PNPLA3, obesity and heavy alcohol use in cirrhosis patients may exert a synergistic increase hepatocellular carcinoma risk.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In patients with cirrhosis, continued heavy alcohol consumption and obesity may increase risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We examined whether germline susceptibility to hepatic steatosis not only independently predisposes to HCC but may also act synergistically with other risk factors. METHODS: We analyzed data from 1911 patients in two multicenter prospective cohort studies in the U.S. We classified patients according to alcohol consumption (current heavy vs. not current heavy), obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 vs. <30), and PNPLA3 I148M variant status (carrier of at least one G risk allele vs. noncarrier). We examined the independent and joint effects of these risk factors on risk of developing HCC using Cox regression with competing risks. RESULTS: Mean age was 59.6y, 64.3% male, 28.7% Hispanic, 18.3% non-Hispanic Black, 50.9% were obese, 6.2% had current heavy alcohol consumption, and 58.4% harbored at least one PNPLA3 G-allele. 116 patients developed HCC. Compared to PNPLA3 noncarriers without heavy alcohol consumption, HCC risk was 2.65-fold higher (hazard ratio [HR], 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-5.86) for carriers who had current heavy alcohol consumption. Compared to noncarrier patients without obesity, HCC risk was higher (HR, 2.40; 95%CI, 1.33-4.31) for carrier patients who were obese. PNPLA3 and alcohol consumption effect was stronger among patients with viral etiology of cirrhosis (HR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.31-8.90). PNPLA3 improved 1-year risk prediction for HCC when added to a clinical risk model. CONCLUSIONS: The PNPLA3 variant may help refine risk stratification for HCC in patients with cirrhosis with heavy alcohol consumption or obesity who may need specific preventive measures.

Pragmatic strategies to address health disparities along the continuum of care in chronic liver disease.

Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities exist in the prevalence and natural history of chronic liver disease, access to care, and clinical outcomes. Solutions to improve health equity range widely, from digital health tools to policy changes. The current review outlines the disparities along the chronic liver disease health care continuum from screening and diagnosis to the management of cirrhosis and considerations of pre-liver and post-liver transplantation. Using a health equity research and implementation science framework, we offer pragmatic strategies to address barriers to implementing high-quality equitable care for patients with chronic liver disease.

Accuracy of blood-based biomarkers for staging liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease: A systematic review supporting the AASLD Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Blood-based biomarkers have been proposed as an alternative to liver biopsy for non-invasive liver disease assessment (NILDA) in chronic liver disease (CLD). Our aims for this systematic review were to evaluate the diagnostic utility of selected blood-based tests either alone, or in combination, for identifying significant fibrosis (F2-4), advanced fibrosis (F3-4) and cirrhosis (F4), as compared to biopsy in CLD. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We included a comprehensive search of databases including Ovid MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and Scopus through to April 2022. Two independent reviewers selected 286 studies with 103,162 patients. The most frequently identified studies included the simple aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) and fibrosis (FIB)-4 markers (with low-to-moderate risk of bias) in hepatitis B virus (HBV) and C virus (HCV), HIV-HCV/HBV co-infection, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Positive (LR+) and negative (LR) likelihood ratios across direct and indirect biomarker tests for HCV and HBV for F2-4, F3-4, or F4 were 1.66-6.25 and 0.23-0.80, 1.89-5.24 and 0.12-0.64, and 1.32-7.15 and 0.15-0.86 respectively; LR+ and LR for NAFLD F2-4, F3-4 and F4 were 2-65-3.37 and 0.37-0.39, 2.25-6.76 and 0.07-0.87, and 3.90 and 0.15 respectively. Overall, proportional odds ratio indicated FIB-4 <1.45 was better than APRI <0.5 for F2-4. FIB-4 >3.25 was also better than APRI >1.5 for F3-4 and F4. There was limited data for combined tests. CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based biomarkers are associated with small-to-moderate change in pre-test probability for diagnosing F2-4, F3-4, and F4 in viral hepatitis, HIV-HCV co-infection, and NAFLD, with limited comparative or combination studies for other CLD.

Quality measures in pre-liver transplant care by the Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

INTRODUCTION: The LT evaluation and waitlisting process is subject to variations in care that can impede quality. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) developed quality measures and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) along the continuum of pre-LT care to reduce care variation and guide patient-centered care. METHODS: Following a systematic literature review, candidate pre-LT measures were grouped into four phases of care: referral, evaluation and waitlisting, waitlist management, and organ acceptance. A modified Delphi panel with content expertise in hepatology, transplant surgery, psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, palliative care and social work selected the final set. Candidate PREMs spanned domains of cognitive health, emotional health, social well-being, and understanding the LT process. RESULTS: Of the 71 candidate measures, 41 were selected: 9 for referral; 20 for evaluation and waitlisting; 7 for waitlist management; and 5 for organ acceptance. A total of 14 were related to structure, 17 were process measures and 10 were outcome measures that focused on elements not typically measured in routine care. Among the PREMs, LT candidates rated items from understanding the LT process domain as the most important. CONCLUSION: The proposed pre-LT measures provide a framework for quality improvement and care standardization among LT candidates. Select measures apply to various stakeholders such as referring practitioners in the community and LT centers. Clinically meaningful measures that are distinct from those used for regulatory transplant reporting may facilitate local QI initiatives to improve access and quality of care.

Rejection in Liver Transplantation Recipients.

Rejection following liver transplantation continues to impact transplant recipients although rates have decreased over time with advances in immunosuppression management. The diagnosis of rejection remains challenging with liver biopsy remaining the reference standard for diagnosis. Proper classification of rejection type and severity is imperative as this guides management and ultimately graft preservation. Future areas of promise include non-invasive testing for detection of rejection to reduce the morbidity associated with invasive testing and further advances in immunosuppression management to reduce toxicities associated with immunosuppression while minimizing rejection related morbidity.

Non-invasive liver disease assessment to identify portal hypertension: A systematic review supporting the AASLD Practice Guideline.

INTRODUCTION: Portal hypertension is a serious complication of cirrhosis, which leads to life-threatening complications. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), a surrogate of portal pressure, is the reference standard test to assess the severity of portal hypertension. However, since HVPG is limited by its invasiveness and by its availability, non-invasive liver disease assessments (NILDAs) to assess portal pressure, especially clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), are needed. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Daily, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from each database's inception to April 22 nd , 2022. We included only studies in English that examined ≥50 patients in single liver disease etiologies which compared non-invasive tests (blood, and/or imaging) to HVPG for predicting clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; defined as HVPG ≥10 mm Hg) in patients with chronic liver disease (this therefore limited the number of studies that could be included). Outcomes reported included measures of diagnostic test accuracy. Additionally, a narrative review of studies not eligible for the systematic review is also provided. RESULTS: Nine studies with 2,492 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was substantial heterogeneity with regard to liver disease studied and cutoff values used to detect CSPH. Blood based tests, including aspartate to platelet ratio index (APRI) (56% sensitivity and 68% specificity) and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) (54% sensitivity and 73% specificity) had low accuracy measures. Imaging based tests (transient elastography (TE) and shear wave elastography detection of liver stiffness (LSM)) had better accuracy, but also had substantial variation; at 15 kPa, TE sensitivity was 90%-96% and specificity was 48%-50% while at 25 kPa, its sensitivity and specificity were 57%-85% and 82%-93%, respectively. The narrative review suggested that imaging based tests are the best available NILDA to detect CSPH, CSPH is highly unlikely to be present at an LSM ≤15 kPa and likely to be present at an LSM ≥25 kPa. CONCLUSION: While imaging-based NILDA appeared to have higher accuracy than blood-based tests to detect CSPH, only 9 studies fit the a priori established inclusion criteria for the SR. In addition, there was substantial study heterogeneity and variation in cutoffs for LSM to detect CSPH, limiting the ability to establish definitive cutoffs to detect CSPH.

Acute kidney injury in patients with cirrhosis: Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) and International Club of Ascites (ICA) joint multidisciplinary consensus meeting.

Patients with cirrhosis are prone to developing acute kidney injury (AKI), a complication associated with a markedly increased in-hospital morbidity and mortality, along with a risk of progression to chronic kidney disease. Whereas patients with cirrhosis are at increased risk of developing any phenotype of AKI, hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), a specific form of AKI (HRS-AKI) in patients with advanced cirrhosis and ascites, carries an especially high mortality risk. Early recognition of HRS-AKI is crucial since administration of splanchnic vasoconstrictors may reverse the AKI and serve as a bridge to liver transplantation, the only curative option. In 2023, a joint meeting of the International Club of Ascites (ICA) and the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) was convened to develop new diagnostic criteria for HRS-AKI, to provide graded recommendations for the work-up, management and post-discharge follow-up of patients with cirrhosis and AKI, and to highlight priorities for further research.

Controversies in terlipressin and transplantation in the United States: How do we MELD the two?

Hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) is a severe complication of cirrhosis that carries a poor prognosis. The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of terlipressin has substantial implications for managing HRS-AKI and liver allocation in the United States. Terlipressin has been available in Europe for over a decade, and several countries have adapted policy changes such as Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score "lock" for HRS-AKI. In this article, we outline the European experience with terlipressin use and explore the question of whether terlipressin treatment for HRS-AKI should qualify for the MELD score "lock" in the United States in those who respond to therapy. Arguments for the MELD lock include protecting waitlist priority for terlipressin responders or partial responders who may miss offers due to MELD reduction in the terlipressin treatment window. Arguments against MELD lock include the fact that terlipressin may produce a durable response and improve overall survival and that equitable access to terlipressin is not guaranteed due to cost and availability. We subsequently discuss the proposed next steps for studying terlipressin implementation in the United States. A successful approach will require the involvement of all major stakeholders and the mobilization of our transplant community to spearhead research in this area.

Serum biomarker signature is predictive of the risk of hepatocellular cancer in patients with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory and metabolic biomarkers have been associated with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) risk in phases I and II biomarker studies. We developed and internally validated a robust metabolic biomarker panel predictive of HCC in a longitudinal phase III study. METHODS: We used data and banked serum from a prospective cohort of 2266 adult patients with cirrhosis who were followed until the development of HCC (n=126). We custom designed a FirePlex immunoassay to measure baseline serum levels of 39 biomarkers and established a set of biomarkers with the highest discriminatory ability for HCC. We performed bootstrapping to evaluate the predictive performance using C-index and time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). We quantified the incremental predictive value of the biomarker panel when added to previously validated clinical models. RESULTS: We identified a nine-biomarker panel (P9) with a C-index of 0.67 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.67), including insulin growth factor-1, interleukin-10, transforming growth factor ß1, adipsin, fetuin-A, interleukin-1 ß, macrophage stimulating protein α chain, serum amyloid A and TNF-α. Adding P9 to our clinical model with 10 factors including AFP improved AUROC at 1 and 2 years by 4.8% and 2.7%, respectively. Adding P9 to aMAP score improved AUROC at 1 and 2 years by 14.2% and 7.6%, respectively. Adding AFP L-3 or DCP did not change the predictive ability of the P9 model. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a panel of nine serum biomarkers that is independently associated with developing HCC in cirrhosis and that improved the predictive ability of risk stratification models containing clinical factors.

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.

Limitations of Noninvasive Tests-Based Population-Level Risk Stratification Strategy for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are highly prevalent but underdiagnosed. AIMS: We used an electronic health record data network to test a population-level risk stratification strategy using noninvasive tests (NITs) of liver fibrosis. METHODS: Data were obtained from PCORnet® sites in the East, Midwest, Southwest, and Southeast United States from patients aged [Formula: see text] 18 with or without ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes for NAFLD, NASH, and NASH-cirrhosis between 9/1/2017 and 8/31/2020. Average and standard deviations (SD) for Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), and Hepatic Steatosis Index (HSI) were estimated by site for each patient cohort. Sample-wide estimates were calculated as weighted averages across study sites. RESULTS: Of 11,875,959 patients, 0.8% and 0.1% were coded with NAFLD and NASH, respectively. NAFLD diagnosis rates in White, Black, and Hispanic patients were 0.93%, 0.50%, and 1.25%, respectively, and for NASH 0.19%, 0.04%, and 0.16%, respectively. Among undiagnosed patients, insufficient EHR data for estimating NITs ranged from 68% (FIB-4) to 76% (NFS). Predicted prevalence of NAFLD by HSI was 60%, with estimated prevalence of advanced fibrosis of 13% by NFS and 7% by FIB-4. Approximately, 15% and 23% of patients were classified in the intermediate range by FIB-4 and NFS, respectively. Among NAFLD-cirrhosis patients, a third had FIB-4 scores in the low or intermediate range. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several potential barriers to a population-level NIT-based screening strategy. HSI-based NAFLD screening appears unrealistic. Further research is needed to define merits of NFS- versus FIB-4-based strategies, which may identify different high-risk groups.

Increasing practice and acceptable outcomes of high-MELD living donor liver transplantation in the USA.

Recent deceased-donor allocation changes in the United States may have increased high-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) living donor liver transplantation (LDLT); however, outcomes in these patients remain poorly defined. We aimed to examine the impact of the MELD score on LDLT outcomes. Using UNOS data (January 1, 2010-December 31, 2021), LDLT recipients were identified and stratified into low-MELD (<15), intermediate-MELD (15-24), and high-MELD (≥25) groups. We compared outcomes between MELD-stratified LDLT groups and between MELD-stratified LDLT and donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare graft survival rates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling to identify factors associated with graft outcomes. Of 3558 LDLTs, 1605 (45.1%) were low-MELD, 1616 (45.4%) intermediate-MELD, and 337 (9.5%) high-MELD. Over the study period, the annual number of LDLTs increased from 282 to 569, and the proportion of high-MELD LDLTs increased from 3.9% to 7.7%. Graft survival was significantly higher in low-MELD versus high-MELD LDLT recipients (adjusted HR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.03-1.79); however, 5-year survival exceeded 70.0% in both groups. We observed no significant difference in graft survival between high-MELD LDLT and high-MELD donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients (adjusted HR: 1.25, 95% CI:0.99-1.58), with a 5-year survival of 71.5% and 77.3%, respectively. Low LDLT center volume (<3 LDLTs/year) and recipient life support requirement were both associated with inferior graft outcomes among high-MELD LDLT recipients. While higher MELD scores confer graft failure risk in LDLT, high-MELD LDLT outcomes are acceptable with similar outcomes to MELD-stratified donation after brain death liver transplantation recipients. Future practice guidance should consider the expansion of LDLT recommendations to high-MELD recipients in centers with expertise to help reduce donor shortage.

Long-term outcomes (beyond 5 years) of liver transplant recipients-A transatlantic multicenter study.

The long-term (>5 y) outcomes following liver transplantation (LT) have not been extensively reported. The aim was to evaluate outcomes of LT recipients who have survived the first 5 years. A multicenter retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 3 high volume LT centers (Dallas-USA, Birmingham-UK, and Barcelona-Spain) was undertaken. All adult patients, who underwent LT since the inception of the program to December 31, 2010, and survived at least 5 years since their LT were included. Patient survival was the primary outcome. A total of 3682 patients who survived at least 5 years following LT (long-term survivors) were included. Overall, median age at LT was 52 years (IQR 44-58); 53.1% were males; and 84.6% were Caucasians. A total of 49.4% (n=1820) died during a follow-up period of 36,828 person-years (mean follow-up 10 y). A total of 80.2% (n=1460) of all deaths were premature deaths. Age-standardized all-cause mortality as compared to general population was 3 times higher for males and 5 times higher for females. On adjusted analysis, besides older recipients and older donors, predictors of long-term mortality were malignancy, cardiovascular disease, and dialysis. Implementation of strategies such as noninvasive cancer screening, minimizing immunosuppression, and intensive primary/secondary cardiovascular prevention could further improve survival.

Predictors of Respiratory Failure Development in a Multicenter Cohort of Inpatients With Cirrhosis.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalized patients with cirrhosis can develop respiratory failure (RF), which is associated with a poor prognosis, but predisposing factors are unclear. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled a multicenter North American cirrhosis inpatient cohort and collected admission and in-hospital data (grading per European Association for the Study of Liver-Chronic Liver Failure scoring system, acute kidney injury [AKI], infections [admission/nosocomial], and albumin use) in an era when terlipressin was not available in North America. Multivariable regression to predict RF was performed using only admission day and in-hospital events occurring before RF. RESULTS: A total of 511 patients from 14 sites (median age 57 years, admission model for end-stage liver disease [MELD]-Na 23) were enrolled: RF developed in 15%; AKI occurred in 24%; and 11% developed nosocomial infections (NI). At admission, patients who developed RF had higher MELD-Na, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding/AKI-related admission, and prior infections/ascites. During hospitalization, RF developers had higher NI (especially respiratory), albumin use, and other organ failures. RF was higher in patients receiving albumin (83% vs 59%, P < 0.0001) with increasing doses (269.5 ± 210.5 vs 208.6 ± 186.1 g, P = 0.01) regardless of indication. Admission for AKI, GI bleeding, and high MELD-Na predicted RF. Using all variables, NI (odds ratio [OR] = 4.02, P = 0.0004), GI bleeding (OR = 3.1, P = 0.002), albumin use (OR = 2.93, P = 0.01), AKI (OR = 3.26, P = 0.008), and circulatory failure (OR = 3.73, P = 0.002) were associated with RF risk. DISCUSSION: In a multicenter inpatient cirrhosis study of patients not exposed to terlipressin, 15% of patients developed RF. RF risk was highest in those admitted with AKI, those who had GI bleeding on admission, and those who developed NI and other organ failures or received albumin during their hospital course. Careful volume monitoring and preventing nosocomial respiratory infections and renal or circulatory failures could reduce this risk.