHP that are severe enough to require hospitalization, the currently approved treatment is intravenous hemin infusion, usually given once daily at a dose of 3-4 mg/kg body weight for 3-5 days. Due to potential thrombophlebitis, it’s best to administer hemin in a high-flow central vein via a peripherally inserted central catheter or central port.

In addition, treatment for acute attacks should include analgesics, antiemetics, and management of systemic arterial hypertension, tachycardia, hyponatremia, and hypomagnesemia. The primary goal of treatment during an acute attack is to decrease ALA production. Patients should be counseled to avoid identifiable triggers, such as porphyrinogenic medications, excess alcohol intake, tobacco use, and caloric deprivation.

Although recent advances have improved treatment for acute attacks, management for patients with frequent attacks remains challenging, the study authors wrote. About 3%-5% of patients with symptomatic AHP experience recurrent attacks, which is defined as four or more attacks per year. These attacks aren’t typically associated with identifiable triggers, although some that occur during the luteal phase of a patient’s menstrual cycle are believed to be triggered by progesterone. However, treatment with hormonal suppression therapy, such as GnRH agonists, has had limited success.

Off-label use of prophylactic intravenous heme therapy is common, although the effectiveness in preventing recurrent attacks isn’t well-established. In addition, chronic hemin use is associated with several complications, including infections, iron overload, and the need for indwelling central venous catheters.

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration approved givosiran, a small interfering RNA-based therapy that targets delta-aminolevulinate synthase 1, for treatment in adults with AHP. Monthly subcutaneous therapy appears to significantly lower rates of acute attacks among patients who experience recurrent attacks.

“We suggest prescribing givosiran only for those patients with recurrent acute attacks that are both biochemically and genetically confirmed,” the authors wrote. “Due to limited safety data, givosiran should not be used in women who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy.”

In the most severe cases, liver transplantation should be limited to patients with intractable symptoms and a significantly decreased quality of life who are refractory to pharmacotherapy. If living donor transplantation is considered, genetic testing should be used to screen related living donors since HMBS pathogenic variants in asymptomatic donors could results in poor posttransplantation outcomes.

In the long-term, patients with AHP should be monitored annually for liver disease and chronic kidney disease with serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate monitored. Patients also face an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and should start screening at age 50, with a liver ultrasound every 6 months.

“Fortunately, most people with genetic defects never experience severe acute attacks or may experience only one or a few attacks throughout their lives,” the authors wrote.

The authors (Bruce Wang, MD, Herbert L. Bonkovsky, MD, AGAF, and Manisha Balwani, MD, MS) reported that they are part of the Porphyrias Consortium. The Porphyrias Consortium is part of the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network, an initiative of the Division of Rare Diseases Research Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The consortium is funded through a collaboration between the center and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Several authors disclosed funding support and honoraria for advisory board roles with various pharmaceutical companies, including Alnylam, which makes givosiran.

This article was updated 2/3/23.

Although rare, acute hepatic porphyrias (AHPs) may be more common than previously thought, particularly among women between ages 15 and 50, according to a new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

For acute attacks, treatment should include intravenous hemin, and for patients with recurrent attacks, a newly-approved therapy called givosiran should be considered, wrote the authors of the update, which was published Jan. 13 in Gastroenterology.

“Diagnoses of AHPs are often missed, with a delay of more than 15 years from initial presentation. The key to early diagnosis is to consider the diagnosis, especially in patients with recurring severe abdominal pain not ascribable to other causes,” wrote the authors, who were led by Bruce Wang, MD, a hepatologist with the University of California, San Francisco.

AHPs are inherited disorders of heme-metabolism, which include acute intermittent porphyria, hereditary coproporphyria, variegate porphyria, and porphyria due to severe deficiency of 5-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase.

Acute intermittent porphyria (AIP) is the most common type, with an estimated prevalence of symptomatic AHP of 1 in 100,000 patients. However, population-level genetic studies show that the prevalence of pathogenic variants for AIP is between 1 in 1,300 and 1 in 1,785.

The major clinical presentation includes attacks of severe abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, muscle weakness, neuropathy, tachycardia, and hypertension, yet without peritoneal signs or abnormalities on cross-sectional imaging.

Recent advances in treatment have improved the outlook for patients with AHP. To provide timely guidance, the authors developed 12 clinical practice advice statements on the diagnosis and management of AHPs based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, AHP screening should be considered in the evaluation of all patients, particularly among women in their childbearing years between ages 15 and 50 with unexplained, recurrent severe abdominal pain that doesn’t have a clear etiology. About 90% of patients with symptomatic AHP are women, and more than 90% of them experience only one or a few acute attacks in their lifetime, which are often precipitated by factors that increase the activity of the enzyme ALAS1 in the liver.

For initial AHP diagnosis, biochemical testing should measure porphobilinogen (PBG) and delta-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) corrected to creatine on a random urine sample. All patients with significantly elevated urinary PBG or ALA should initially be presumed to have AHP, and during acute attacks, both will be elevated at least five-fold of the upper limit of normal. Because ALA and PBG are porphyrin precursors, urine porphyrin testing should not be used alone for AHP screening.

After that, genetic testing should be used to confirm the AHP diagnosis, as well as the specific type of AHP. Sequencing of the four genes ALAD, HMBS, CPOX, and PPOX leads to aminolevulinic acid dehydrase deficiency, acute intermittent porphyria, hereditary coproporphyria, and variegate porphyria, respectively. When whole-gene sequencing is performed, about 95%-99% of cases can be identified. First-degree family members should be screened with genetic testing, and those who are mutation carriers should be counseled.

For acute attacks of AHP that are severe enough to require hospitalization, the currently approved treatment is intravenous hemin infusion, usually given once daily at a dose of 3-4 mg/kg body weight for 3-5 days. Due to potential thrombophlebitis, it’s best to administer hemin in a high-flow central vein via a peripherally inserted central catheter or central port.

In addition, treatment for acute attacks should include analgesics, antiemetics, and management of systemic arterial hypertension, tachycardia, hyponatremia, and hypomagnesemia. The primary goal of treatment during an acute attack is to decrease ALA production. Patients should be counseled to avoid identifiable triggers, such as porphyrinogenic medications, excess alcohol intake, tobacco use, and caloric deprivation.

Although recent advances have improved treatment for acute attacks, management for patients with frequent attacks remains challenging, the study authors wrote. About 3%-5% of patients with symptomatic AHP experience recurrent attacks, which is defined as four or more attacks per year. These attacks aren’t typically associated with identifiable triggers, although some that occur during the luteal phase of a patient’s menstrual cycle are believed to be triggered by progesterone. However, treatment with hormonal suppression therapy, such as GnRH agonists, has had limited success.

Off-label use of prophylactic intravenous heme therapy is common, although the effectiveness in preventing recurrent attacks isn’t well-established. In addition, chronic hemin use is associated with several complications, including infections, iron overload, and the need for indwelling central venous catheters.

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration approved givosiran, a small interfering RNA-based therapy that targets delta-aminolevulinate synthase 1, for treatment in adults with AHP. Monthly subcutaneous therapy appears to significantly lower rates of acute attacks among patients who experience recurrent attacks.

“We suggest prescribing givosiran only for those patients with recurrent acute attacks that are both biochemically and genetically confirmed,” the authors wrote. “Due to limited safety data, givosiran should not be used in women who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy.”

In the most severe cases, liver transplantation should be limited to patients with intractable symptoms and a significantly decreased quality of life who are refractory to pharmacotherapy. If living donor transplantation is considered, genetic testing should be used to screen related living donors since HMBS pathogenic variants in asymptomatic donors could results in poor posttransplantation outcomes.

In the long-term, patients with AHP should be monitored annually for liver disease and chronic kidney disease with serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate monitored. Patients also face an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and should start screening at age 50, with a liver ultrasound every 6 months.

“Fortunately, most people with genetic defects never experience severe acute attacks or may experience only one or a few attacks throughout their lives,” the authors wrote.

The authors (Bruce Wang, MD, Herbert L. Bonkovsky, MD, AGAF, and Manisha Balwani, MD, MS) reported that they are part of the Porphyrias Consortium. The Porphyrias Consortium is part of the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network, an initiative of the Division of Rare Diseases Research Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The consortium is funded through a collaboration between the center and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Several authors disclosed funding support and honoraria for advisory board roles with various pharmaceutical companies, including Alnylam, which makes givosiran.

This article was updated 2/3/23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new study that quantifies the harm to the liver of eating fast food might motivate people to eat less of it – especially those with obesity or diabetes.

The study finds that getting one-fifth or more of total daily calories from fast food can increase the risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which can lead to cirrhosis and its complications, including liver failure and liver cancer.

Annbozhko/iStock/Getty Images

Although the magnitude of association was modest among the general population, “striking” elevations in steatosis were evident among persons with obesity and diabetes who consumed fast food, in comparison with their counterparts who did not have obesity and diabetes, the researchers reported.

“My hope is that this study encourages people to seek out more nutritious, healthy food options and provides information that clinicians can use to counsel their patients, particularly those with underlying metabolic risk factors, of the importance of avoiding foods that are high in fat, carbohydrates, and processed sugars,” lead investigator Ani Kardashian, MD, hepatologist with the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“At a policy level, public health efforts are needed to improve access to affordable, healthy, and nutritious food options across the U.S. This is especially important as more people have turned to fast foods during the pandemic and as the price of food as risen dramatically over the past year due to food inflation,” Dr. Kardashian added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More fast food, greater steatosis

The findings are based on data from 3,954 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2017-2018 and who underwent vibration-controlled transient elastography. Of these participants, data regarding 1- or 2-day dietary recall were available.

Steatosis, the primary outcome, was measured via controlled attenuation parameter (CAP). Two validated cutoffs were utilized (CAP ≥ 263 dB/m and CAP ≥ 285 dB/m).

Of those surveyed, 52% consumed any fast food, and 29% derived 20% or more of their daily calories from fast food.

Fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories was significantly associated with greater steatosis after multivariable adjustment, both as a continuous measure (4.6 dB/m higher CAP score) and with respect to the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff (odds ratio [OR], 1.45).

“The negative effects are particularly severe in people who already have diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Kardashian told this news organization.

For example, with diabetes and fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories, the ORs of meeting the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff and the CAP ≥ 285 dB/m cutoff were 2.3 and 2.48, respectively.

The researchers said their findings are particularly “alarming,” given the overall increase in fast-food consumption over the past 50 years in the United States, regardless of socioeconomic status.
 

Diet coaching

The finding that fast food has more deleterious impact on those with obesity and diabetes “emphasizes that it is not just one insult but multiple factors that contribute to overall health,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

“This is actually great news, because diet is modifiable, vs. your genetics, which you currently can’t change. This doesn’t mean if you’re lean you can eat whatever you want, but if you are overweight, being careful with your diet does have impact, even if it doesn’t lead to substantial weight changes,” said Dr. Reau, who is not affiliated with the study.

For people who have limited options and need to eat fast food, “there are healthy choices at most restaurants; you just need to be smart about reading labels, watching calories, and ordering the healthier options,” Dr. Reau said in an interview.

Fast food and fatty liver go “hand in hand,” Lisa Ganjhu, DO, gastroenterologist and hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York, told this news organization.

“I counsel and coach my patients on healthy diet and exercise, and I’ve been pretty successful,” said Dr. Ganjhu, who was not involved with the study.

“If my patient is eating at McDonald’s a lot, I basically walk through the menu with them and help them find something healthy. When patients see the benefits of cutting out fat and reducing carbohydrates, they are more apt to continue,” Dr. Ganjhu said.

The study was funded by the University of Southern California. Dr. Kardashian, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Ganjhu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study that quantifies the harm to the liver of eating fast food might motivate people to eat less of it – especially those with obesity or diabetes.

The study finds that getting one-fifth or more of total daily calories from fast food can increase the risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which can lead to cirrhosis and its complications, including liver failure and liver cancer.

Annbozhko/iStock/Getty Images

Although the magnitude of association was modest among the general population, “striking” elevations in steatosis were evident among persons with obesity and diabetes who consumed fast food, in comparison with their counterparts who did not have obesity and diabetes, the researchers reported.

“My hope is that this study encourages people to seek out more nutritious, healthy food options and provides information that clinicians can use to counsel their patients, particularly those with underlying metabolic risk factors, of the importance of avoiding foods that are high in fat, carbohydrates, and processed sugars,” lead investigator Ani Kardashian, MD, hepatologist with the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“At a policy level, public health efforts are needed to improve access to affordable, healthy, and nutritious food options across the U.S. This is especially important as more people have turned to fast foods during the pandemic and as the price of food as risen dramatically over the past year due to food inflation,” Dr. Kardashian added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More fast food, greater steatosis

The findings are based on data from 3,954 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2017-2018 and who underwent vibration-controlled transient elastography. Of these participants, data regarding 1- or 2-day dietary recall were available.

Steatosis, the primary outcome, was measured via controlled attenuation parameter (CAP). Two validated cutoffs were utilized (CAP ≥ 263 dB/m and CAP ≥ 285 dB/m).

Of those surveyed, 52% consumed any fast food, and 29% derived 20% or more of their daily calories from fast food.

Fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories was significantly associated with greater steatosis after multivariable adjustment, both as a continuous measure (4.6 dB/m higher CAP score) and with respect to the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff (odds ratio [OR], 1.45).

“The negative effects are particularly severe in people who already have diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Kardashian told this news organization.

For example, with diabetes and fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories, the ORs of meeting the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff and the CAP ≥ 285 dB/m cutoff were 2.3 and 2.48, respectively.

The researchers said their findings are particularly “alarming,” given the overall increase in fast-food consumption over the past 50 years in the United States, regardless of socioeconomic status.
 

Diet coaching

The finding that fast food has more deleterious impact on those with obesity and diabetes “emphasizes that it is not just one insult but multiple factors that contribute to overall health,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

“This is actually great news, because diet is modifiable, vs. your genetics, which you currently can’t change. This doesn’t mean if you’re lean you can eat whatever you want, but if you are overweight, being careful with your diet does have impact, even if it doesn’t lead to substantial weight changes,” said Dr. Reau, who is not affiliated with the study.

For people who have limited options and need to eat fast food, “there are healthy choices at most restaurants; you just need to be smart about reading labels, watching calories, and ordering the healthier options,” Dr. Reau said in an interview.

Fast food and fatty liver go “hand in hand,” Lisa Ganjhu, DO, gastroenterologist and hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York, told this news organization.

“I counsel and coach my patients on healthy diet and exercise, and I’ve been pretty successful,” said Dr. Ganjhu, who was not involved with the study.

“If my patient is eating at McDonald’s a lot, I basically walk through the menu with them and help them find something healthy. When patients see the benefits of cutting out fat and reducing carbohydrates, they are more apt to continue,” Dr. Ganjhu said.

The study was funded by the University of Southern California. Dr. Kardashian, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Ganjhu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study that quantifies the harm to the liver of eating fast food might motivate people to eat less of it – especially those with obesity or diabetes.

The study finds that getting one-fifth or more of total daily calories from fast food can increase the risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which can lead to cirrhosis and its complications, including liver failure and liver cancer.

Annbozhko/iStock/Getty Images

Although the magnitude of association was modest among the general population, “striking” elevations in steatosis were evident among persons with obesity and diabetes who consumed fast food, in comparison with their counterparts who did not have obesity and diabetes, the researchers reported.

“My hope is that this study encourages people to seek out more nutritious, healthy food options and provides information that clinicians can use to counsel their patients, particularly those with underlying metabolic risk factors, of the importance of avoiding foods that are high in fat, carbohydrates, and processed sugars,” lead investigator Ani Kardashian, MD, hepatologist with the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“At a policy level, public health efforts are needed to improve access to affordable, healthy, and nutritious food options across the U.S. This is especially important as more people have turned to fast foods during the pandemic and as the price of food as risen dramatically over the past year due to food inflation,” Dr. Kardashian added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More fast food, greater steatosis

The findings are based on data from 3,954 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2017-2018 and who underwent vibration-controlled transient elastography. Of these participants, data regarding 1- or 2-day dietary recall were available.

Steatosis, the primary outcome, was measured via controlled attenuation parameter (CAP). Two validated cutoffs were utilized (CAP ≥ 263 dB/m and CAP ≥ 285 dB/m).

Of those surveyed, 52% consumed any fast food, and 29% derived 20% or more of their daily calories from fast food.

Fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories was significantly associated with greater steatosis after multivariable adjustment, both as a continuous measure (4.6 dB/m higher CAP score) and with respect to the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff (odds ratio [OR], 1.45).

“The negative effects are particularly severe in people who already have diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Kardashian told this news organization.

For example, with diabetes and fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories, the ORs of meeting the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff and the CAP ≥ 285 dB/m cutoff were 2.3 and 2.48, respectively.

The researchers said their findings are particularly “alarming,” given the overall increase in fast-food consumption over the past 50 years in the United States, regardless of socioeconomic status.
 

Diet coaching

The finding that fast food has more deleterious impact on those with obesity and diabetes “emphasizes that it is not just one insult but multiple factors that contribute to overall health,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

“This is actually great news, because diet is modifiable, vs. your genetics, which you currently can’t change. This doesn’t mean if you’re lean you can eat whatever you want, but if you are overweight, being careful with your diet does have impact, even if it doesn’t lead to substantial weight changes,” said Dr. Reau, who is not affiliated with the study.

For people who have limited options and need to eat fast food, “there are healthy choices at most restaurants; you just need to be smart about reading labels, watching calories, and ordering the healthier options,” Dr. Reau said in an interview.

Fast food and fatty liver go “hand in hand,” Lisa Ganjhu, DO, gastroenterologist and hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York, told this news organization.

“I counsel and coach my patients on healthy diet and exercise, and I’ve been pretty successful,” said Dr. Ganjhu, who was not involved with the study.

“If my patient is eating at McDonald’s a lot, I basically walk through the menu with them and help them find something healthy. When patients see the benefits of cutting out fat and reducing carbohydrates, they are more apt to continue,” Dr. Ganjhu said.

The study was funded by the University of Southern California. Dr. Kardashian, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Ganjhu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing associations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for patient care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing associations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for patient care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing associations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for patient care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A smartphone chatbot that gives lifestyle advice may help people with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) improve their liver health, researchers say.

After 48 weeks, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores (NAS) improved in 13 out of 19 patients who used the NASH app developed by CureApp, according to Masaya Sato of the University of Tokyo and colleagues.

If confirmed by a controlled trial, these preliminary results could show promise for digital therapeutics, the researchers stated in an article published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The widespread use of smartphones, which can process and communicate data in real time, makes them an ideal platform for therapeutic interventions,” they said.

Although lifestyle changes can reduce NASH activity, many patients have difficulty keeping up these changes. Not enough counselors are available to guide patients in healthy practices, and hiring the counselors is expensive, the researchers wrote.

Smartphone applications aimed at instilling healthy behavior have been tried in diabetes, smoking, hypertension, alcoholism, and even cancer, they noted. They wanted to see whether something similar could be done with NASH.

The researchers recruited 19 patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH who consumed no more than moderate amounts of alcohol and had a body mass index (BMI) of at least 25 kg/m². Their mean age was 52 years, mean BMI was 32, and mean NAS was 5.0.

The patients downloaded the NASH app onto their phones and entered their baseline profile information, including age, gender, diet and exercise practices, and social characteristics. On the basis of this information and daily weight measurements, the system proposed lifestyle improvement programs tailored to each individual. Its chatbot presented them in the form of behavioral goals and lectures from virtual nurses.

While patients used the app for 48 weeks, they also received standard outpatient care for NASH from live physicians, who also promoted the use of the app and provided additional education related to NASH.

The patients underwent liver biopsies within 90 days prior to beginning the study and at the end of 48 weeks. The researchers compared the changes in these patients versus those in a hypothetical control group, which they based on the placebo group in a previous study.

In the patients who used the app, the mean NAS change from baseline to week 48, the main endpoint, was –2.05 (95% confidence interval, –3.00 to –1.11). This result was statistically significant compared with the hypothetical control group, in which the mean change in NAS was –0.7 (P < .001).

In 11 of the patients, NAS decreased by at least 2 points without worsening of liver fibrosis. In eight patients, the researchers observed resolution of steatohepatitis, which they defined as disappearance of hepatocyte ballooning.

In 12 patients with stage F2 or F3 fibrosis, the average stage went from 2.5 to 2.0 (P = .02). No patient with stage F1 fibrosis showed a reduction in fibrosis stage. The scores for steatosis decreased in 11 patients, for lobular inflammation in 9 patients, and for ballooning in 10 patients.

The patients lost an average of 8.3% of their body weight, which was significant, compared with their baseline (P < .001). The patients also notched significant reductions in average serum levels of AST, ALT, gamma-glutamyltransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and triglycerides.

The researchers noted that the lack of a real control group and the small size of the study population limited the importance of their findings. A larger randomized, controlled trial is needed to confirm their results.

During the study, physicians browsed the patients’ data and provided them with feedback about it, the researchers wrote. But the study did not measure the amount of time the physicians spent on this activity.

CureApp founded the study, and one of the authors is a consultant for the company.

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

A smartphone chatbot that gives lifestyle advice may help people with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) improve their liver health, researchers say.

After 48 weeks, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores (NAS) improved in 13 out of 19 patients who used the NASH app developed by CureApp, according to Masaya Sato of the University of Tokyo and colleagues.

If confirmed by a controlled trial, these preliminary results could show promise for digital therapeutics, the researchers stated in an article published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The widespread use of smartphones, which can process and communicate data in real time, makes them an ideal platform for therapeutic interventions,” they said.

Although lifestyle changes can reduce NASH activity, many patients have difficulty keeping up these changes. Not enough counselors are available to guide patients in healthy practices, and hiring the counselors is expensive, the researchers wrote.

Smartphone applications aimed at instilling healthy behavior have been tried in diabetes, smoking, hypertension, alcoholism, and even cancer, they noted. They wanted to see whether something similar could be done with NASH.

The researchers recruited 19 patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH who consumed no more than moderate amounts of alcohol and had a body mass index (BMI) of at least 25 kg/m². Their mean age was 52 years, mean BMI was 32, and mean NAS was 5.0.

The patients downloaded the NASH app onto their phones and entered their baseline profile information, including age, gender, diet and exercise practices, and social characteristics. On the basis of this information and daily weight measurements, the system proposed lifestyle improvement programs tailored to each individual. Its chatbot presented them in the form of behavioral goals and lectures from virtual nurses.

While patients used the app for 48 weeks, they also received standard outpatient care for NASH from live physicians, who also promoted the use of the app and provided additional education related to NASH.

The patients underwent liver biopsies within 90 days prior to beginning the study and at the end of 48 weeks. The researchers compared the changes in these patients versus those in a hypothetical control group, which they based on the placebo group in a previous study.

In the patients who used the app, the mean NAS change from baseline to week 48, the main endpoint, was –2.05 (95% confidence interval, –3.00 to –1.11). This result was statistically significant compared with the hypothetical control group, in which the mean change in NAS was –0.7 (P < .001).

In 11 of the patients, NAS decreased by at least 2 points without worsening of liver fibrosis. In eight patients, the researchers observed resolution of steatohepatitis, which they defined as disappearance of hepatocyte ballooning.

In 12 patients with stage F2 or F3 fibrosis, the average stage went from 2.5 to 2.0 (P = .02). No patient with stage F1 fibrosis showed a reduction in fibrosis stage. The scores for steatosis decreased in 11 patients, for lobular inflammation in 9 patients, and for ballooning in 10 patients.

The patients lost an average of 8.3% of their body weight, which was significant, compared with their baseline (P < .001). The patients also notched significant reductions in average serum levels of AST, ALT, gamma-glutamyltransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and triglycerides.

The researchers noted that the lack of a real control group and the small size of the study population limited the importance of their findings. A larger randomized, controlled trial is needed to confirm their results.

During the study, physicians browsed the patients’ data and provided them with feedback about it, the researchers wrote. But the study did not measure the amount of time the physicians spent on this activity.

CureApp founded the study, and one of the authors is a consultant for the company.

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

A smartphone chatbot that gives lifestyle advice may help people with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) improve their liver health, researchers say.

After 48 weeks, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores (NAS) improved in 13 out of 19 patients who used the NASH app developed by CureApp, according to Masaya Sato of the University of Tokyo and colleagues.

If confirmed by a controlled trial, these preliminary results could show promise for digital therapeutics, the researchers stated in an article published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The widespread use of smartphones, which can process and communicate data in real time, makes them an ideal platform for therapeutic interventions,” they said.

Although lifestyle changes can reduce NASH activity, many patients have difficulty keeping up these changes. Not enough counselors are available to guide patients in healthy practices, and hiring the counselors is expensive, the researchers wrote.

Smartphone applications aimed at instilling healthy behavior have been tried in diabetes, smoking, hypertension, alcoholism, and even cancer, they noted. They wanted to see whether something similar could be done with NASH.

The researchers recruited 19 patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH who consumed no more than moderate amounts of alcohol and had a body mass index (BMI) of at least 25 kg/m². Their mean age was 52 years, mean BMI was 32, and mean NAS was 5.0.

The patients downloaded the NASH app onto their phones and entered their baseline profile information, including age, gender, diet and exercise practices, and social characteristics. On the basis of this information and daily weight measurements, the system proposed lifestyle improvement programs tailored to each individual. Its chatbot presented them in the form of behavioral goals and lectures from virtual nurses.

While patients used the app for 48 weeks, they also received standard outpatient care for NASH from live physicians, who also promoted the use of the app and provided additional education related to NASH.

The patients underwent liver biopsies within 90 days prior to beginning the study and at the end of 48 weeks. The researchers compared the changes in these patients versus those in a hypothetical control group, which they based on the placebo group in a previous study.

In the patients who used the app, the mean NAS change from baseline to week 48, the main endpoint, was –2.05 (95% confidence interval, –3.00 to –1.11). This result was statistically significant compared with the hypothetical control group, in which the mean change in NAS was –0.7 (P < .001).

In 11 of the patients, NAS decreased by at least 2 points without worsening of liver fibrosis. In eight patients, the researchers observed resolution of steatohepatitis, which they defined as disappearance of hepatocyte ballooning.

In 12 patients with stage F2 or F3 fibrosis, the average stage went from 2.5 to 2.0 (P = .02). No patient with stage F1 fibrosis showed a reduction in fibrosis stage. The scores for steatosis decreased in 11 patients, for lobular inflammation in 9 patients, and for ballooning in 10 patients.

The patients lost an average of 8.3% of their body weight, which was significant, compared with their baseline (P < .001). The patients also notched significant reductions in average serum levels of AST, ALT, gamma-glutamyltransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and triglycerides.

The researchers noted that the lack of a real control group and the small size of the study population limited the importance of their findings. A larger randomized, controlled trial is needed to confirm their results.

During the study, physicians browsed the patients’ data and provided them with feedback about it, the researchers wrote. But the study did not measure the amount of time the physicians spent on this activity.

CureApp founded the study, and one of the authors is a consultant for the company.

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

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

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

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

A public health crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obstacles abound, as do ways to overcome them

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing the math

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting it done

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

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

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

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

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

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

A call to action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A public health crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obstacles abound, as do ways to overcome them

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing the math

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting it done

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

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

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

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

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

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

A call to action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A public health crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obstacles abound, as do ways to overcome them

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing the math

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting it done

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

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

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

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

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

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

A call to action

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

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

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

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

Hepatitis B virus (HBV), which can lead to acute and chronic hepatitis, infects more than 2 billion people worldwide, according to serological evidence. Although vaccines and treatments are available, there are approximately 1.5 million new HBV infections each year globally.

A new study has revealed a key step in the HBV life cycle: Researchers found that HBV virions can be released within exosomes, which are capable of infecting neighboring cells. The authors, led by Qingyan Wu of the department of virology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, Langen, Germany, suggest this strategy may help the virus escape immune surveillance and target a new hepatocyte.

The study was published online in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The researchers isolated exosomes from the supernatants of HBV-producing cells using exosomal and HBV markers. Electron microscopy using ultrathin sectioning along with immunogold labeling confirmed the presence of intact HBV virions in exosomes. The ultracentrifugation enabled the separation of the free virion fraction from the virions enclosed in exosomes. These findings fit in with previous discoveries of quasi-enveloped hepatitis A virus and hepatitis E virus.

The exosomes released free HBV virion and naked capsid after exposure to detergent. Cellular exposure to exosome morphogenesis inhibitors interfered with the release of exosome-packaged HBV. The researchers also observed large HBV surface antigens (LHB) on the external surface of the exosomes and found that the antigens allowed the exosome to infect susceptible cells through interaction with the sodium-taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide. LHB may also play an additional role in infectivity by countering the ability of antibodies to neutralize HBV.

However, the researchers also found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells with exosome-containing HBV. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

To investigate the release pathway, the researchers used three different exosome release inhibitors and found that all three interfered with HBV exosomal release. They also found that cells deficient in the exosome proteins Alix and syntenin did not release exosomal HBV.

Alix appears to be involved in HBV exosomal release, as evidenced by the fact that release of exosomal HBV is boosted in Alix-deficient cells following rescue through overexpression of mCherry-Alix fusion construct. Overexpression of mCherry-Alix had no effect on release of free HBV virions.

The researchers also found evidence that two other exosomal proteins, CD63 and TSG101, play a role in incorporation of LHBs in the HBV envelope, as well as release of HBV through interactions with the protein alpha-taxilin. CD63 and TSG101 are also critical to the formation of exosomes, and the authors suggest further research into their functioning could be fruitful.

Whether exosome-released HBV results from crosstalk between the virus and host cells still needs to be determined. If host factors play a role in connecting HBV to exosomes, it will be interesting to work out which conditions trigger this process, as well as determine which events trigger the release of free virus through multivesicular bodies.

The researchers posit that LHBs could perform a similar function as classical hepatitis B surface antigens and filaments in foiling the immune response. Such a function would require that the virus escape from antibodies before opsonin proteins tag the antigens. It’s also possible that LHBs enable infection of nonhepatic tissues, though this would likely be inefficient.

Many other host proteins have been observed in exosomes released by HBV-infected hepatocytes, suggesting that host proteins may play other roles. A proteomics analysis found proteasome subunit proteins in HepAD38-derived exosomes. The authors suggest that those proteins may allow the exosomes to mediate transcellular immune regulation.

Subviral particles may enhance viral infection, and exosomes from HBV-positive cells may contribute, possibly through exosome surface LHBs, according to the authors. They found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

“This previously undiscovered strategy of sequestering HBV particles in exosomes could be a strategy to escape from the immune response and to target them, protected by the exosomal membrane, to the hepatocyte. Exosomes that carry HBV particles seem also to have the potential to deliver HBV to nonpermissive cells with low efficiency. This suggests that exosomes could be an additional factor that contributes to the spread of HBV,” the authors wrote.

The authors had no financial conflicts. This research was funded by the LOEWE Center ACLF, DRUID, the Germany Research Foundation, and the China Scholarship Council.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV), which can lead to acute and chronic hepatitis, infects more than 2 billion people worldwide, according to serological evidence. Although vaccines and treatments are available, there are approximately 1.5 million new HBV infections each year globally.

A new study has revealed a key step in the HBV life cycle: Researchers found that HBV virions can be released within exosomes, which are capable of infecting neighboring cells. The authors, led by Qingyan Wu of the department of virology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, Langen, Germany, suggest this strategy may help the virus escape immune surveillance and target a new hepatocyte.

The study was published online in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The researchers isolated exosomes from the supernatants of HBV-producing cells using exosomal and HBV markers. Electron microscopy using ultrathin sectioning along with immunogold labeling confirmed the presence of intact HBV virions in exosomes. The ultracentrifugation enabled the separation of the free virion fraction from the virions enclosed in exosomes. These findings fit in with previous discoveries of quasi-enveloped hepatitis A virus and hepatitis E virus.

The exosomes released free HBV virion and naked capsid after exposure to detergent. Cellular exposure to exosome morphogenesis inhibitors interfered with the release of exosome-packaged HBV. The researchers also observed large HBV surface antigens (LHB) on the external surface of the exosomes and found that the antigens allowed the exosome to infect susceptible cells through interaction with the sodium-taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide. LHB may also play an additional role in infectivity by countering the ability of antibodies to neutralize HBV.

However, the researchers also found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells with exosome-containing HBV. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

To investigate the release pathway, the researchers used three different exosome release inhibitors and found that all three interfered with HBV exosomal release. They also found that cells deficient in the exosome proteins Alix and syntenin did not release exosomal HBV.

Alix appears to be involved in HBV exosomal release, as evidenced by the fact that release of exosomal HBV is boosted in Alix-deficient cells following rescue through overexpression of mCherry-Alix fusion construct. Overexpression of mCherry-Alix had no effect on release of free HBV virions.

The researchers also found evidence that two other exosomal proteins, CD63 and TSG101, play a role in incorporation of LHBs in the HBV envelope, as well as release of HBV through interactions with the protein alpha-taxilin. CD63 and TSG101 are also critical to the formation of exosomes, and the authors suggest further research into their functioning could be fruitful.

Whether exosome-released HBV results from crosstalk between the virus and host cells still needs to be determined. If host factors play a role in connecting HBV to exosomes, it will be interesting to work out which conditions trigger this process, as well as determine which events trigger the release of free virus through multivesicular bodies.

The researchers posit that LHBs could perform a similar function as classical hepatitis B surface antigens and filaments in foiling the immune response. Such a function would require that the virus escape from antibodies before opsonin proteins tag the antigens. It’s also possible that LHBs enable infection of nonhepatic tissues, though this would likely be inefficient.

Many other host proteins have been observed in exosomes released by HBV-infected hepatocytes, suggesting that host proteins may play other roles. A proteomics analysis found proteasome subunit proteins in HepAD38-derived exosomes. The authors suggest that those proteins may allow the exosomes to mediate transcellular immune regulation.

Subviral particles may enhance viral infection, and exosomes from HBV-positive cells may contribute, possibly through exosome surface LHBs, according to the authors. They found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

“This previously undiscovered strategy of sequestering HBV particles in exosomes could be a strategy to escape from the immune response and to target them, protected by the exosomal membrane, to the hepatocyte. Exosomes that carry HBV particles seem also to have the potential to deliver HBV to nonpermissive cells with low efficiency. This suggests that exosomes could be an additional factor that contributes to the spread of HBV,” the authors wrote.

The authors had no financial conflicts. This research was funded by the LOEWE Center ACLF, DRUID, the Germany Research Foundation, and the China Scholarship Council.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV), which can lead to acute and chronic hepatitis, infects more than 2 billion people worldwide, according to serological evidence. Although vaccines and treatments are available, there are approximately 1.5 million new HBV infections each year globally.

A new study has revealed a key step in the HBV life cycle: Researchers found that HBV virions can be released within exosomes, which are capable of infecting neighboring cells. The authors, led by Qingyan Wu of the department of virology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, Langen, Germany, suggest this strategy may help the virus escape immune surveillance and target a new hepatocyte.

The study was published online in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The researchers isolated exosomes from the supernatants of HBV-producing cells using exosomal and HBV markers. Electron microscopy using ultrathin sectioning along with immunogold labeling confirmed the presence of intact HBV virions in exosomes. The ultracentrifugation enabled the separation of the free virion fraction from the virions enclosed in exosomes. These findings fit in with previous discoveries of quasi-enveloped hepatitis A virus and hepatitis E virus.

The exosomes released free HBV virion and naked capsid after exposure to detergent. Cellular exposure to exosome morphogenesis inhibitors interfered with the release of exosome-packaged HBV. The researchers also observed large HBV surface antigens (LHB) on the external surface of the exosomes and found that the antigens allowed the exosome to infect susceptible cells through interaction with the sodium-taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide. LHB may also play an additional role in infectivity by countering the ability of antibodies to neutralize HBV.

However, the researchers also found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells with exosome-containing HBV. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

To investigate the release pathway, the researchers used three different exosome release inhibitors and found that all three interfered with HBV exosomal release. They also found that cells deficient in the exosome proteins Alix and syntenin did not release exosomal HBV.

Alix appears to be involved in HBV exosomal release, as evidenced by the fact that release of exosomal HBV is boosted in Alix-deficient cells following rescue through overexpression of mCherry-Alix fusion construct. Overexpression of mCherry-Alix had no effect on release of free HBV virions.

The researchers also found evidence that two other exosomal proteins, CD63 and TSG101, play a role in incorporation of LHBs in the HBV envelope, as well as release of HBV through interactions with the protein alpha-taxilin. CD63 and TSG101 are also critical to the formation of exosomes, and the authors suggest further research into their functioning could be fruitful.

Whether exosome-released HBV results from crosstalk between the virus and host cells still needs to be determined. If host factors play a role in connecting HBV to exosomes, it will be interesting to work out which conditions trigger this process, as well as determine which events trigger the release of free virus through multivesicular bodies.

The researchers posit that LHBs could perform a similar function as classical hepatitis B surface antigens and filaments in foiling the immune response. Such a function would require that the virus escape from antibodies before opsonin proteins tag the antigens. It’s also possible that LHBs enable infection of nonhepatic tissues, though this would likely be inefficient.

Many other host proteins have been observed in exosomes released by HBV-infected hepatocytes, suggesting that host proteins may play other roles. A proteomics analysis found proteasome subunit proteins in HepAD38-derived exosomes. The authors suggest that those proteins may allow the exosomes to mediate transcellular immune regulation.

Subviral particles may enhance viral infection, and exosomes from HBV-positive cells may contribute, possibly through exosome surface LHBs, according to the authors. They found that an LHB-specific neutralizing antibody inhibited infection of differentiated HepaRG cells. One explanation is that the antibody blocks the interaction between LHB and the target cell. Another is that the exosome disassembles near the target cell membrane and releases the virus, which is then blocked by the antibody since it can block entry of released virus.

“This previously undiscovered strategy of sequestering HBV particles in exosomes could be a strategy to escape from the immune response and to target them, protected by the exosomal membrane, to the hepatocyte. Exosomes that carry HBV particles seem also to have the potential to deliver HBV to nonpermissive cells with low efficiency. This suggests that exosomes could be an additional factor that contributes to the spread of HBV,” the authors wrote.

The authors had no financial conflicts. This research was funded by the LOEWE Center ACLF, DRUID, the Germany Research Foundation, and the China Scholarship Council.