Geographic disparities in access to liver transplant for advanced cirrhosis: Time to ring the alarm!

Decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular cancer are major risk factors for mortality worldwide. Liver transplantation (LT), both live-donor LT or deceased-donor LT, are lifesaving, but there are several barriers toward equitable access. These barriers are exacerbated in the setting of critical illness or acute-on-chronic liver failure. Rates of LT vary widely worldwide but are lowest in lower-income countries owing to lack of resources, infrastructure, late disease presentation, and limited donor awareness. A recent experience by the Chronic Liver Disease Evolution and Registry for Events and Decompensation consortium defined these barriers toward LT as critical in determining overall survival in hospitalized cirrhosis patients. A major focus should be on appropriate, affordable, and early cirrhosis and hepatocellular cancer care to prevent the need for LT. Live-donor LT is predominant across Asian countries, whereas deceased-donor LT is more common in Western countries; both approaches have unique challenges that add to the access disparities. There are many challenges toward equitable access but uniform definitions of acute-on-chronic liver failure, improving transplant expertise, enhancing availability of resources and encouraging knowledge between centers, and preventing disease progression are critical to reduce LT disparities.

Improving primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding by adapting therapy to the clinical stage of cirrhosis. A competing-risk meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Non-selective ß-blockers (NSBBs) and endoscopic variceal-ligation (EVL) have similar efficacy preventing first variceal bleeding. Compensated and decompensated cirrhosis are markedly different stages, which may impact treatment outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy of NSBBs vs EVL on survival in patients with high-risk varices without previous bleeding, stratifying risk according to compensated/decompensated stage of cirrhosis. METHODS: By systematic review, we identified RCTs comparing NSBBs vs EVL, in monotherapy or combined, for primary bleeding prevention. We performed a competing-risk, time-to-event meta-analysis, using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Analyses were stratified according to previous decompensation of cirrhosis. RESULTS: Of 25 RCTs eligible, 14 failed to provide IPD and 11 were included, comprising 1400 patients (656 compensated, 744 decompensated), treated with NSBBs (N = 625), EVL (N = 546) or NSBB+EVL (N = 229). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs (subdistribution hazard-ratio (sHR) = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.75-1.49) and with EVL + NSBBs vs either monotherapy, with low heterogeneity (I2 = 28.7%). In compensated patients, mortality risk was higher with EVL vs NSBBs (sHR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.11-2.77) and not significantly lower with NSBBs+EVL vs NSBBs, without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). In decompensated patients, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs and with NSBBs+EVL vs. either monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with compensated cirrhosis and high-risk varices on primary prophylaxis, NSBBs significantly improved survival vs EVL, with no additional benefit noted adding EVL to NSBBs. In decompensated patients, survival was similar with both therapies. The study suggests that NSBBs are preferable when advising preventive therapy in compensated patients.

Competing Risk Bias in Prognostic Models Predicting Hepatocellular Carcinoma Occurrence: Impact on Clinical Decision-making.

Background and Aims: Existing models predicting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurrence do not account for competing risk events and, thus, may overestimate the probability of HCC. Our goal was to quantify this bias for patients with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C. Methods: We analyzed a nationwide cohort of patients with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C infection from Scotland. Two HCC prognostic models were developed: (1) a Cox regression model ignoring competing risk events and (2) a Fine-Gray regression model accounting for non-HCC mortality as a competing risk. Both models included the same set of prognostic factors used by previously developed HCC prognostic models. Two predictions were calculated for each patient: first, the 3-year probability of HCC predicted by model 1 and second, the 3-year probability of HCC predicted by model 2. Results: The study population comprised 1629 patients with cirrhosis and cured HCV, followed for 3.8 years on average. A total of 82 incident HCC events and 159 competing risk events (ie, non-HCC deaths) were observed. The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC was 3.37% for model 1 (Cox) and 3.24% for model 2 (Fine-Gray). For most patients (76%), the difference in the 3-year probability of HCC predicted by model 1 and model 2 was minimal (ie, within 0 to ±0.3%). A total of 2.6% of patients had a large discrepancy exceeding 2%; however, these were all patients with a 3-year probability exceeding >5% in both models. Conclusion: Prognostic models that ignore competing risks do overestimate the future probability of developing HCC. However, the degree of overestimation-and the way it is patterned-means that the impact on HCC screening decisions is likely to be modest.