A cost comparison of liver acquisition fees for donation after circulatory death versus donation after brain death donors.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors now represent over 30% of the deceased donor pool in the United States. Compared to donation after brain death, DCD is less likely to result in transplantation. For each potential donor whose organs cannot be utilized for transplantation (ie, dry run), fees are associated with the attempted donation, which add to the overall costs of organ acquisition. To better characterize the true costs of DCD liver acquisition, we performed a cost comparison of the fees associated with organ acquisition for DCD versus donation after brain death at a single transplant institute that comprises 2 liver transplant centers. Cost, recipient, and transportation data for all cases, including fees associated with liver acquisition from July 1, 2019, to October 31, 2021, were collected. We found that the total cost of DCD liver acquisition per liver transplant was $15,029 more than that for donation after brain death donation, with 18% of the costs of the DCD transplant attributed to dry runs. Overall, the costs associated with DCD transplantation accounted for 34.5% of the total organ acquisition costs; however, DCD transplantation accounted for 30.3% of the transplantation volume. Because the expansion of DCD is essential to increasing the availability of liver grafts for transplantation, strategies need to be implemented to decrease the costs associated with dry runs, including using local recovery, transferring donors to hospitals close to transplant centers, and performing more prerecovery organ analysis. Moreover, these strategies are needed to ensure that financial disincentives to DCD procurement and utilization do not reverse the gains made by expanding the organ donor pool using machine perfusion technologies.

Results from a new efficacy and safety analysis of the REGENERATE trial of obeticholic acid for treatment of pre-cirrhotic fibrosis due to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Obeticholic acid (OCA) is a first-in-class farnesoid X receptor agonist and antifibrotic agent in development for the treatment of pre-cirrhotic liver fibrosis due to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We aimed to validate the original 18-month liver biopsy analysis from the phase III REGENERATE trial of OCA for the treatment of NASH with a consensus panel analysis, provide additional histology data in a larger population, and evaluate safety from >8,000 total patient-years' exposure with nearly 1,000 participants receiving study drug for >4 years. METHODS: Digitized whole-slide images were evaluated independently by panels of three pathologists using the NASH Clinical Research Network scoring system. Primary endpoints were (1) ≥1 stage improvement in fibrosis with no worsening of NASH or (2) NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis. Safety was assessed by laboratory values and adverse events. RESULTS: Prespecified efficacy analyses included 931 participants. The proportion of participants achieving a ≥1 stage improvement in fibrosis with no worsening of NASH was 22.4% for OCA 25 mg vs. 9.6% for placebo (p <0.0001). More participants receiving OCA 25 mg vs. placebo achieved NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis (6.5% vs. 3.5%, respectively; p = 0.093). Histology data in a larger population of 1,607 participants supported these results. Safety data included 2,477 participants. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and deaths was not substantively different across treatment groups. Pruritus was the most common TEAE. Rates of adjudicated hepatic, renal, and cardiovascular events were low and similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the antifibrotic effect of OCA 25 mg. OCA was generally well tolerated over long-term dosing. These data support a positive benefit:risk profile in patients with pre-cirrhotic liver fibrosis due to NASH. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) often have liver scarring (fibrosis), which causes an increased risk of liver-related illness and death. Preventing progression of fibrosis to cirrhosis or reversing fibrosis are the main goals of drug development for NASH. In this clinical trial of obeticholic acid (OCA) in patients with NASH (REGENERATE), we reaffirmed our previous results demonstrating that OCA was superior to placebo in improving fibrosis using a more rigorous consensus panel analysis of liver biopsies taken at month 18. We also showed that OCA treatment resulted in dose-dependent reductions of serum liver biochemistries and liver stiffness measurements compared with placebo, even in participants in whom histologic fibrosis did not change at 18 months, providing evidence that the benefit of OCA extends beyond what is captured by the ordinal NASH CRN scoring system. OCA was well tolerated with a favorable safety profile supporting a positive benefit: risk profile in patients with pre-cirrhotic liver fibrosis due to NASH.

Assessment of donor quality and risk of graft failure after liver transplantation: The ID2 EAL score.

Accurate assessment of donor quality at the time of organ offer for liver transplantation candidates may be inadequately captured by the donor risk index (DRI). We sought to develop and validate a novel objective and simple model to assess donor risk using donor level variables available at the time of organ offer. We utilized national data from candidates undergoing primary LT (2013-2019) and assessed the prediction of graft failure 1 year after LT. The final components were donor Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, Donor type (DCD or DBD), cause of Death = CVA, serum creatinine, Age, height, and weight (length). The ID2 EAL score had better discrimination than DRI using bootstrap corrected concordant index over time, especially in the current era. We explored donor-recipient matching. Relative risk of graft failure ranged from 1.15 to 3.5 based on relevant donor-recipient matching by the ID2 EAL score. As an example, for certain recipients, a young DCD donor offer was preferable to an older DBD with relevant comorbidities. The ID2 EAL score may serve as an important tool for patient discussion about donor risk and decisions regarding offer acceptance. In addition, the score may be preferable to succinctly capture donor risk in future organ allocation that considers continuous distribution (www.iddealscore.com).

Belatacept Treatment of Recurrent Late-onset T Cell-mediated Rejection/Antibody-mediated Rejection With De Novo Donor-specific Antibodies in a Liver Transplant Patient.

T cell-mediated rejection that appears and persists late after transplantation is often associated with development of de novo donor-specific antibodies. Treatment of this condition often presents a conundrum because of the uncertainty regarding the trade-off between immunosuppression-related toxicities/complications and restoration of allograft function and structure. Methods: Herein, we report an illustrative case of a young 20-y-old otherwise healthy woman who underwent liver replacement for Alagille's syndrome from an ABO-compatible, 6 antigen-mismatched crossmatch-negative 24-y-old man. Although triple baseline immunosuppression was used (tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone), she developed rejection 3 d after liver replacement. Despite verified continual immunosuppression compliance, 1.5 y after liver replacement she experienced 6 more rejection episodes over the following 18 mo and development of de novo donor-specific antibody. Results: Treatment with belatacept began 3.5 y after transplantation, normalizing her liver tests with no further rejections. A biopsy obtained 6 y after transplantation (postoperative day 2221) was normal, appearing without inflammation or residual fibrosis. Conclusions: Belatacept may be a useful treatment approach in this setting.

Prediction of long-term morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation using two-dimensional shear wave elastography compared with liver biopsy.

The role of noninvasive liver disease assessment by two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) to diagnose fibrosis is well described in patients with chronic liver disease. However, its role in prognosis, especially after liver transplantation (LT) has not been adequately examined. We hypothesized that elevated liver stiffness measurement (LSM) as measured by 2D-SWE after LT predicts future morbidity and mortality independent of fibrosis by liver biopsy. In a prospective cohort study, consecutive LT recipients underwent concomitant protocol 2D-SWE and protocol liver biopsy (2012-2014), with the assessor blinded to biopsy findings. We examined the baseline correlation of LSM with fibrosis stage and the association between elevated LSM and the development of subsequent clinical outcomes and all-cause mortality. A total of 187 LT recipients (median age 58 years, 38.5% women, median body mass index 26.5 kg/m2 , 55.1% hepatitis C virus, 17.6% nonalcoholic steatohepatitis/cryptogenic) were examined. Median time between LT and biopsy/2D-SWE assessment was 4.0 years, and the median follow-up time after LSM determination was 3.5 years. Median LSM was 9 kPa (8 kPa [F0/F1], 11.5 kPa [F2], 12 kPa [F3/F4]). There was a positive correlation between LSM and fibrosis stage (rs  = 0.41; p < 0.001). LSM ≥11 kPa was associated with lower survival within 3 years (84.8 vs. 93.7%; p = 0.04). After adjusting for age, sex, and fibrosis stage, LSM ≥11 kPa was independently associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-5.60). Elevated LSM by 2D-SWE is associated with increased mortality after LT independent of hepatic fibrosis. Given the overall decrease in the use of liver biopsy in the current era, 2D-SWE may serve as a novel noninvasive prognostic tool to predict relevant outcomes late after LT.

Cost Analysis of Liver Acquisition Fees Before and After Acuity Circle Policy Implementation.

Importance: Acuity circles (AC) liver allocation policy was implemented to eliminate donor service area geographic boundaries from liver allocation and to decrease variability in median Model of End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at transplant and wait list mortality. However, the broader sharing of organs was also associated with more flights for organ procurements and higher costs associated with the increase in flights. Objective: To determine whether the costs associated with liver acquisition changed after the implementation of AC allocation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center cost comparison study analyzed fees associated with organ acquisition before and after AC allocation implementation. The cost data were collected from a single transplant institute with 2 liver transplant centers, located 30 miles apart, in different donation service areas. Cost, recipient, and transportation data for all cases that included fees associated with liver acquisition from July 1, 2019, to October 31, 2020, were collected. Exposures: Primary liver offer acceptance with associated organ procurement organization or charter flight fees. Main Outcomes and Measures: Specific fees (organ acquisition, surgeon, import, and charter flight fees) and total fees per donor were collected for all accepted liver donors with at least 1 associated fee during the study period. Results: Of 213 included donors, 171 were used for transplant; 90 of 171 (52.6%) were male, and the median (interquartile range) age of donors was 41.0 (30.0-52.8) years in the pre-AC period and 36.9 (24.0-48.8) years in the post-AC period. There was no significant difference in the post-AC compared with pre-AC period in median (range) MELD score (24 [8-40] vs 25 [6-40]; P = .27) or median (range) match run sequence (15 [1-3951] vs 10 [1-1138]; P = .31), nor in mean (SD) distance traveled (155.83 [157.00] vs 140.54 [144.33] nautical miles; P = .32) or percentage of donors requiring flights (58.5% [69 of 118] vs 56.8% [54 of 95]; P = .82). However, costs increased significantly in the post-AC period: total cost increased 16% per accepted donor (mean [SD] of $52 966 [13 278] vs $45 725 [9300]; P < .001) and 55% per declined donor (mean [SD] of $15 865 [3942] vs $10 217 [4853]; P < .001). Contributing factors included more than 2-fold increases in the proportions of donors incurring import fees (31.4% [37 of 118] vs 12.6% [12 of 95]; P = .002) and surgeon fees (19.5% [23 of 118] vs 9.5% [9 of 95]; P = .05), increased acquisition fees (10% increase; mean [SD] of $43 860 [3266] vs $39 980 [2236]; P < .001), and increased flight expenses (43% increase; mean [SD] of $12 904 [6066] vs $9049 [5140]; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: The unintended consequences of implementing broader sharing without addressing organ acquisition fees to account for increased importation between organ procurement organizations must be remedied to contain costs and ensure viability of transplant programs.

Outcomes of living liver donor candidate evaluations in the Living Donor Collective pilot registry.

BACKGROUND: To gather information on long-term outcomes after living donation, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) conducted a pilot on the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive donor candidate registry. METHODS: A convenience sample of 6 US living liver donor programs evaluated 398 consecutive donor candidates in 2018, ending with the March 12, 2020, COVID-19 emergency. RESULTS: For 333/398 (83.7%), the donor or program decided whether to donate; 166/333 (49.8%) were approved, and 167/333 (50.2%) were not or opted out. Approval rates varied by program, from 27.0% to 63.3% (median, 46%; intraquartile range, 37.3-51.1%). Of those approved, 90.4% were white, 57.2% were women, 83.1% were < 50 years, and 85.5% had more than a high school education. Of 167 candidates, 131 (78.4%) were not approved or opted out because of: medical risk (10.7%); chronic liver disease risk (11.5%); psychosocial reasons (5.3%); candidate declined (6.1%); anatomical reasons increasing recipient risk (26.0%); recipient-related reasons (33.6%); finances (1.5%); or other (5.3%). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive national registry is feasible and necessary to better understand candidate selection and long-term outcomes. As a result, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked SRTR to expand the pilot to include all US living donor programs.

TVB-2640 (FASN Inhibitor) for the Treatment of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: FASCINATE-1, a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2a Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Increased de novo lipogenesis creates excess intrahepatic fat and lipotoxins, propagating liver damage in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. TVB-2640, a fatty acid synthase inhibitor, was designed to reduce excess liver fat and directly inhibit inflammatory and fibrogenic pathways. We assessed the safety and efficacy of TVB-2640 in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in the United States. METHODS: 3V2640-CLIN-005 (FASCINATE-1) was a randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind study at 10 US sites. Adults with ≥8% liver fat, assessed by magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction, and evidence of liver fibrosis by magnetic resonance elastography ≥2.5 kPa or liver biopsy were eligible. Ninety-nine patients were randomized to receive placebo or 25 mg or 50 mg of TVB-2640 (orally, once-daily for 12 weeks). The primary end points of this study were safety and relative change in liver fat after treatment. RESULTS: Liver fat increased in the placebo cohort by 4.5% relative to baseline; in contrast TVB-2640 reduced liver fat by 9.6% in the 25-mg cohort (n = 30; least squares mean: -15.5%; 95% confidence interval, -31.3 to -0.23; P = .053), and 28.1% in the 50-mg cohort (n = 28; least squares mean: -28.0%; 95% confidence interval, -44.5 to -11.6; P = .001). Eleven percent of patients in the placebo group achieved a ≥30% relative reduction of liver fat compared to 23% in the 25-mg group, and 61% in the 50-mg group (P < .001). Secondary analyses showed improvements of metabolic, pro-inflammatory and fibrotic markers. TVB-2640 was well tolerated; adverse events were mostly mild and balanced among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: TVB-2640 significantly reduced liver fat and improved biochemical, inflammatory, and fibrotic biomarkers after 12 weeks, in a dose-dependent manner in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT03938246.

Estimating Glomerular Filtration Rate in Cirrhosis Using Creatinine-Based and Cystatin C-Based Equations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Accurate estimation of kidney function in cirrhosis is crucial for prognosis and decisions regarding dual-organ transplantation. We performed a systematic review/meta-analysis to assess the performance of creatinine-based and cystatin C (CysC)-based eGFR equations compared with measured GFR (mGFR) in patients with cirrhosis. A total of 25 studies (n = 4565, 52.0 years, 37.0% women) comprising 18 equations met the inclusion criteria. In all GFR equations, the creatinine-based equations overestimated GFR (standardized mean difference, SMD, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.71) and CysC-based equations underestimated GFR (SMD, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.60 to -0.02). Equations based on both creatinine and CysC were the least biased (SMD, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.18). Chronic kidney disease-Epi-serum creatinine-CysC (CESC) was the least biased but had low precision and underestimated GFR by -3.6 mL/minute/1.73 m2 (95% CI, -17.4 to 10.3). All equations significantly overestimated GFR (+21.7 mL/minute/1.73 m2 ; 95% CI, 17.7-25.7) at GFR <60 mL/minute/1.73 m2 ; of these, chronic kidney disease-Epi-CysC (10.3 mL/minute/1.73 m2 ; 95% CI, 2.1-18.4) and GFR Assessment in Liver Disease (12.6 mL/minute/1.73 m2 ; 95% CI, 7.2-18.0) were the least biased followed by Royal Free Hospital (15 mL/minute/1.73 m2 ; 95% CI, 5.5-24.6) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease 6 (15.7 mL/minute/1.73 m2 ; 95% CI, 10.6-20.8); however, there was an overlap in the precision of estimates, and the studies were limited. In ascites, overestimation of GFR was common (+8.3 mL/minute/1.73 m2 ; 95% CI, -3.1 to 19.7). However, overestimation of GFR by 10 to 20 mL/minute/1.73m2 is common in patients with cirrhosis with most equations in ascites and/or kidney dysfunction. A tailored approach is required especially for decisions regarding dual-organ transplantation.

Predicting clinical decompensation in patients with cirrhosis using the Hepquant-SHUNT test.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of risk for decompensation in clinically stable cirrhotic patients helps specialists target early interventions and supports effective referrals from primary care providers to specialty centres. AIMS: To examine whether the HepQuant-SHUNT test (HepQuant LLC, Greenwood Village, Colorado, USA) predicts decompensation and the need for liver transplantation, hospitalisation or liver-related death. METHODS: Thirty-five compensated and 35 subjects with a previous episode of decompensation underwent the SHUNT Test and were followed for a median of 4.2 years. The disease severity index (DSI) (range 0-50) was examined for association with decompensation in compensated patients; and liver transplantation, liver-related death, and the number and days of liver related hospitalisations in all. DSI prediction of decompensation was also evaluated in 84 subjects with compensated cirrhosis from the Hepatitis C Antiviral Long-Term Treatment against Cirrhosis Trial (HALT-C) followed for a median of 5.8 years. RESULTS: At baseline, subjects with prior decompensation had significantly higher DSI than compensated subjects (32.6 vs 20.9, P < 0.001). DSI ≥24 distinguished the decompensated from the compensated patients and independently predicted adverse clinical outcomes (hazard ratio: 4.92, 95% confidence interval: 1.42-17.06). In the HALT-C cohort, 65% with baseline DSI ≥24 vs 19% with DSI <24 experienced adverse clinical outcomes (relative risk 3.45, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The SHUNT test is a novel, noninvasive test that predicts risk of decompensation in previously compensated patients. DSI ≥24 is independently associated with risk for clinical decompensation, liver transplantation, death and hospitalisation.

Efficacy and Safety of Aldafermin, an Engineered FGF19 Analog, in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Aldafermin, an engineered analog of fibroblast growth factor 19, inhibits bile acid synthesis and regulates metabolic homeostasis. We report results from a 24-week, phase 2 study, with serial liver biopsies, of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). METHODS: We performed a double-blind study of 78 patients with NASH at 9 centers in the United States. Key inclusion criteria were biopsy-proven NASH with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score ≥4, stage 2 or 3 fibrosis by NASH Clinical Research Network classification, and absolute liver fat content ≥8%, measured by magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction. Patients were randomly assigned (1:2) to groups given subcutaneous placebo (n = 25) or aldafermin 1 mg (n = 53) daily for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was change in absolute liver fat content from baseline at week 24. Secondary outcomes included serum markers and histologic measures of fibrosis improvement and NASH resolution. RESULTS: At week 24, the aldafermin group had a significant reduction in absolute liver fat content (reduction of 7.7%) compared with placebo (reduction of 2.7%; difference, reduction of 5.0%; 95% confidence interval, reduction of 8.0%-1.9%; P = .002). Aldafermin produced significantly greater decreases in levels of 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one, bile acids, alanine and aspartate aminotransferases, and neoepitope-specific N-terminal pro-peptide of type III collagen (Pro-C3) than placebo. Fibrosis improvement (≥1 stage) with no worsening of NASH was achieved in 38% of patients receiving aldafermin vs 18% of patients receiving placebo (P = .10). NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis was observed in 24% of patients given aldafermin vs 9% of patients given placebo (P = .20). Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in no patients in the aldafermin group and 4% of patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In a phase 2 trial of patients with NASH, aldafermin reduced liver fat and produced a trend toward fibrosis improvement. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02443116.

Center Variation in Intention-to-Treat Survival Among Patients Listed for Liver Transplant.

In the United States, centers performing liver transplant (LT) are primarily evaluated by patient survival within 1 year after LT, but tight clustering of outcomes allows only a narrow window for evaluation of center variation for quality improvement. Alternate measures more relevant to patients and the transplant community are needed. We examined adults listed for LT in the United States, using data submitted to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Intention-to-treat (ITT) survival was defined as survival within 1 year from listing, regardless of transplant. Mixed effects/frailty models were used to assess center variation in ITT survival. Between January 2010 and December 2016, there were 66,428 new listings at 113 centers. Overall, median 1-year ITT survival was 79.8% (interquartile range [IQR], 76.1%-83.4%), whereas 1-year waiting-list (WL) survival was 75.8% (IQR, 71.2%-79.4%), and 1-year post-LT survival was 90.0% (IQR, 87.9%-91.8%). Higher rates of ITT mortality were correlated with increased WL mortality (correlation, r = 0.76), increased post-LT mortality (r = 0.31), lower volume centers (r = -0.34), and lower transplant rate ratio (r = -0.25). Similar patterns were observed in the subgroup of WL candidates listed with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥25: median 1-year ITT survival was 65.2% (IQR, 60.2%-72.6%), whereas 1-year post-LT survival was 87.5% (IQR, 84.0%-90.9%), and 1-year WL survival was 36.6% (IQR, 27.9%-47.0%). In mixed effects modeling, the transplant center was an independent predictor of ITT survival even after adjustment for age, sex, MELD, and sociodemographic variables. Center variation for ITT survival was larger compared with post-LT survival. The measurement of ITT outcome offers a complementary method to assess center performance. This is a first step toward understanding differences in program quality beyond patient and graft survival after LT.

Cilofexor, a Nonsteroidal FXR Agonist, in Patients With Noncirrhotic NASH: A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of cilofexor (formerly GS-9674), a small-molecule nonsteroidal agonist of farnesoid X receptor, in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). APPROACH AND RESULTS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, 140 patients with noncirrhotic NASH, diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) ≥8% and liver stiffness ≥2.5 kPa by magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or historical liver biopsy, were randomized to receive cilofexor 100 mg (n = 56), 30 mg (n = 56), or placebo (n = 28) orally once daily for 24 weeks. MRI-PDFF, liver stiffness by MRE and transient elastography, and serum markers of fibrosis were measured at baseline and week 24. At baseline, median MRI-PDFF was 16.3% and MRE-stiffness was 3.27 kPa. At week 24, patients receiving cilofexor 100 mg had a median relative decrease in MRI-PDFF of -22.7%, compared with an increase of 1.9% in those receiving placebo (P = 0.003); the 30-mg group had a relative decrease of -1.8% (P = 0.17 vs. placebo). Declines in MRI-PDFF of ≥30% were experienced by 39% of patients receiving cilofexor 100 mg (P = 0.011 vs. placebo), 14% of those receiving cilofexor 30 mg (P = 0.87 vs. placebo), and 13% of those receiving placebo. Serum gamma-glutamyltransferase, C4, and primary bile acids decreased significantly at week 24 in both cilofexor treatment groups, whereas significant changes in Enhanced Liver Fibrosis scores and liver stiffness were not observed. Cilofexor was generally well-tolerated. Moderate to severe pruritus was more common in patients receiving cilofexor 100 mg (14%) than in those receiving cilofexor 30 mg (4%) and placebo (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Cilofexor for 24 weeks was well-tolerated and provided significant reductions in hepatic steatosis, liver biochemistry, and serum bile acids in patients with NASH. ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02854605.

MELD-GRAIL-Na: Glomerular Filtration Rate and Mortality on Liver-Transplant Waiting List.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Among patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation, prediction of wait-list (WL) mortality is adjudicated by the Model for End Stage Liver Disease-Sodium (MELD-Na) score. Replacing serum creatinine (SCr) with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in the MELD-Na score may improve prediction of WL mortality, especially for women and highest disease severity. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We developed (2014) and validated (2015) a model incorporating eGFR using national data (n = 17,095) to predict WL mortality. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated using the GFR assessment in liver disease (GRAIL) developed among patients with cirrhosis. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis models were used to compare the predicted 90-day WL mortality between MELD-GRAIL-Na (re-estimated bilirubin, international normalized ratio [INR], sodium, and GRAIL) versus MELD-Na. Within 3 months, 27.8% were transplanted, 4.3% died on the WL, and 4.7% were delisted for other reasons. GFR as estimated by GRAIL (hazard ratio [HR] 0.382, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.344-0.424) and the re-estimated model MELD-GRAIL-Na (HR 1.212, 95% CI 1.199-1.224) were significant predictors of mortality or being delisted on the WL within 3 months. MELD-GRAIL-Na was a better predictor of observed mortality at highest deciles of disease severity (≥ 27-40). For a score of 32 or higher (observed mortality 0.68), predicted mortality was 0.67 (MELD-GRAIL-Na) and 0.51 (MELD-Na). For women, a score of 32 or higher (observed mortality 0.67), the predicted mortality was 0.69 (MELD-GRAIL-Na) and 0.55 (MELD-Na). In 2015, use of MELD-GRAIL-Na as compared with MELD-Na resulted in reclassification of 16.7% (n = 672) of patients on the WL. CONCLUSION: Incorporation of eGFR likely captures true GFR better than SCr, especially among women. Incorporation of MELD-GRAIL-Na instead of MELD-Na may affect outcomes for 12%-17% awaiting transplant and affect organ allocation.