Proton pump inhibitor use and risk of hepatic encephalopathy: A multicentre study.

Background & Aims: Data on the association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) are conflicting, and data from multicentre studies are scarce. The aim of this study was to dissect the potential association between PPI use and minimal (MHE) and overt HE (OHE). Methods: Data from patients with cirrhosis recruited at seven centres across Europe and the US were analysed. MHE was defined by the psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES). PPI use was recorded on the day of testing with PHES. Patients were followed for OHE development and death/liver transplantation. Results: A total of 1,160 patients with a median MELD of 11 were included (Child-Pugh stages: A 49%/B 39%/C 11%). PPI use was noted in 58% of patients. Median follow-up time was 18.1 months, during which 230 (20%) developed an OHE episode, and 224 (19%) reached the composite endpoint of death/liver transplantation. In multivariable analyses, PPI use was neither associated with the presence of MHE at baseline nor OHE development during follow-up. These findings were consistent in subgroup analyses of patients with Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis and after excluding patients with a history of OHE. PPI use was also not associated with a higher risk of OHE, neither in patients with an indication for treatment nor in patients without an indication. Conclusions: PPI use is not associated with a higher risk of HE in patients with cirrhosis. Based on these findings, at present, a prescription should not be prohibited in case of a generally accepted indication. Impact and implications: Data on the association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) are conflicting. In this study, PPI use was not associated with a higher risk of minimal HE at baseline or overt HE during follow-up in patients with cirrhosis. Based on these findings, prescription of a PPI for a generally accepted indication should not be prohibited in patients with cirrhosis.

Lower uromodulin serum levels are associated with poorer prognosis in patients with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome type 2.

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is associated with a dismal prognosis in patients with cirrhosis, and therapeutic options are limited. Biomarkers to identify patients with poor response to therapy are urgently needed. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of serum levels of uromodulin (sUMOD) in patients with cirrhosis and HRS treated with terlipressin and albumin (T/A). In total, 156 patients [81 patients with HRS treated with T/A, 42 patients with cirrhosis without kidney injury, and 33 patients with cirrhosis with prerenal acute kidney injury (AKI)] were included. sUMOD levels were analyzed by ELISA. Patients with HRS were prospectively followed for the composite endpoint of hemodialysis-/liver transplantation-free survival (HD/LTx-free survival). Of the 81 patients with HRS, 40 had HRS type 1 and 41 type 2. In the cohort of patients with HRS treated with T/A, median sUMOD level was 100 ng/mL (IQR 64; 144). sUMOD differed significantly between patients with HRS compared with patients without AKI (P = 0.001) but not between patients with HRS and prerenal AKI (P = 0.9). In multivariable analyses, sUMOD levels in the lowest quartile were independently associated with a lower rate of complete response to T/A (OR 0.042, P = 0.008) and a higher risk for reaching the composite endpoint of HD/LTX-free survival (HR 2.706, P = 0.013) in patients with HRS type 2 treated with T/A. In contrast, sUMOD was not significantly associated with these outcomes in patients with HRS type 1. sUMOD may be a valuable biomarker for identifying patients with HRS type 2 treated with T/A to predict response and prognosis.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Biomarkers identifying patients with hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) and poor response to therapy are urgently needed. In this study, lower serum uromodulin (sUMOD) levels were associated with poorer response to therapy with terlipressin and albumin and consequently with poorer prognosis in patients with HRS type 2. In patients with HRS type 1, there was no association between sUMOD and poorer prognosis.

Suppressed serological vitamin A in patients with liver cirrhosis is associated with impaired liver function and clinical detoriation.

BACKGROUND: The liver is of critical importance for the homeostasis of metabolic and immunomodulatory properties as well as the storage of vitamins, especially vitamin A. In this prospective analysis, the incidence of serological vitamin A deficiency and the association with disease severity as well as clinical complications in patients with liver cirrhosis were investigated. METHOD: From May 2017 to May 2018, 159 patients with primarily alcohol-associated and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-associated preexisting liver cirrhosis were prospectively enrolled and vitamin A status was collected. Clinical complications and infections were followed and recorded over a period of 1-year follow-up. Selected findings were validated in an independent cohort of 44 patients. RESULTS: At study inclusion, 77% of patients showed decreased serological vitamin A. Suppressed vitamin A was more common in alcoholic (52 vs. 8%) and NASH-associated liver cirrhosis (16 vs. 9%) than in viral-associated liver cirrhosis. MELD score as well as Child-Pugh score were significantly associated with suppressed vitamin A ( P < 0.001). The association between the degree of vitamin A suppression and liver function was confirmed in univariate and multivariate regression analysis. After 1 year of follow-up, 57 patients died and 21 patients received a liver transplant. In addition, low vitamin A levels were more commonly observed in patients with severe ascites ( P = 0.001), hepatic encephalopathy ( P = 0.002) and hepatorenal syndromes ( P = 0.008). In addition, patients with reduced vitamin A showed an increased incidence of infections ( P = 0.02), especially respiratory infections ( P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Suppressed serological Vitamin A is common in patients with liver cirrhosis and is associated with liver function. Clinical complications and infections are more frequent in patients with liver cirrhosis and vitamin A suppression.

[Hepatocellular carcinoma]. / Hepatozelluläres Karzinom.

The therapeutic spectrum of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhosis has expanded over the last decade and consists of surgical, interventional and systemic approaches. The tumor stage and liver function are important for the therapeutic strategy. Curation can be achieved by liver resection or transplantation. Access to transplantation is limited by organ shortage and waiting time. Locoregional therapies can be used as a bridge to transplant or for down-sizing in a neoadjuvant setting as well as palliative therapy. Advanced stages might benefit from systemic or immunotherapy. Modern multimodal therapy planning, timing and reevaluation are part of the tasks of tumor boards specialised in the liver, including the option of liver transplantation. Therapies can be used alone or in combination and according to the experience of the center. A curative strategy should always be pursued at initial presentation.

Patients Benefit from Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma beyond Milan Criteria without Harming the Health Care System.

Liver transplantation (LT) is the only definitive treatment to cure hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhosis. Waiting-list candidates are selected by the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). However, many indications are not sufficiently represented by labMELD. For HCC, patients are selected by Milan-criteria: Milan-in qualifies for standard exception (SE) and better organ access on the waiting list; while Milan-out patients are restricted to labMELD and might benefit from extended criteria donor (ECD)-grafts. We analyzed a cohort of 102 patients (2011−2020). Patients with labMELD (no SE, Milan-out, n = 56) and matchMELD (SE-HCC, Milan-in, n = 46) were compared. The median overall survival was not significantly different (p = 0.759). No difference was found in time on the waiting list (p = 0.881), donor risk index (p = 0.697) or median costs (p = 0.204, EUR 43,500 (EUR 17,800−185,000) for labMELD and EUR 30,300 (EUR 17,200−395,900) for matchMELD). Costs were triggered by a cut-off labMELD of 12 points. Overall, the deficit increased by EUR 580 per labMELD point. Cost drivers were re-operation (p < 0.001), infection with multiresistant germs (p = 0.020), dialysis (p = 0.017), operation time (p = 0.012) and transfusions (p < 0.001). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that LT for HCC is successful and cost-effective in low labMELD patients independent of Milan-criteria. Therefore, ECD-grafts are favorized in Milan-out HCC patients with low labMELD.