Cause-specific mortality in patients with alcohol-related liver disease in Denmark: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Increased knowledge of the causes of death will be essential to prevent premature death in alcohol-related liver disease. We examined cause-specific mortality, including death due to specific cancers, in the 15 years after diagnosis of alcohol-related liver disease. METHODS: We used nationwide health registries to identify patients (aged ≥18 years) with a first diagnosis of alcohol-related liver disease between Jan 1, 2002, and Dec 31, 2017, in Denmark and followed up patients for their underlying cause of death up to Dec 31, 2019. We estimated the cause-specific mortality and investigated whether the cause-specific mortality differed by sex, age (<50, 50-59, and ≥60 years), alcohol-related liver disease severity at diagnosis (decompensated cirrhosis, compensated cirrhosis, alcoholic hepatitis, and steatosis or unspecified liver disease), and presence of diabetes. FINDINGS: The study included 23 385 patients with incident alcohol-related liver disease. Patients had a median age of 58 years (IQR 51-65), 15 819 (68%) were men and 7566 (32%) were women, and 15 358 (66%) had cirrhosis. During 111 532 person-years of follow-up, 15 692 (67%) patients died. Liver disease was the leading cause of death. In the first 5 years after alcohol-related liver disease diagnosis, liver disease caused almost half of all deaths, and the 5-year risk of death due to liver disease was 25·8% (95% CI 25·3-26·4). Beyond 5 years, causes other than liver disease combined became more common; of these extrahepatic causes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and alcohol use disorder were the most common. Hepatocellular carcinoma was the dominant cause of cancer death (10-year risk of 2·5%, 95% CI 2·3-2·7), followed by lung cancer (1·9%, 1·7-2·1). The 10-year risk of death due to liver disease (around 30%) was similar for patients in all age groups and independent of sex and diabetes but was three times higher for those with decompensated cirrhosis (46·7%, 44·8-48·4) than steatosis or unspecified liver disease (16·2%, 15·3-17·2). INTERPRETATION: Patients diagnosed with alcohol-related liver disease were at high risk of dying from liver disease many years after diagnosis, irrespective of age and sex. Death due to specific cancers, including hepatocellular carcinoma, each contributed minimally to the total mortality in patients with alcohol-related liver disease. FUNDING: TrygFonden and the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Pharmacological interventions for alcoholic liver disease (alcohol-related liver disease): an attempted network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol-related liver disease is due to excessive alcohol consumption. It includes a spectrum of liver diseases such as alcohol-related fatty liver, alcoholic hepatitis, and alcoholic cirrhosis. Mortality associated with alcoholic hepatitis is high. The optimal pharmacological treatment of alcoholic hepatitis and other alcohol-related liver disease remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the management of alcohol-related liver disease through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological interventions according to their safety and efficacy in order to identify potential treatments. However, even in the subgroup of participants when the potential effect modifiers appeared reasonably similar across comparisons, there was evidence of inconsistency by one or more methods of assessment of inconsistency. Therefore, we did not report the results of the network meta-analysis and reported the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and randomised controlled trials registers until February 2017 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological treatments for alcohol-related liver diseases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) including participants with alcohol-related liver disease. We excluded trials that included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation and those with co-existing chronic viral diseases. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified a total of 81 randomised clinical trials. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and the overall quality of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Alcoholic hepatitisFifty randomised clinical trials included 4484 participants with alcoholic hepatitis. The period of follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. Because of concerns about transitivity assumption, we did not perform the network meta-analysis. None of the active interventions showed any improvement in any of the clinical outcomes reported in the trials, which includes mortality (at various time points), cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplantation. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Severe alcoholic hepatitisOf the trials on alcoholic hepatitis, 19 trials (2545 participants) included exclusively participants with severe alcoholic hepatitis (Maddrey Discriminat Function > 32). The period of follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. There was no alteration in the conclusions when only people with severe alcoholic hepatitis were included in the analysis. SOURCE OF FUNDING: Eleven trials were funded by parties with vested interest in the results. Sixteen trials were funded by parties without vested interest in the results. The source of funding was not reported in 23 trials. Other alcohol-related liver diseasesThirty-one randomised clinical trials included 3695 participants with other alcohol-related liver diseases (with a wide spectrum of alcohol-related liver diseases). The period of follow-up ranged from one to 48 months. The mortality at maximal follow-up was lower in the propylthiouracil group versus the no intervention group (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78; 423 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). However, this result is based on two small trials at high risk of bias and further confirmation in larger trials of low risk of bias is necessary to recommend propylthiouracil routinely in people with other alcohol-related liver diseases. The mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the ursodeoxycholic acid group versus the no intervention group (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.90; 226 participants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence). SOURCE OF FUNDING: Twelve trials were funded by parties with vested interest in the results. Three trials were funded by parties without vested interest in the results. The source of funding was not reported in 16 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of very low-quality evidence, there is uncertainty in the effectiveness of any pharmacological intervention versus no intervention in people with alcoholic hepatitis or severe alcoholic hepatitis. Based on low-quality evidence, propylthiouracil may decrease mortality in people with other alcohol-related liver diseases. However, these results must be confirmed by adequately powered trials with low risk of bias before propylthiouracil can be considered effective.Future randomised clinical trials should be conducted with approximately 200 participants in each group and follow-up of one to two years in order to compare the benefits and harms of different treatments in people with alcoholic hepatitis. Randomised clinical trials should include health-related quality of life and report serious adverse events separately from adverse events. Future randomised clinical trials should have a low risk of bias and low risk of random errors.

Predictors of heavy drinking after liver transplantation for alcoholic liver disease in Denmark (1990-2013): a nationwide study with competing risks analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Heavy drinking following liver transplantation decreases survival. Little is known of predictors of heavy drinking, which should guide clinicians identifying patients at high risk of return to heavy drinking after transplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We calculated the cumulative incidence of heavy drinking among patients transplanted for alcoholic liver disease in Denmark 1990-2013. We then analyzed pre-transplant demographic and psychiatric characteristics as predictors of post-transplant heavy drinking. Information was obtained from medical records, from nationwide registries and by interview. RESULTS: Among 156 liver-transplanted patients, the cumulative incidence of heavy drinking was 18%, 24% and 27% after 5, 10 and 15 years post-transplant. In univariate analyses of pre-transplant predictors of heavy drinking after transplantation, younger age (p < 0.001), being retired (p = 0.007), anxiety (p = 0.04), personality disorder (p = 0.05) and no lifetime diagnosis of alcohol dependence (p = 0.03) were associated with heavy drinking after transplantation. Smoking (p = 0.06) tended to be associated, whereas depression (p = 0.7) or being married was not (p = 0.7). In the multivariate analysis, only younger age (p = 0.03), being retired (p = 0.007) and no lifetime diagnosis of alcohol dependence (p = 0.003) remained significant predictors. Heavy drinking after transplantation decreased survival beyond 5 years post-transplant (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: There is a high incidence of heavy drinking after liver transplantation for alcoholic cirrhosis in Denmark. Younger age, being retired and no lifetime diagnosis of alcohol dependence were predictors of heavy drinking after transplantation.

Alcohol drinking pattern and risk of alcoholic liver cirrhosis: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Alcohol is the main contributing factor of alcoholic cirrhosis, but less is known about the significance of drinking pattern. METHODS: We investigated the risk of alcoholic cirrhosis among 55,917 participants (aged 50-64 years) in the Danish Cancer, Diet, and Health study (1993-2011). Baseline information on alcohol intake, drinking pattern, and confounders was obtained from a questionnaire. Follow-up information came from national registers. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for alcoholic cirrhosis in relation to drinking frequency, lifetime alcohol amount, and beverage type. RESULTS: We observed 257 and 85 incident cases of alcoholic cirrhosis among men and women, respectively, none among lifetime abstainers. In men, HR for alcoholic cirrhosis among daily drinkers was 3.65 (95% CI: 2.39; 5.55) compared to drinking 2-4 days/week. Alcohol amount in recent age periods (40-49 and 50-59 years) was associated with an increased risk, whereas the amount in 20-29 and 30-39 years was not. In men drinking 14-28 drinks/week, HR was 7.47 (95% CI: 1.68; 33.12), 3.12 (95% CI: 1.53; 6.39), and 1.69 (95% CI: 0.79; 3.65) in drinkers of little (<1% of weekly amount), some (1-15%), and mostly wine (50-100%), compared to drinking <14 drinks/week. In general, results were similar for women. CONCLUSIONS: In men, daily drinking was associated with an increased risk of alcoholic cirrhosis. Recent alcohol consumption rather than earlier in life was associated with risk of alcoholic cirrhosis. Compared to beer and liquor, wine might be associated with a lower risk of alcoholic cirrhosis.

Use of disulfiram and risk of cancer: a population-based case-control study.

Experimental studies have indicated that disulfiram (Antabuse) has antineoplastic effects against melanoma, breast, and prostate cancer. To explore this hypothesis, we examined the association between disulfiram use and these cancers in a nationwide register-based case-control study nested within ever-users (≥one prescription) of disulfiram. Cases were all Danish individuals with a histologically verified first-time diagnosis of malignant melanoma, breast, or prostate cancer during 2000-2009. For each case, we selected four cancer-free controls matched for age, sex, and year of first disulfiram prescription using risk set sampling. Similarly, for secondary analyses, we selected case-control populations for selected tobacco-related and alcohol-related cancer types, that is, cancers of the buccal cavity, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer. Disulfiram use 1 year before cancer diagnosis and the corresponding date for controls were disregarded. We estimated crude and adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for cancer associated with long-term (≥500 daily defined doses) versus one-time (one prescription) use of disulfiram. Among 53 856 disulfiram users, we identified 166, 644, and 464 cases, respectively, of melanoma, breast, or prostate cancer. Adjusted odds ratios for melanoma, breast, or prostate cancer associated with long-term disulfiram use were 1.04 (95% CI: 0.60-1.78), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.70-1.22), and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.56-1.06), respectively. For prostate cancer, dose-response analyses showed a further risk reduction with the highest cumulative dose level of disulfiram; however, the test for trend did not reach statistical significance. Our study provides some epidemiological support for a protective effect of disulfiram against prostate and breast cancer.