The burden of significant pain in the cirrhosis population: Risk factors, analgesic use, and impact on health care utilization and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to characterize pain and analgesic use in a large contemporary cohort of patients with cirrhosis and to associate pain with unplanned health care utilization and clinical outcomes in this population. METHODS: We included all patients with cirrhosis seen in UCSF hepatology clinics from 2013 to 2020. Pain severity and location were determined using documented pain scores at the initial visit; "significant pain" was defined as moderate or severe using established cutoffs. Demographic, clinical, and medication data were abstracted from electronic medical records. Associations between significant pain and our primary outcome of 1-year unplanned health care utilization (ie, emergency department visit or hospitalization) and our secondary outcomes of mortality and liver transplantation were explored in multivariable models. RESULTS: Among 5333 patients with cirrhosis, 32% had a nonzero pain score at their initial visit and 25% had significant (ie moderate/severe) pain. Sixty percent of patients with significant pain used ≥1 analgesic; 34% used opioids. Patients with cirrhosis with significant pain had similar Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium scores (14 vs. 13), but higher rates of decompensation (65% vs. 55%). The most common pain location was the abdomen (44%). Patients with abdominal pain, compared to pain in other locations, were more likely to have decompensation (72% vs. 56%). Significant pain was independently associated with unplanned health care utilization (adjusted odds ratio: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.5) and mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: Pain among patients with cirrhosis is often not well-controlled despite analgesic use, and significant pain is associated with unplanned health care utilization and mortality in this population. Effectively identifying and treating pain are essential in reducing costs and improving quality of life and outcomes among patients with cirrhosis.

Distinct effects of racial and socioeconomic disparities on biliary atresia diagnosis and outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and distinguish between racial and socioeconomic disparities in age at hepatology care, diagnosis, access to surgical therapy, and liver transplant-free survival in patients with biliary atresia (BA). METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort study of 69 BA patients from 2010 to 2021. Patients were grouped into White and non-White cohorts. The socioeconomic milieu was analyzed utilizing neighborhood deprivation index, a census tract-based calculation of six socioeconomic variables. The primary outcomes of this study were timing of the first hepatology encounter, surgical treatment with hepatic portoenterostomy (HPE), and survival with native liver (SNL) at 2 years. RESULTS: Patients were 55% male and 72% White. White patients were referred at a median of 34 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 17-65) vs. 67 days (IQR: 42-133; p = 0.001) in non-White patients. White infants were more likely to undergo HPE (42/50 patients; 84%) compared to non-White (10/19; 53%), odds ratio (OR) 4.73 (95% confidence interval: 1.46-15.31; p = 0.01). Independent of race, patients exposed to increased neighborhood-level deprivation were less likely to receive HPE (OR: 0.49, p = 0.04) and achieve SNL (OR: 0.54, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Racial and socioeconomic disparities are independently associated with timely BA diagnosis, access to surgical treatment, and transplant-free survival. Public health approaches to improve screening for pathologic jaundice in infants of diverse racial backgrounds and to test and implement interventions for socioeconomically at-risk families are needed.

Disparities in Access to Liver Transplant Referral and Evaluation among Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Georgia.

Liver transplantation offers the best survival for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Prior studies have demonstrated disparities in transplant access; none have examined the early steps of the transplant process. We identified determinants of access to transplant referral and evaluation among patients with HCC with a single tumor either within Milan or meeting downstaging criteria in Georgia.Population-based cancer registry data from 2010 to 2019 were linked to liver transplant centers in Georgia. Primary cohort: adult patients with HCC with a single tumor ≤8 cm in diameter, no extrahepatic involvement, and no vascular involvement. Secondary cohort: primary cohort plus patients with multiple tumors confined to one lobe. We estimated time to transplant referral, evaluation initiation, and evaluation completion, accounting for the competing risk of death. In sensitivity analyses, we also accounted for non-transplant cancer treatment.Among 1,379 patients with early-stage HCC in Georgia, 26% were referred to liver transplant. Private insurance and younger age were associated with increased likelihood of referral, while requiring downstaging was associated with lower likelihood of referral. Patients living in census tracts with ≥20% of residents in poverty were less likely to initiate evaluation among those referred [cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR): 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.94]. Medicaid patients were less likely to complete the evaluation once initiated (csHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.32-0.89).Different sociodemographic factors were associated with each stage of the transplant process among patients with early-stage HCC in Georgia, emphasizing unique barriers to access and the need for targeted interventions at each step. SIGNIFICANCE: Among patients with early-stage HCC in Georgia, age and insurance type were associated with referral to liver transplant, race, and poverty with evaluation initiation, and insurance type with evaluation completion. Opportunities to improve transplant access include informing referring providers about insurance requirements, addressing barriers to evaluation initiation, and streamlining the evaluation process.

Identifying drivers of cost in pediatric liver transplantation.

Understanding the economics of pediatric liver transplantation (LT) is central to high-value care initiatives. We examined cost and resource utilization in pediatric LT nationally to identify drivers of cost and hospital factors associated with greater total cost of care. We reviewed 3295 children (<21 y) receiving an LT from 2010 to 2020 in the Pediatric Health Information System to study cost, both per LT and service line, and associated mortality, complications, and resource utilization. To facilitate comparisons, patients were stratified into high-cost, intermediate-cost, or low-cost tertiles based on LT cost. The median cost per LT was $150,836 [IQR $104,481-$250,129], with marked variance in cost within and between hospital tertiles. High-cost hospitals (HCHs) cared for more patients with the highest severity of illness and mortality risk levels (67% and 29%, respectively), compared to intermediate-cost (60%, 21%; p <0.001) and low-cost (51%, 16%; p <0.001) hospitals. Patients at HCHs experienced a higher prevalence of mechanical ventilation, total parental nutrition use, renal comorbidities, and surgical complications than other tertiles. Clinical (27.5%), laboratory (15.1%), and pharmacy (11.9%) service lines contributed most to the total cost. Renal comorbidities ($69,563) and total parental nutrition use ($33,192) were large, independent contributors to total cost, irrespective of the cost tertile ( p <0.001). There exists a significant variation in pediatric LT cost, with HCHs caring for more patients with higher illness acuity and resource needs. Studies are needed to examine drivers of cost and associated outcomes more granularly, with the goal of defining value and standardizing care. Such efforts may uniquely benefit the sicker patients requiring the strategic resources located within HCHs to achieve the best outcomes.

Lack of Diversity in Transplant Hepatology Fellowship Program Directorship.

BACKGROUND: Diversity in medicine has garnered significant attention in recent medical workforce research, as studies consistently reveal the beneficial impact of race-concordant visits on patient outcomes, adherence, and satisfaction. While diversity among residency and fellowship program directors has been studied in other fields, little is known about the diversity within niche fellowship programs such as transplant hepatology. This study aims to investigate the demographic information of program directors in transplant hepatology fellowship programs. METHODS: We identified transplant hepatology fellowship programs and their program directors from the American College of Gastroenterology website. Multiple reviewers compiled demographic and training information from internet searches, which was analyzed using chi-square analysis. In assessing racial diversity, researchers identified perceived race using multiple indicators, including name, physical appearance, and affiliation with identity associations. RESULTS: Our study analyzed data from 72 program directors, with 61.11% being male. Among the program directors, 55.6% appeared non-Hispanic White, 36.11% appeared Asian, while apparent Hispanics and Blacks represented 5.56% and 4.17%, respectively. Our analysis also found that male program directors appeared largely non-Hispanic white (72.72%) and were significantly more likely to be professors (p = 0.045) rather than associate or assistant professors. DISCUSSION: Our findings indicate that transplant hepatology fellowship programs are primarily led by male and non-Hispanic White physicians. To attract underrepresented medical students and residents, it is critical to make meaningful efforts to improve diversity and ensure equitable representation of leaders. Future research should focus on developing strategies to build a more inclusive workforce while addressing existing leadership inequities.

Caregivers' and providers' perspectives of social and medical care after pediatric liver transplant: Results from the multicenter SOCIAL-Tx study.

Disparities exist in pediatric liver transplant (LT). We characterized barriers and facilitators to providing transplant and social care within pediatric LT clinics. This was a multicenter qualitative study. We oversampled caregivers reporting household financial strain, material economic hardship, or demonstrating poor health literacy. We also enrolled transplant team members. We conducted semistructured interviews with participants. Caregiver interviews focused on challenges addressing transplant and household needs. Transplant provider interviews focused on barriers and facilitators to providing social care within transplant teams. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded according to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior model. We interviewed 27 caregivers and 27 transplant team members. Fifty-two percent of caregivers reported a household income <$60,000, and 62% reported financial resource strain. Caregivers reported experiencing (1) high financial burdens after LT, (2) added caregiving labor that compounds the financial burden, (3) dependency on their social network's generosity for financial and logistical support, and (4) additional support being limited to the perioperative period. Transplant providers reported (1) relying on the pretransplant psychosocial assessment for identifying social risks, (2) discomfort initiating social risk discussions in the post-transplant period, (3) reliance on social workers to address new social risks, and (4) social workers feeling overburdened by quantity and quality of the social work referrals. We identified barriers to providing effective social care in pediatric LT, primarily a lack of comfort in assessing and addressing new social risks in the post-transplant period. Addressing these barriers should enhance social care delivery and improve outcomes for these children.

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.

A retrospective cohort study of socioeconomic deprivation and post-liver transplant survival in adults.

The Area Deprivation Index is a granular measure of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation. The relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and recipient survival following liver transplantation (LT) is unclear. To investigate this, the authors performed a retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent LT at the University of Washington Medical Center from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2020. The primary exposure was a degree of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation as determined by the Area Deprivation Index score. The primary outcome was posttransplant recipient mortality. In a multivariable Cox proportional analysis, LT recipients from high-deprivation areas had a higher risk of mortality than those from low-deprivation areas (HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.03-3.18, p =0.04). Notably, the difference in mortality between area deprivation groups did not become statistically significant until 6 years after transplantation. In summary, LT recipients experiencing high socioeconomic deprivation tended to have worse posttransplant survival. Further research is needed to elucidate the extent to which neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation contributes to mortality risk and identify effective measures to improve survival in more socioeconomically disadvantaged LT recipients.

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health measures independently predict receipt of living donor liver transplantation in the United States.

Disparities exist in the access to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States. However, the association of neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDoH) on the receipt of LDLT is not well-established. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2021 at centers performing LDLT using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, which was linked through patients' ZIP code to a set of 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures from different data sources. Temporal trends and center differences in neighborhood Social Deprivation Index (SDI), a validated scale of socioeconomic deprivation ranging from 0 to 100 (0=least disadvantaged), were assessed by transplant type. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association of increasing SDI on receipt of LDLT [vs. deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT)]. There were 51,721 DDLT and 4026 LDLT recipients at 59 LDLT-performing centers during the study period. Of the 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures studied, the SDI was most different between the 2 transplant types, with LDLT recipients having lower SDI (ie, less socioeconomic disadvantage) than DDLT recipients (median SDI 37 vs. 47; p < 0.001). The median difference in SDI between the LDLT and DDLT groups significantly decreased from 13 in 2005 to 3 in 2021 ( p = 0.003). In the final model, the SDI quintile was independently associated with transplant type ( p < 0.001) with a threshold SDI of ~40, above which increasing SDI was significantly associated with reduced odds of LDLT (vs. reference SDI 1-20). As a neighborhood-level SDoH measure, SDI is useful for evaluating disparities in the context of LDLT. Center outreach efforts that aim to reduce disparities in LDLT could preferentially target US ZIP codes with SDI > 40.

Comparisons between White and Black Patients Hospitalized with Postliver Transplant Complications/Failure.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of race on patients presenting to North American hospitals with postliver transplant complications/failure (PLTCF) has not been studied fully. We compared in-hospital mortality and resource utilization outcomes between White and Black patients hospitalized with PLTCF. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study that evaluated the years 2016 and 2017 from the National Inpatient Sample. Regression analysis was used to determine in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. RESULTS: There were 10,805 hospitalizations for adults with liver transplants who presented with PLTCF. White and Black patients with PLTCF made up 7925 (73.3%) hospitalizations from this population. Among this group, 6480 were White (81.7%) and 1445 were Black (18.2%). Blacks were younger than Whites (mean age ± standard error of the mean: 46.8 ± 1.1 vs 53.6 ± 0.39 years, P < 0.01). Blacks were more likely to be female (53.9% vs 37.4%, P < 0.01). Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were not significantly different (scores ≥3: 46.7% vs 44.2%, P = 0.83). Blacks had significantly higher odds for in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 2.9, confidence interval [CI] 1.4-6.1; P < 0.01). Hospital charges were higher for Blacks compared with Whites (adjusted mean difference $48,432; 95% CI $2708-$94,157, P = 0.03). Blacks had significantly longer lengths of hospital stays (adjusted mean difference 3.1 days, 95% CI 1.1-5.1, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with White patients hospitalized for PLTCF, Black patients had higher in-hospital mortality and resource use. Investigation into causes leading to this health disparity is needed to improve in-hospital outcomes.

Racial/ethnic disparities in wait-list outcomes are only partly explained by socioeconomic deprivation among children awaiting liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Racial/ethnic minority children have worse liver transplant (LT) outcomes. We evaluated whether neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation affected associations between race/ethnicity and wait-list mortality. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We included children (age <18) listed 2005-2015 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We categorized patients as non-Hispanic White, Black, Hispanic, and other. We matched patient ZIP codes to a neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation index (range, 0-1; higher values indicate worse deprivation). Primary outcomes were wait-list mortality, defined as death/delisting for too sick, and receipt of living donor liver transplant (LDLT). Competing risk analyses modeled the association between race/ethnicity and wait-list mortality, with deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) and LDLT as competing risks, and race/ethnicity and LDLT, with wait-list mortality and DDLT as competing risks. Of 7716 children, 17% and 24% identified as Black and Hispanic, respectively. Compared to White children, Black and Hispanic children had increased unadjusted hazard of wait-list mortality (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.44; 95% CI, 1.18, 1.75 and sHR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.25, 1.76, respectively). After adjusting for neighborhood deprivation, insurance, and listing laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease/Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease, Black and Hispanic children did not have increased hazard of wait-list mortality (sHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91, 1.39 and sHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00, 1.47, respectively). Similarly, Black and Hispanic children had a decreased likelihood of LDLT (sHR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45, 0.75 and sHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49, 0.75, respectively). Adjustment attenuated the effect of Black and Hispanic race/ethnicity on likelihood of LDLT (sHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.60, 1.02 and sHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70, 1.11, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Household and neighborhood socioeconomic factors and disease severity at wait-list entry help explain racial/ethnic disparities for children awaiting transplant. A nuanced understanding of how social adversity contributes to wait-list outcomes may inform strategies to improve outcomes.

Impact of MELD 30-allocation policy on liver transplant outcomes in Italy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In Italy, since August 2014, liver transplant (LT) candidates with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores ≥30 receive national allocation priority. This multicenter cohort study aims to evaluate time on the waiting list, dropout rate, and graft survival before and after introducing the macro-area sharing policy. METHODS: A total of 4,238 patients registered from 2010 to 2018 were enrolled and categorized into an ERA-1 Group (n = 2,013; before August 2014) and an ERA-2 Group (n = 2,225; during and after August 2014). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of receiving a LT or death between the two eras. The Fine-Gray model was used to estimate the HR for dropout from the waiting list and graft loss, considering death as a competing risk event. A Fine-Gray model was also used to estimate risk factors of graft loss. RESULTS: Patients with MELD ≥30 had a lower median time on the waiting list (4 vs.12 days, p <0.001) and a higher probability of being transplanted (HR 2.27; 95% CI 1.78-2.90; p = 0.001) in ERA-2 compared to ERA-1. The subgroup analysis on 3,515 LTs confirmed ERA-2 (odds ratio 0.56; 95% CI 0.46-0.68; p = 0.001) as a protective factor for better graft survival rate. The protective variables for lower dropouts on the waiting list were: ERA-2, high-volume centers, no competition centers, male recipients, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The protective variables for graft loss were high-volume center and ERA-2, while MELD ≥30 remained related to a higher risk of graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: The national MELD ≥30 priority allocation was associated with improved patient outcomes, although MELD ≥30 was associated with a higher risk of graft loss. Transplant center volumes and competition among centers may have a role in recipient prioritization and outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04530240 LAY SUMMARY: Italy introduced a new policy in 2014 to give national allocation priority to patients with a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score ≥30 (i.e. very sick patients). This policy has led to more liver transplants, fewer dropouts, and shorter waiting times for patients with MELD ≥30. However, a higher risk of graft loss still burdens these cases. Transplant center volumes and competition among centers may have a role in recipient prioritization and outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Liver Transplantation and Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease in the USA.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The surge in unhealthy alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic may have detrimental effects on the rising burden of alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) on liver transplantation (LT) in the USA. We evaluated the effect of the pandemic on temporal trends for LT including ALD. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Using data from United Network for Organ Sharing, we analyzed wait-list outcomes in the USA through March 1, 2021. In a short-period analysis, patients listed or transplanted between June 1, 2019, and February 29, 2020, were defined as the "pre-COVID" era, and after April 1, 2020, were defined as the "COVID" era. Interrupted time-series analyses using monthly count data from 2016-2020 were constructed to evaluate the rate change for listing and LT before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rates for listings (P = 0.19) and LT (P = 0.14) were unchanged during the pandemic despite a significant reduction in the monthly listing rates for HCV (-21.69%, P < 0.001) and NASH (-13.18%; P < 0.001). There was a significant increase in ALD listing (+7.26%; P < 0.001) and LT (10.67%; P < 0.001) during the pandemic. In the COVID era, ALD (40.1%) accounted for more listings than those due to HCV (12.4%) and NASH (23.4%) combined. The greatest increase in ALD occurred in young adults (+33%) and patients with severe alcohol-associated hepatitis (+50%). Patients with ALD presented with a higher acuity of illness, with 30.8% of listings and 44.8% of LT having a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium score ≥30. CONCLUSIONS: Since the start of COVID-19 pandemic, ALD has become the most common indication for listing and the fastest increasing cause for LT. Collective efforts are urgently needed to stem the rising tide of ALD on health care resources.

Limitations of current liver donor allocation systems and the impact of newer indications for liver transplantation.

Liver transplantation represents a life-saving treatment for patients with decompensated cirrhosis, a severe condition associated with a high risk of waiting list mortality. When decompensation occurs rapidly in the presence of extrahepatic organ failures, the condition is called acute-on-chronic liver failure, which is associated with an even higher risk of death, though liver transplantation can also markedly improve survival in affected patients. However, there are still gaps in our understanding of how to optimise prioritisation and organ allocation, as well as survival among patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (both before and after transplant). Moreover, it is urgent to address inequalities in access to liver transplantation in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Several controversies still exist regarding gender and regional disparities, as well as the use of suboptimal donor grafts. In this review, we aim to provide a critical perspective on the role of liver transplantation in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and address areas of ongoing uncertainty.

Racial Disparity in Liver Transplantation Listing.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated disparities in transplantation for women, non-Caucasians, the uninsured or publicly insured, and rural populations. We sought to correlate transplant center characteristics with patient access to the waiting list and liver transplantation. We hypothesized that liver transplant centers vary greatly in providing equitable access to the waiting list and liver transplantation. STUDY DESIGN: Center-specific, adult, deceased-donor liver transplant and waitlist data for the years 2013 to 2018 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing. Waitlist race/ethnicity distributions from liver transplant centers performing ≥ 250 transplants over this period (n = 109) were compared with those of their donor service area, as calculated from 5-year US Census Bureau estimates of 2017. Center-specific characteristics correlating with disparities were analyzed using a linear regression model with a log transformed outcome. RESULTS: Non-Hispanic Blacks (NHBs) are under-represented in liver transplant listing compared with center donation service area (88/109, 81%), whereas, non-Hispanic Whites are over-represented (65/109, 58%) (p < 0.0001). Hispanics were also under-represented on the waitlist at the majority of transplant centers (68/109, 62%) (p = 0.02). Although the racial/ethnic distribution of transplantation is more reflective of the waitlist, there is a higher than expected rate of transplantation for NHBs compared to the waitlist. Predictors of disparity in listing include percentage of transplant recipients at the center who had private insurance, racial composition of the donation service area, and the distance recipients had to travel for transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Non-Hispanic Blacks are listed for liver transplantation less than would be expected. Once listed, however, racial disparities in transplantation are greatly diminished. Improvements in access to adequate health insurance appear to be essential to diminishing disparities in access to this life-saving care.

Waitlist mortality and transplant free survival in Hispanic patients listed for liver transplant using the UNOS database.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: After the implementation of "Share 35", several concerns arose such as the potential to increase travel distance, costs, and decreased liver availability. These elements could have a negative impact on waitlist outcomes among ethnic minorities. We aimed to determine waitlist survival after the implementation of the Share 35 policy in non-Hispanic white and Hispanic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics who were listed for liver transplantation from June 18th, 2013 to June 18, 2018. We excluded pediatric patients, patients with acute hepatic necrosis, re-transplants, multiorgan transplant, living donor, and exception cases. The primary outcome was death or removal from the waitlist due to clinical deterioration. We used competing risk analysis to compare waitlist survival between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 23,340 non-Hispanic whites and 4938 Hispanics listed for transplant. On competing risk analysis, Hispanic patients had a higher risk of being removed from the waitlist for death or clinical deterioration compared to their counterpart (SHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.13-1.34; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: After the implementation of Share 35, disparities are still present and continue to negatively impact outcomes in minority populations especially Hispanic patients.

Persistent sex disparity in liver transplantation rates.

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated that there are sex disparities in the rate of liver transplantation. However, little is known statistically about whether this disparity is caused by liver compartment size, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease adjustments, or regional differences. METHODS: We use retrospective data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Treatment Analysis and Research data files for liver transplantation from 1995 through 2012. The final sample consists of 150,149 patients. These data contain information on all individuals who registered for the liver transplant waiting list as well as updated outcome data. Linear probability and logistic regression models were both used. RESULTS: Women were 4.8 percentage points less likely to receive a transplant. Adjustment for race, weight, body mass index, region, education, and other characteristics attenuated the sex difference by roughly 19% (from 4.8 to 3.9 percentage points). The disparity was consistent across the 11 United Network for Organ Sharing allocation regions. Comparing the heaviest women to the lightest men, the disparity flipped. Pairwise comparisons between men and women of various sizes suggest that disparities in favor of men increase with the ratio of male-to-female size. CONCLUSION: Our results document persistent sex disparity in liver transplantation, only 19% of which is explained by size differentials between men and women. Differences in rates of transplantation are increasing in the ratio of male-to-female height and weight, suggesting that some of the disparity is explained by differences in liver compartment size.

Increased access to liver transplantation for patients with acute on chronic liver failure after implementation of Share 35 Rule: An analysis from the UNOS database.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF), leads to high mortality. These patients are at risk of being delisted for liver transplantation (LT). Emerging data shows 1y post-transplant survival of 80-92%. The Share 35 (S35) policy was implemented to prioritize patients with MELD ≥35 on the LT waitlist. Our aim was to compare the LT outcomes of ACLF patients as a result of S35. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the UNOS scientific registry were used to classify ACLF patients using the NACSELD criteria. For the analyses, data were divided into two eras; 2 years before S35 (Era 1) and 2 years after S35 (Era 2). Waitlist status was classified into categories: Transplanted, Death or Too Sick to Transplant and Still Waiting/Other. LT cumulative incidence between the populations in the eras was calculated using Fine and Gray's method. A proportional hazards model was used to investigate the era effect on cumulative incidence of LT. RESULTS: 46,861 patients were reviewed, of which 817 had ACLF. 366 patients (mean MELD: 37.1) were identified in Era 1 and 451 patients (mean MELD: 37.3) in Era 2. We found that ACLF patients were more likely to receive a liver transplant in Era 2 (p=0.0074). In both eras, transplanted patients had a significantly higher survival than those who were not transplanted (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that S35 improved LT rate for ACLF suggesting that there should be broader recognition of ACLF and early transplantation should be pursued.

Multicenter validation of the liver graft assessment following transplantation (L-GrAFT) score for assessment of early allograft dysfunction.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) following liver transplantation (LT) negatively impacts graft and patient outcomes. Previously we reported that the liver graft assessment following transplantation (L-GrAFT7) risk score was superior to binary EAD or the model for early allograft function (MEAF) score for estimating 3-month graft failure-free survival in a single-center derivation cohort. Herein, we sought to externally validate L-GrAFT7, and compare its prognostic performance to EAD and MEAF. METHODS: Accuracies of L-GrAFT7, EAD, and MEAF were compared in a 3-center US validation cohort (n = 3,201), and a Consortium for Organ Preservation in Europe (COPE) normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) trial cohort (n = 222); characteristics were compared to assess generalizability. RESULTS: Compared to the derivation cohort, patients in the validation and NMP trial cohort had lower recipient median MELD scores; were less likely to require pretransplant hospitalization, renal replacement therapy or mechanical ventilation; and had superior 1-year overall (90% and 95% vs. 84%) and graft failure-free (88% and 93% vs. 81%) survival, with a lower incidence of 3-month graft failure (7.4% and 4.0% vs. 11.1%; p <0.001 for all comparisons). Despite significant differences in cohort characteristics, L-GrAFT7 maintained an excellent validation AUROC of 0.78, significantly superior to binary EAD (AUROC 0.68, p = 0.001) and MEAF scores (AUROC 0.72, p <0.001). In post hoc analysis of the COPE NMP trial, the highest tertile of L-GrAFT7 was significantly associated with time to liver allograft (hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, p = 0.016), Clavien ≥IIIB (HR 2.60, p = 0.034) and ≥IVa (HR 4.99, p = 0.011) complications; post-LT length of hospitalization (p = 0.002); and renal replacement therapy (odds ratio 3.62, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: We have validated the L-GrAFT7 risk score as a generalizable, highly accurate, individualized risk assessment of 3-month liver allograft failure that is superior to existing scores. L-GrAFT7 may standardize grading of early hepatic allograft function and serve as a clinical endpoint in translational studies (www.lgraft.com). LAY SUMMARY: Early allograft dysfunction negatively affects outcomes following liver transplantation. In independent multicenter US and European cohorts totaling 3,423 patients undergoing liver transplantation, the liver graft assessment following transplantation (L-GrAFT) risk score is validated as a superior measure of early allograft function that accurately discriminates 3-month graft failure-free survival and post-liver transplantation complications.

The Association Between Alcoholic Liver Disease and Alcohol Tax.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of alcoholic liver disease (ALD) has increased, causing it to become a primary indication for liver transplantation in the United States. We hypothesized an association between alcohol taxation and prevalence of ALD. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of united network for organ sharing (UNOS) waitlist additions for liver transplantation between January 2007 and December 2016. We also analyzed the average excise tax (2007-2016) for beer, wine, and spirits in listing states of liver transplant waitlist additions (LTWA). RESULTS: There were 104 805 adult UNOS LTWA with assigned diagnoses, an annual increase from 22% to 28%. There were 24 316 LTWA with ALD diagnosis. The mean value for beer tax was significantly lower for ALD patients than for non-ALD patients across all age groups (P < .001). The analysis demonstrated significantly more ALD in waitlisted patients 35-54 years of age (30%), compared with 18-34 years (10%) and ≥55 years (20%), P < .001. The data confirmed significantly more ALD Medicaid patients in the 35-54 year age group (28%) compared with other age groups, P < .001. DISCUSSION: Our research demonstrated an association between lower beer tax and higher ALD prevalence across all age groups. We found a larger percentage of middle-aged (35-54 years) Medicaid patients listed with ALD. These findings raise the need for further investigation of a potential public health concern for an association between ALD and beer tax, especially for middle-aged patients of lower socioeconomic status.