Increasing prevalence of cirrhosis among insured adults in the United States, 2012-2018.

BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis is a chronic disease that is known as a "silent killer" and its true prevalence is difficult to describe. It is imperative to accurately characterize the prevalence of cirrhosis because of its increasing healthcare burden. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, trends in cirrhosis prevalence were evaluated using administrative data from one of the largest national health insurance providers in the US. (2011-2018). Enrolled adult (≥18-years-old) patients with cirrhosis defined by ICD-9 and ICD-10 were included in the study. The primary outcome measured in the study was the prevalence of cirrhosis 2011-2018. RESULTS: Among the 371,482 patients with cirrhosis, the mean age was 62.2 (±13.7) years; 53.3% had commercial insurance and 46.4% had Medicare Advantage. The most frequent cirrhosis etiologies were alcohol-related (26.0%), NASH (20.9%) and HCV (20.0%). Mean time of follow-up was 725 (±732.3) days. The observed cirrhosis prevalence was 0.71% in 2018, a 2-fold increase from 2012 (0.34%). The highest prevalence observed was among patients with Medicare Advantage insurance (1.67%) in 2018. Prevalence increased in each US. state, with Southern states having the most rapid rise (2.3-fold). The most significant increases were observed in patients with NASH (3.9-fold) and alcohol-related (2-fold) cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: Between 2012-2018, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis doubled among insured patients. Alcohol-related and NASH cirrhosis were the most significant contributors to this increase. Patients living in the South, and those insured by Medicare Advantage also have disproportionately higher prevalence of cirrhosis. Public health interventions are important to mitigate this concerning trajectory of strain to the health system.

HLA-DQ Mismatches Lead to More Unacceptable Antigens, Greater Sensitization, and Increased Disparities in Repeat Transplant Candidates.

BACKGROUND: In single-center studies, HLA-DQ mismatches stimulate the most pathogenic donor-specific antibodies. However, because of limitations of transplant registries, this cannot be directly confirmed with registry-based analyses. METHODS: We evaluated patients in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients who were relisted after renal graft failure with new, unacceptable antigens corresponding to the HLA typing of their previous donor (UA-PD) as a proxy for donor-specific antibodies. Linear regression was applied to estimate the effects of HLA mismatches on UA-PD and the effects of UA-PD on calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) values for 4867 kidney recipients from 2010 to 2021. RESULTS: Each additional HLA-DQ mismatch increased the probability of UA-PD by 25.2% among deceased donor transplant recipients and by 28.9% among living donor transplant recipients, significantly more than all other HLA loci (P<0.05). HLA-DQ UA-PD increased cPRA by 29.0% in living donor transplant recipients and by 23.5% in deceased donor transplant recipients, significantly more than all loci except for HLA-A in deceased donor transplant recipients (23.1%). African American deceased donor transplant recipients were significantly more likely than Hispanic and White recipients to develop HLA-DQ UA-PD; among living donor transplant recipients, African American or Hispanic recipients were significantly more likely to do so compared with White recipients. Models evaluating interactions between HLA-DR/DQ mismatches revealed largely independent effects of HLA-DQ mismatches on HLA-DQ UA-PD. CONCLUSIONS: HLA-DQ mismatches had the strongest associations with UA-PD, an effect that was greatest in African American and Hispanic recipients. cPRA increases with HLA-DQ UA-PD were equivalent or larger than any other HLA locus. This suggests a need to consider the effects of HLA-DQ in kidney allocation.