Assessment of bone mineral density in patients with cirrhosis treated with third-generation nucleos(t)ide analogues: comparison between tenofovir and entecavir.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Tenofovir and entecavir are nowadays the first-line treatment in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related cirrhosis. Both drugs were shown to be effective in HBV suppression and well tolerated. The effects of tenofovir on bone mineral density (BMD), however, were shown to worsen the rate of osteoporosis, which is already a common feature in cirrhosis. In contrast, entecavir seems to have no effect on mineral metabolism. The aim of our study was to compare the effects of nucleos(t)ide analogs on bone density in HBV-related cirrhosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourty-eight patients were treated with tenofovir and 22 patients were treated with entecavir, and were followed prospectively from 2008 to 2013. To evaluate BMD, laboratory examinations, dual-X-ray absorptiometry, and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool were assessed. RESULTS: During the study, no difference was found between the two groups in the plasmatic concentration of calcium, phosphate, vitamin D, parathyroid hormone, or creatinine. Dual-X-ray absorptiometry showed no difference in the T-score and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool showed no significant difference in the 10-year risk of osteoporotic fractures in the two groups. On univariate and multivariate analyses, the only predictors of osteoporosis development were the prognostic scores of liver disease and BMI. CONCLUSION: Both tenofovir and entecavir are effective in treating HBV in cirrhotic patients. The known effects of tenofovir on BMD do not worsen osteoporotic fractures risk compared with entecavir in these patients.

Assessment of Sepsis-3 criteria and quick SOFA in patients with cirrhosis and bacterial infections.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with cirrhosis have a high risk of sepsis, which confers a poor prognosis. The systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria have several limitations in cirrhosis. Recently, new criteria for sepsis (Sepsis-3) have been suggested in the general population (increase of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) ≥2 points from baseline). Outside the intensive care unit (ICU), the quick SOFA (qSOFA (at least two among alteration in mental status, systolic blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg or respiratory rate ≥22/min)) was suggested to screen for sepsis. These criteria have never been evaluated in patients with cirrhosis. The aim of the study was to assess the ability of Sepsis-3 criteria in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with cirrhosis and bacterial/fungal infections. METHODS: 259 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and bacterial/fungal infections were prospectively included. Demographic, laboratory and microbiological data were collected at diagnosis of infection. Baseline SOFA was assessed using preadmission data. Patients were followed up until death, liver transplantation or discharge. Findings were externally validated (197 patients). RESULTS: Sepsis-3 and qSOFA had significantly greater discrimination for in-hospital mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC)=0.784 and 0.732, respectively) than SIRS (AUROC=0.606) (p<0.01 for both). Similar results were observed in the validation cohort. Sepsis-3 (subdistribution HR (sHR)=5.47; p=0.006), qSOFA (sHR=1.99; p=0.020), Chronic Liver Failure Consortium Acute Decompensation score (sHR=1.05; p=0.001) and C reactive protein (sHR=1.01;p=0.034) were found to be independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Patients with Sepsis-3 had higher incidence of acute-on-chronic liver failure, septic shock and transfer to ICU than those without Sepsis-3. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis-3 criteria are more accurate than SIRS criteria in predicting the severity of infections in patients with cirrhosis. qSOFA is a useful bedside tool to assess risk for worse outcomes in these patients. Patients with Sepsis-3 and positive qSOFA deserve more intensive management and strict surveillance.

Acute kidney injury and acute-on-chronic liver failure classifications in prognosis assessment of patients with acute decompensation of cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVE: Prognostic stratification of patients with cirrhosis is common clinical practice. This study compares the prognostic accuracy (28-day and 90-day transplant-free mortality) of the acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) classification (no ACLF, ACLF grades 1, 2 and 3) with that of acute kidney injury (AKI) classification (no AKI, AKI stages 1, 2 and 3). DESIGN: The study was performed in 510 patients with an acute decompensation of cirrhosis previously included in the European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure consortium CANONIC study. ACLF was evaluated at enrollment and 48 h after enrollment, and AKI was evaluated at 48 h according to Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria. RESULTS: 240 patients (47.1%) met the criteria of ACLF at enrollment, while 98 patients (19.2%) developed AKI. The presence of ACLF and AKI was strongly associated with mortality. 28-day transplant-free mortality and 90-day transplant-free mortality of patients with ACLF (32% and 49.8%, respectively) were significantly higher with respect to those of patients without ACLF (6.2% and 16.4%, respectively; both p<0.001). Corresponding values in patients with and without AKI were 46% and 59%, and 12% and 25.6%, respectively (p<0.0001 for both). ACLF classification was more accurate than AKI classification in predicting 90-day mortality (area under the receiving operating characteristic curve=0.72 vs 0.62; p<0.0001) in the whole series of patients. Moreover, assessment of ACLF classification at 48 h had significantly better prognostic accuracy compared with that of both AKI classification and ACLF classification at enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: ACLF stratification is more accurate than AKI stratification in the prediction of short-term mortality in patients with acute decompensation of cirrhosis.

How to improve care in outpatients with cirrhosis and ascites: a new model of care coordination by consultant hepatologists.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The development of ascites in patients with cirrhosis is associated with a high rate of health care utilization. New models of specialized caregiving support are necessary to optimize its management. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and financial sustainability of the "Care management check-up" as a new model of specialized caregiving support based on a series of diagnostic facilities performed in real time and on the integrated activity of consultant hepatologists at the hospital unit for outpatients, dedicated nurses, physicians in training and primary physicians, compared to standard care in outpatients with cirrhosis and ascites. METHODS: 100 cirrhotic patients admitted to our hospital were allocated, after discharge, to the "Care management check-up" group (group 1), or to the "Standard outpatient care" group (group 2), and followed prospectively as outpatients up to death or for at least 12 months. Patients of the two groups could also access to a "Day hospital" when an invasive procedure was required. In group 1, the "Care management check-up" and the "Day hospital" taken together defined the "Care management program". RESULTS: Twelve-month mortality was higher in group 2 than in group 1 (45.7% vs. 23.1%, p<0.025). The rate of 30-day readmission was also higher in group 2 (42.4% vs. 15.4%, p<0.01). The global cost attributable to the management per patient-month of life was lower (1479.19 ± 2184.43 €) in group 1 than (2816.13 ± 3893.03 €) in group 2 (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that this new model of specialized caregiving reduces 12-month mortality in patients with cirrhosis and ascites as well as the global health care costs for their management.