Characterization of social determinants of health of a liver transplant referral population.

Disparities exist in referral and access to the liver transplant (LT) waitlist, and social determinants of health (SDOH) are increasingly recognized as important factors driving health inequities, including in LT. The SDOH of potential transplant candidates is therefore important to characterize when designing targeted interventions to promote equity in access to LT. Yet, it is uncertain how a transplant center should approach this issue, characterize SDOH, identify disparities, and use these data to inform interventions. We performed a retrospective study of referrals for first-time, single-organ LT to our center from 2016 to 2020. Addresses were geoprocessed and mapped to the corresponding county, census tract, and census block group to assess their geospatial distribution, identify potential disparities in referrals, and characterize their communities across multiple domains of SDOH to identify potential barriers to evaluation and selection. We identified variability in referral patterns and areas with disproportionately low referrals, including counties in the highest quartile of liver disease mortality (9%) and neighborhoods in the highest quintile of socioeconomic deprivation (17%) and quartile of poverty (21%). Black individuals were also under-represented compared with expected state demographics (12% vs. 18%). Among the referral population, several potential barriers to evaluation and selection for LT were identified, including poverty, educational attainment, access to healthy food, and access to technology. This approach to the characterization of a transplant center's referral population by geographic location and associated SDOH demonstrates a model for identifying disparities in a referral population and potential barriers to evaluation that can be used to inform targeted interventions for disparities in LT access.

Access to technology to support telehealth in areas without specialty care for liver disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Telehealth may be a successful strategy to increase access to specialty care for liver disease, but whether the areas with low access to care and a high burden of liver-related mortality have the necessary technology access to support a video-based telehealth strategy to expand access to care is unknown. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Access to liver disease specialty care was defined at the county level as <160.9 km (100 miles) from a liver transplant (LT) center or presence of local gastroenterology (GI). Liver-related mortality rates were compared by access to care, and access to technology was compared by degree of access to care and burden of liver-related mortality. Counties with low access to liver disease specialty care had higher rates of mortality from liver disease, and this was highest in areas both >160.9 km from an LT center and without local GI. These counties were more rural, had higher poverty, and had decreased access to devices and internet at broadband speeds. Technology access was lowest in areas with low access to care and the highest burden of liver-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Areas with poor access to liver disease specialty care have a greater burden of liver-related mortality, and many of their residents lack access to technology. Therefore, a telehealth strategy based solely on patient device ownership and internet access will exclude a large proportion of individuals in the areas of highest need. Further work should be done at the local and state levels to design optimal strategies to reach their populations of need.

Cultural humility and end-of-life communication with people with advanced liver disease.

Content available: Audio Recording.

A scoping review of inequities in access to organ transplant in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Organ transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage organ disease, yet the majority of patients with end-stage organ disease are never placed on the transplant waiting list. Limited access to the transplant waiting list combined with the scarcity of the organ pool result in over 100,000 deaths annually in the United States. Patients face unique barriers to referral and acceptance for organ transplant based on social determinants of health, and patients from disenfranchised groups suffer from disproportionately lower rates of transplantation. Our objective was to review the literature describing disparities in access to organ transplantation based on social determinants of health to integrate the existing knowledge and guide future research. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature reporting disparities in access to heart, lung, liver, pancreas and kidney transplantation based on social determinants of health (race, income, education, geography, insurance status, health literacy and engagement). Included studies were categorized based on steps along the transplant care continuum: referral for transplant, transplant evaluation and selection, living donor identification/evaluation, and waitlist outcomes. RESULTS: Our search generated 16,643 studies, of which 227 were included in our final review. Of these, 34 focused on disparities in referral for transplantation among patients with chronic organ disease, 82 on transplant selection processes, 50 on living donors, and 61 on waitlist management. In total, 15 studies involved the thoracic organs (heart, lung), 209 involved the abdominal organs (kidney, liver, pancreas), and three involved multiple organs. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and patients in lower socioeconomic status groups were less likely to be referred, evaluated, and added to the waiting list for organ transplant. The quality of the data describing these disparities across the transplant literature was variable and overwhelmingly focused on kidney transplant. CONCLUSIONS: This review contextualizes the quality of the data, identifies seminal work by organ, and reports gaps in the literature where future research on disparities in organ transplantation should focus. Future work should investigate the association of social determinants of health with access to the organ transplant waiting list, with a focus on prospective analyses that assess interventions to improve health equity.

Racial disparities in transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedure outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure is an important intervention for management of complications of portal hypertension. The objective of this study was to identify predictors of mortality from the TIPS procedure with a focus on race and ethnicity. DESIGN: TIPS procedures from 2012 to 2014 in the National Inpatient Sample were identified. Weighting was applied to generate nationally representative results. In-hospital mortality was the primary outcome of interest. χ2 and Student's t-tests were performed for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Predictors of mortality following TIPS were assessed by survey-weighted logistic regression. RESULTS: 17 175 (95% CI 16 254 to 18 096) TIPS cases were identified. Approximately 71% were non-Hispanic (NH) white, 6% were NH black, 16% were Hispanic and 7% were other. NH black patients undergoing TIPS had an in-hospital mortality rate of 20.1%, nearly double the in-hospital mortality of any other racial or ethnic group. NH black patients also had significantly longer median postprocedure and total lengths of stay (p=0.03 and p<0.001, respectively). The interaction of race by clinical indication was a significant predictor of in-hospital mortality (p<0.001). NH black patients had increased mortality compared with other racial/ethnic groups when presenting with bleeding oesophageal varices (OR 3.85, 95% CI 2.14 to 6.95). CONCLUSION: This cohort study presents important findings in end-stage liver disease care, with clear racial disparities in in-hospital outcomes following the TIPS procedure. Specifically, black patients had significantly higher in-hospital mortality and longer lengths of stay. Further research is needed to understand how we can better care for black patients with liver disease.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Utilization of Telehealth in Patients with Liver Disease During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a rapid expansion of telehealth services in hepatology. However, known racial and socioeconomic disparities in internet access potentially translate into barriers for the use of telehealth, particularly video technology. The specific aim of this study was to determine if disparities in race or socioeconomic status exist among patients utilizing telehealth visits during COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients evaluated in hepatology clinics at Duke University Health System. Visit attempts from a pre-COVID baseline period (January 1, 2020 through February 29, 2020; n = 3328) were compared to COVID period (April 1, 2020 through May 30, 2020; n = 3771). RESULTS: On multinomial regression modeling, increasing age was associated with higher odds of a phone or incomplete visit (canceled, no-show, or rescheduled after May 30,2020), and non-Hispanic Black race was associated with nearly twice the odds of completing a phone visit instead of video visit, compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Compared to private insurance, Medicaid and Medicare were associated with increased odds of completing a telephone visit, and Medicaid was associated with increased odds of incomplete visits. Being single or previously married (separated, divorced, widowed) was associated with increased odds of completing a phone compared to video visit compared to being married. CONCLUSIONS: Though liver telehealth has expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, disparities in overall use and suboptimal use (phone versus video) remain for vulnerable populations including those that are older, non-Hispanic Black, or have Medicare/Medicaid health insurance.

Why do patients with chronic hepatitis C drink alcohol? An examination of pain, depression and drinking motives.

Alcohol consumption in the setting of chronic HCV is associated with accelerated progression towards cirrhosis, increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and higher mortality. This analysis contextualizes how sociodemographic factors, chronic pain and depression relate to the motivations of individuals with chronic HCV to consume alcohol. We conducted a secondary analysis of baseline data from the Hep ART trial of behavioural interventions on alcohol use among patients with HCV. Alcohol consumption was measured using the Drinking Motives Questionnaire and a novel 6-item measure of pain-related drinking motives. Statistical analyses performed included ANOVA for bivariate analyses and multivariable ordinary least-squares linear regression. At study baseline, 181 participants had an average age of 55 years; the majority (66.7%) reported beyond-minor pain; and a third (37%) met criteria for depression; drinking motives were higher for individuals with beyond-minor pain (means 9.9 vs. 4.6, p < .001) and who met criteria for depression (means 10.9 vs. 6.4, p < .001) when using the pain-related drinking motives items. Average pain(coef = 1.0410067141 < .001) was significantly associated with increased motives to drink to relieve pain in the full baseline model specification controlling for all covariates using ordinary at least squares; depression (coef = 7.06; 95% CI 1.32, 12.81; p = .016) was significantly associated with increased non-pain-related motives to drink. From baseline to 3-month follow-up, compared to participants who had mean average pain scores among the sample, motives to drink to relieve pain decreased in participants who had higher average pain scores (coef = -0.30; 95% CI -0.59, -0.01; p = .40). Physical pain and depression are associated with increased motives to consume alcohol. Patients with chronic liver disease should be screened for chronic pain and depression and, if present, referred to pain specialists or co-managed in partnership with pain specialists in hepatology clinics.

Transplant Outcomes in Older Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Compared to Alcohol-related Liver Disease and Hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are waitlisted at older ages than individuals with other liver diseases, but the effect of age on liver transplantation (LT) outcomes in this population and whether it differs from other etiologies is not known. We aimed to evaluate the impact of age on LT outcomes in NASH. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify adults with NASH, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) listed for LT during 2004-2017. Patients were split into age groups (18-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, ≥70), and their outcomes were compared. RESULTS: From 2004 to 2017, 14 197 adults with NASH were waitlisted, and the proportion ≥65 increased from 15.8% to 28.9%. NASH patients ages 65-69 had an increased risk of waitlist and posttransplant mortality compared to younger groups, whereas the outcomes in ages 60-64 and 55-59 were similar. The outcomes of individuals with NASH were similar to patients of the same age group with ALD or HCV. Functional status and dialysis were predictors of posttransplant mortality in individuals ≥65 with NASH, and cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death. CONCLUSIONS: Older NASH patients (≥65) have an increased risk of waitlist and posttransplant mortality compared to younger individuals, although outcomes were similar to patients with ALD or HCV of corresponding age. These individuals should be carefully evaluated prior to LT, considering their functional status, renal function, and cardiovascular risk. Further studies are needed to optimize outcomes in this growing population of transplant candidates.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Integrated Alcohol Reduction Intervention in Patients With Hepatitis C Infection.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and alcohol use are patient risk factors for accelerated fibrosis progression, yet few randomized controlled trials have tested clinic-based alcohol interventions. APPROACH AND RESULTS: A total of 181 patients with HCV and qualifying alcohol screener scores at three liver center settings were randomly assigned to the following: (1) medical provider-delivered Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), including motivational interviewing counseling and referral out for alcohol treatment (SBIRT-only), or (2) SBIRT plus 6 months of integrated colocated alcohol therapy (SBIRT + Alcohol Treatment). The timeline followback method was used to assess alcohol use at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Coprimary outcomes were alcohol abstinence at 6 months and heavy drinking days between 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included grams of alcohol consumed per week at 6 months. Mean therapy hours across 6 months were 8.8 for SBIRT-only and 10.1 for SBIRT + Alcohol Treatment participants. The proportion of participants exhibiting full alcohol abstinence increased from baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months in both treatment arms, but no significant differences were found between arms (baseline to 6 months, 7.1% to 20.5% for SBIRT-only; 4.2% to 23.3% for SBIRT + Alcohol Treatment; P = 0.70). Proportions of participants with any heavy drinking days decreased in both groups at 6 months but did not significantly differ between the SBIRT-only (87.5% to 26.7%) and SBIRT + Alcohol Treatment (85.7% to 42.1%) arms (P = 0.30). Although both arms reduced average grams of alcohol consumed per week from baseline to 6 and 12 months, between-treatment effects were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with current or prior HCV infection will engage in alcohol treatment when encouraged by liver medical providers. Liver clinics should consider implementing provider-delivered SBIRT and tailored alcohol treatment referrals as part of the standard of care.

The impact of human leukocyte antigen donor and recipient serotyping and matching on liver transplant graft failure in primary sclerosing cholangitis, autoimmune hepatitis, and primary biliary cholangitis.

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) serotyping is not considered to have significant impact on liver graft survival and does not factor into U.S. organ allocation. Immune-related liver diseases such as primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) have been speculated to represent a disease subgroup that may have significantly different graft outcomes depending on HLA donor/recipient characterization. The aim of this study was to investigate whether HLA serotyping/matching influenced post-transplant graft failure for immune-related liver diseases using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. From 1994 to 2015, 5665 patients underwent first-time liver-only transplants for PSC, AIH, and PBC with complete graft survival and donor/recipient HLA data. Graft failure was noted in 38.6% (2188/5665), and all groups had comparable 5-year graft survival (75.1%-78.8%, P = 0.069). The overall degree of, and loci-specific mismatch level, did not influence outcomes. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression noted increased graft failure risk for recipient HLA-B7, HLA-B57, HLA-B75, HLA-DR13 and donor HLA-B55, HLA-B58, and HLA-DR8 for PSC patients, protective effects for recipient HLA-DR1 and HLA-DR3 for AIH patients, and increased risk for HLA-DR7 for AIH patients. These findings warrant further investigation to evaluate the impact of HLA serotyping on post-transplant outcomes.

The Hepatitis C-Alcohol Reduction Treatment (Hep ART) intervention: Study protocol of a multi-center randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Among patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, alcohol synergistically increases the risk of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and death. Randomized controlled trials of integrated models of HCV-alcohol treatment have been recommended but only performed in patients with severe alcohol use disorders. OBJECTIVES: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial seeks to compare clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of integrated alcohol treatment compared to enhanced treatment as usual (TAU) on alcohol consumption and economic outcomes among patients ever infected with HCV. METHODS: Patients recruited from three liver centers who had current or prior chronic HCV and qualifying alcohol screener scores were randomly assigned to enhanced TAU or the Hepatitis C-Alcohol Reduction Treatment (Hep ART) intervention. All patients received enhanced TAU, consisting of a patient-administered alcohol screener and care from medical providers who were trained in Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), including brief motivational interviewing counseling. The Hep ART intervention combined enhanced TAU with up to six months of integrated co-located individual and/or group therapy that provided motivational, cognitive, and behavioral strategies to reduce alcohol consumption. The Timeline Followback (TLFB) Method was used to evaluate alcohol use at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes are alcohol abstinence and fewer heavy drinking days, and for the cost-effectiveness analysis, measures included grams of alcohol consumed. DISCUSSION: This study will determine whether Hep ART, a six-month integrated alcohol treatment, compared to enhanced TAU, is both clinically effective and cost-effective in patients with a history of comorbid HCV and alcohol use.

Hepatitis C Virus Elimination in the Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Coinfected Population: Leveraging the Existing Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infrastructure.

The objective of this review is to consider how existing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infrastructure may be leveraged to inform and improve hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment efforts in the HIV-HCV coinfected population. Current gaps in HCV care relevant to the care continuum are reviewed. Successes in HIV treatment are then applied to the HCV treatment model for coinfected patients. Finally, the authors give examples of HCV treatment strategies for coinfected patients in both domestic and international settings.

Direct acting antivirals for the treatment of hepatitis C in ethnic minority populations.

INTRODUCTION: Direct acting antivirals (DAA's) have revolutionized the treatment of hepatitis C (HCV). However, questions persist concerning their efficacy in minority populations. AREAS COVERED: In this review, the authors review outcomes for treatment of HCV by race and ethnicity among the clinical trials that have led to the current recommended treatments for HCV. The authors highlight the efficacy and safety differences by race and ethnicity. They also highlight deficiencies within the literature including small populations of racial/ethnic minorities within HCV clinical trials. DAA's can achieve cure rates for HCV over 95% with the use of once daily medications that have minimal side effects and few significant drug-drug interactions. Regimens with high pan-genotypic efficacy have further simplified treatment paradigms. The purpose of this review is to describe the data on DAA's in treating HCV in racial/ethnic populations. EXPERT OPINION: While the overall data in racial/ethnic minority populations is sparse, DAA's appear to have high efficacy in curing HCV in diverse racial/ethnic populations. Although achieving high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates, there are also data that suggests that some disparities in SVR persist, especially when considering shorter regimens for HCV treatment in racial/ethnic populations.

Direct-Acting Antivirals Improve Access to Care and Cure for Patients With HIV and Chronic HCV Infection.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals (DAA) as curative therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection offer >95% sustained virologic response (SVR), including in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Despite improved safety and efficacy of HCV treatment, challenges remain, including drug-drug interactions between DAA and antiretroviral therapy (ART) and restrictions on access by payers. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all HIV/HCV co-infected and HCV mono-infected patients captured in care at our institution from 2011-2015, reflecting the DAA era, to determine treatment uptake and SVR, and to elucidate barriers to accessing DAA for co-infected patients. RESULTS: We identified 9290 patients with HCV mono-infection and 507 with HIV/HCV co-infection. Compared to mono-infected patients, co-infected patients were younger and more likely to be male and African-American. For both groups, treatment uptake improved from the DAA/pegylated interferon (PEGIFN)-ribavirin to IFN-free DAA era. One-third of co-infected patients in the IFN-free DAA era required ART switch and nearly all remained virologically suppressed after 6 months. We observed SVR >95% for most patient subgroups including those with co-infection, prior treatment-experience, and cirrhosis. Predictors of access to DAA for co-infected patients included Caucasian race, CD4 count ≥200 cells/mm3, HIV virologic suppression and cirrhosis. Time to approval of DAA was longest for patients insured by Medicaid, followed by private insurance and Medicare. CONCLUSIONS: DAA therapy has significantly improved access to HCV treatment and high SVR is independent of HIV status. However, in order to realize cure for all, barriers and disparities in access need to be urgently addressed.

Differences in Phenotypes and Liver Transplantation Outcomes by Age Group in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence for a heterogeneity of phenotypes in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), but differences across the age spectrum in adults with PSC have not been well characterized. AIMS: To characterize phenotypic variations and liver transplantation outcomes by age group in adults with PSC. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify waitlist registrations for primary liver transplantation in adults with PSC. Patients were split into three age groups: 18-39 (young), 40-59 (middle-aged), and ≥60 (older). Their clinical characteristics and outcomes on the waitlist and post-transplant were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 8272 adults with PSC were listed for liver transplantation during the study period, of which 28.9% were young, 52.0% were middle-aged, and 19.1% were older. The young age group had the greatest male predominance (70.0 vs. 66.2 vs. 65.1%, p = 0.001), the highest proportion of black individuals (20.0 vs. 11.0 vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001), and the most patients listed with concomitant autoimmune hepatitis (2.2 vs. 1.0 vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). Older patients experienced the greatest waitlist and post-transplant mortality. Graft survival was greatest in the middle-aged group. Young patients were most likely to experience acute rejection (31 vs. 22.8 vs. 18.0%, p < 0.001) and have graft failure due to chronic rejection or PSC recurrence (47.8 vs. 42.3 vs. 17.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Age-related differences exist among adults with PSC and are associated with outcomes pre- and post-transplant. Young patients may have a more robust immune-related phenotype that is associated with poorer graft survival. Future studies are needed to further investigate these findings.

Role of patient factors, preferences, and distrust in health care and access to liver transplantation and organ donation.

Despite major improvements in access to liver transplantation (LT), disparities remain. Little is known about how distrust in medical care, patient preferences, and the origins shaping those preferences contribute to differences surrounding access. We performed a single-center, cross-sectional survey of adults with end-stage liver disease and compared responses between LT listed and nonlisted patients as well as by race. Questionnaires were administered to 109 patients (72 nonlisted; 37 listed) to assess demographics, health care system distrust (HCSD), religiosity, and factors influencing LT and organ donation (OD). We found that neither HCSD nor religiosity explained differences in access to LT in our population. Listed patients attained higher education levels and were more likely to be insured privately. This was also the case for white versus black patients. All patients reported wanting LT if recommended. However, nonlisted patients were significantly less likely to have discussed LT with their physician or to be referred to a transplant center. They were also much less likely to understand the process of LT. Fewer blacks were referred (44.4% versus 69.7%; P = 0.03) or went to the transplant center if referred (44.4% versus 71.1%; P = 0.02). Fewer black patients felt that minorities had as equal access to LT as whites (29.6% versus 57.3%; P < 0.001). For OD, there were more significant differences in preferences by race than listing status. More whites indicated OD status on their driver's license, and more blacks were likely to become an organ donor if approached by someone of the same cultural or ethnic background (P < 0.01). In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates persistent barriers to LT and OD. With improved patient and provider education and communication, many of these disparities could be successfully overcome. Liver Transplantation 22 895-905 2016 AASLD.