Financial toxicity in living donor liver transplantation: A call to action for financial neutrality.

After 2 decades of limited growth, living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been increasingly accepted as a promising solution to the growing organ shortage in the US. With experience, LDLT offers superior graft and patient survival with low rates of rejection. However, not all waitlisted patients have equal access to LDLT, with financial toxicity representing a substantial barrier. Potential living liver donors face indirect, direct, and opportunity costs associated with donation as well as insurance-based discrimination and variable employer leave policies. There are multiple potential national, local, and patient-centered solutions to address some of the cost-related issues associated with living LDLT. These include standardization of employer leave policies, creation of federal and state-led tax relief programs, optimization of National Living Donor Assistance Center use, engagement of independent living donor advocates, creation of financial toolkits, and encouragement of recipient or donor-led fundraising. In this piece, members of the North American Living Liver Donation Group, a consortium of 37 LDLT programs, explore these financial challenges and discuss solutions to achieve financial neutrality, where individuals can donate free from financial constraints or gains. As a community, it is imperative that we confront factors driving financial toxicity to improve equity and access to LDLT.

Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion associated with increased liver transplant waitlist access without worsening mortality.

It is unclear what impact Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion has had on the liver transplantation (LT) waitlist. We aimed to assess associations between ACA Medicaid expansion and LT waitlist outcomes. The United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research (UNOS STAR) database was queried for patients listed for LT between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018. Our primary outcome was waitlist mortality and our secondary outcomes included Medicaid use on the LT waitlist and transplant rate. States were divided into groups based on their expansion status and the study period was divided into 2 time intervals-pre-expansion and post-expansion. Difference-in-difference (DiD) models were created to assess the impacts of expansion on each of the outcomes and for racial/ethnic and sex groups. In total, 56,414 patients from expansion states and 32,447 patients from nonexpansion states were included. Three-year waitlist mortality decreased at a similar rate in both cohorts [DiD estimate: 0.1, (95% CI, -1.1, -1.4), p = 0.838], but Medicaid use increased [DiD estimate: +7.7, (95% CI, 6.7, 8.7), p < 0.001] to a greater degree in expansion states after expansion than nonexpansion states. Between the 2 time intervals, Medicaid use on the LT waitlist increased from 19.4% to 26.1% in expansion states but decreased from 13.4% to 12.1% in nonexpansion states. In patients on Medicaid, there was a slight increase in the 3-year transplant rate associated with Medicaid expansion [DiD estimate +5.0, (95% CI, 1.8, 8.3), p = 0.002], which may in part be explained by differences in patient characteristics. Medicaid expansion was associated with increased Medicaid use on the LT waitlist without worsening overall waitlist mortality or transplant rate, suggesting that lenient and widespread public health insurance may increase access to the LT waitlist without adversely affecting outcomes.

Financial burden following adult liver transplantation is common and associated with adverse recipient outcomes.

The financial impact of liver transplantation has been underexplored. We aimed to identify associations between high financial burden (≥10% annual income spent on out-of-pocket medical costs) and work productivity, financial distress (coping behaviors in response to the financial burden), and financial toxicity (health-related quality of life, HRQOL) among adult recipients of liver transplant. Between June 2021 and May 2022, we surveyed 207 adult recipients of liver transplant across 5 US transplant centers. Financial burden and distress were measured by 25 items adapted from national surveys of cancer survivors. Participants also completed the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment and EQ-5D-5L HRQOL questionnaires. In total, 23% of recipients reported high financial burden which was significantly associated with higher daily activity impairment (32.9% vs. 23.3%, p =0.048). In adjusted analyses, the high financial burden was significantly and independently associated with delayed or foregone medical care (adjusted odds ratio, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.85-8.42) and being unable to afford basic necessities (adjusted odds ratio, 5.12; 95% CI: 1.61-16.37). Recipients experiencing high financial burden had significantly lower self-reported HRQOL as measured by the EQ-5D-5L compared to recipients with low financial burden (67.8 vs. 76.1, p =0.008) and an age-matched and sex-matched US general population (67.8 vs. 79.1, p <0.001). In this multicenter cohort study, nearly 1 in 4 adult recipients of liver transplant experienced a high financial burden, which was significantly associated with delayed or foregone medical care and lower self-reported HRQOL. These findings underscore the need to evaluate and address the financial burden in this population before and after transplantation.

Prognostic Factors in Alcohol-associated Liver Disease Patients Presenting With First Evidence of Ascites.

GOALS: To identify factors associated with transplantation and death in alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) patients presenting with first evidence of ascites. BACKGROUND: Ascites development is a poor prognostic sign for patients with cirrhosis. Among ALD patients, the baseline factors at time of ascites development that are associated with eventual transplantation or death are currently unknown. STUDY: Adult patients with ascites in the "Evaluating Alcohol Use in Alcohol-related Liver Disease Prospective Cohort Study" (NCT03267069 clinicaltrials.gov) were identified from 2016 to 2020. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory factors at initial ascites presentation were identified as potential predictors of transplant and death as competing risks. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients were identified. Median (interquartile range) follow-up time was 2.00 years (0.87 to 3.85). By last follow-up, 34/96 patients had been transplanted (35.4%) and 11/96 had died (11.4%). Prognostic factors for transplant included age per decade [hazard ratio (HR): 0.52 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.83)], employed status [HR: 0.35 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.90)], and sodium [HR: 0.94 (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.99)], whereas prognostic factors for death were body mass index [HR: 1.11 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.22)], Charlson index [HR: 2.14 [95% CI, 1.13 to 4.08]), Maddrey Discriminant Function >32 (HR: 5.88 (95% CI, 1.18, 29.39)], aspartate aminotransferase [HR: 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98 to 0.997)], and a prior 12-month abstinence period [HR: 5.53 (95% CI, 1.10 to 27.83)], adjusted for age, sex, and ALD subcategory. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors at initial ascites presentation are associated with increased risk of transplantation or death and validation in larger cohorts will allow for improved risk stratification for ALD patients.

Post-liver transplantation patient experience.

Given improvements in post-transplant patient and graft survival, there is a growing need to focus on patient experience and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Though liver transplantation can be life-saving, it can also be associated with significant morbidity and complications. Patient HRQOL improves after transplantation, but it may not improve to that of age-matched cohorts. Understanding patient experience and the factors that contribute to it, including physical and psychological health, immunosuppression and medication adherence, return to employment or school, financial burden, and expectations, helps when thinking creatively about potential interventions to improve HRQOL.

Understanding Prognosis: Discrepancy in Prognosis Estimates Between Patients With Cirrhosis and their Hepatologists.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients require a clear understanding of their prognosis to make informed decisions about their care. The aim of this study was to compare the perceptions of prognosis and transplant candidacy between patients with cirrhosis and their hepatologists. METHODS: Patients with cirrhosis and their hepatologists were prospectively recruited at an urban liver transplant center. Patients and hepatologists were asked about transplant candidacy and about how many years patients would live with and without a liver transplant. Agreement between patients and hepatologists was assessed with the weighted kappa statistic. Associations between patient/hepatologists' prognostic estimates and those predicted by patients' Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium (MELD-Na) score were estimated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Seventy patients and 6 hepatologists were enrolled in the study. Patients were predominantly male (61.4%) and white (68.6%), with a mean MELD-Na score of 19 ± 9. There was no-slight agreement between patients and hepatologists regarding survival without and with a liver transplant (κ = 0.1 and 0.2, respectively), with patients more optimistic than their hepatologists. There was greater agreement between patients and hepatologists about transplant candidacy (κ = 0.6). There was a negligible association between MELD-Na and patient estimates (r = -0.24, P = .05) but a moderate association between MELD-Na and hepatologist estimates (r = -0.51, P < .001), with higher MELD-Na scores associated with lower predicted survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cirrhosis are more optimistic and less accurate in their predictions of survival compared with hepatologists, although they are more realistic about their transplant candidacy. Aligning patient and provider expectations may increase the likelihood that patients receive value-concordant care.

Black patients and women have reduced access to liver transplantation for alcohol-associated liver disease.

Although sex and racial disparities for liver transplantation (LT) are known, it is unclear if disparities exist for patients with alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD). We aimed to compare sex and racial/ethnic differences in mortality, LT listing, and LT rates in patients with and without ALD. We analyzed patients who were listed for LT and/or died of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) between 2014 and 2018 using the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging OnLine Data for Epidemiologic Research databases, respectively. Patients with ALD were compared with non-ALD patients. Our primary outcome was the ratio of listings for LT to deaths from ESLD-listing-to-death ratio (LDR)-a previously derived metric to assess access to the waiting list. Differences between sex and race/ethnicity were analyzed with chi-square tests and multivariable linear regression. There were 65,588 deaths and 16,133 listings for ALD compared with 75,020 deaths and 40,194 listings for non-ALD. LDR was lower for ALD (0.25 vs. 0.54; p < 0.001). Black patients had the lowest LDR in both ALD and non-ALD (0.13 and 0.39 for Black patients vs. 0.26 and 0.54 for White patients; p < 0.001). Women with ALD had a lower LDR (0.21 vs. 0.26; p < 0.001), whereas women without ALD had higher LDR than men (0.69 vs. 0.47; p < 0.001). There were significant negative interactions between women and ALD in LDR and the transplant-to-death ratio. Multivariable analysis and a sensitivity analysis, with more liberal definitions of ALD and non-ALD, confirmed these findings. Patients with ALD have lower access to LT. Among those with ALD, female and Black patients have the lowest access. New initiatives are needed to eliminate these inequities.

National survey of second opinions for hospitalized patients in need of liver transplantation.

Decisions about patient candidacy for liver transplant (LT) can mean the difference between life and death. We surveyed LT centers across the United States to assess their perceptions of and barriers to second-opinion referrals for inpatients declined for transplant. The medical and surgical directors of 100 unique US LT programs that had done >20 LTs in 2021 were surveyed with a 33-item questionnaire including both multiple-choice and free-response questions. The response rate was 60% (60 LT centers) and included 28 larger-volume ( ≥100 LTs in 2021) and 32 smaller-volume (<100 LTs in 2021) programs. The top 3 reasons for inpatient denial for LT included lack of social support (21%), physical frailty (20%), and inadequate remission duration from alcohol use (11%). Twenty-five percent of the programs reported "frequently" facilitating a second opinion for a declined inpatient, 52% of the programs reported "sometimes" doing so, and 7% of the programs reported never doing so. One hundred percent of the programs reported that they receive referrals for second opinions. Twenty-five percent of the programs reported transplanting these referrals frequently (over 20% of the time). Neither program size nor program location statistically impacted the findings. When asked if centers would be in favor of standardizing the evaluation process, 38% of centers would be in favor, 39% would be opposed, and 23% were unsure. The practices and perceptions of second opinions for hospitalized patients evaluated for LT varied widely across the United States. Opportunities exist to improve equity in LT but must consider maintaining individual program autonomy.

Practice patterns of the medical evaluation of living liver donors in the United States.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can help address the growing organ shortage in the United States, yet little is known about the current practice patterns in the medical evaluation of living liver donors. We conducted a 131-question survey of all 53 active LDLT transplant programs in the United States to assess current LDLT practices. The response rate was 100%. Donor acceptance rate was 0.33 with an interquartile range of 0.33-0.54 across all centers. Areas of high intercenter agreement included minimum age cutoff of 18 years (73.6%) and the exclusion of those with greater than Class 1 obesity (body mass index, 30.0-34.9 m/kg 2 ) (88.4%). Diabetes mellitus was not an absolute exclusion at most centers (61.5%). Selective liver biopsies were performed for steatosis or iron overload on imaging (67.9% and 62.3%, respectively) or for elevated liver enzymes (60.4%). Steatohepatitis is considered an exclusion at most centers (84.9%). The most common hypercoagulable tests performed were factor V Leiden (FVL) (88.5%), protein C (73.1%), protein S (71.2%), antithrombin III (71.2%) and prothrombin gene mutation (65.4%). At 41.5% of centers, donors were allowed to proceed with donation with FVL heterozygote status. Most programs discontinue oral contraceptive pills at least 28 days prior to surgery. At most centers, the need for cardiovascular ischemic risk testing is based on age (73.6%) and the presence of one or more cardiac risk factors (68.0%). Defining areas of practice consensus and variation underscores the need for data generation to develop evidence-based guidance for the evaluation and risk assessment of living liver donors.

Rural-Urban Disparities in Mortality From Cirrhosis in the United States From 1999 to 2019.

INTRODUCTION: We examined trends in rural-urban cirrhosis mortality disparities in the United States from decedents aged 25 years and older from 1999 to 2019. METHODS: We calculated cirrhosis age-adjusted mortality rates across 3 population categories: large metropolitan (≥1 million), medium/small metropolitan (50,000-999,999), and rural (<50,000) areas using the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research database. RESULTS: We found an almost 20-fold increase in the absolute difference in cirrhosis age-adjusted mortality rates between rural and large metropolitan areas between 1999 and 2019. DISCUSSION: Future research is needed to investigate reasons for this widening rural-urban disparity to improve rural cirrhosis care.

Practices and Perceptions of Living Donor Liver Transplantation, Nondirected Donation, and Liver Paired Exchange: A National Survey.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains underutilized in the United States. Barriers to LDLT and acceptance of nondirected living liver donation (ND-LLD) and liver paired exchange (LPE) are unclear. The medical and surgical directors of 99 unique transplantation programs (56 LDLT programs and 43 non-LDLT programs) were surveyed to gain insight into perceptions and practices of LDLT and types of donors utilized. The response rate was 84%. Most LDLT programs (65%) reported performing ND-LLD, though opinions regarding allocation and the need for additional evaluation of these donors were mixed. Only a minority of LDLT programs reported performing LPE (12%), but most programs (78%) would be open to cross-institutional LPE barring logistical barriers. There were significant differences between LDLT and non-LDLT programs with regard to perceived barriers to LDLT, with LDLT programs reporting mainly donor and recipient factors and non-LDLT programs reporting institutional factors (P < 0.001). Understanding perceptions and practices of LDLT, ND-LLD, and LPE is important to aid in the growth of LDLT.

Black Patients Have Unequal Access to Listing for Liver Transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score may have eliminated racial disparities on the waitlist for liver transplantation (LT), but disparities prior to waitlist placement have not been adequately quantified. We aimed to analyze differences in patients who are listed for LT, undergo transplantation, and die from end-stage liver disease (ESLD), stratified by state and race/ethnicity. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We analyzed two databases retrospectively, the Center for Disease Control Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) and the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) databases, from 2014 to 2018. We included patients aged 25-64 years who had a primary cause of death of ESLD and were listed for transplant in the CDC WONDER or UNOS database. Our primary outcome was the ratio of listing for LT to death from ESLD-listing to death ratio (LDR). Our secondary outcome was the transplant to listing and transplant to death ratios. Chi-squared and multivariable linear regression evaluated for differences between races/ethnicities. There were 135,367 patients who died of ESLD, 54,734 patients who were listed for transplant, and 26,571 who underwent transplant. Patients were mostly male and White. The national LDR was 0.40, significantly lowest in Black patients (0.30), P < 0.001. The national transplant to listing ratio was 0.48, highest in Black patients (0.53), P < 0.01. The national transplant to death ratio was 0.20, lowest in Black patients (0.16), P < 0.001. States that had an above-mean LDR had a lower transplant to listing ratio but a higher transplant to death ratio. Multivariable analysis confirmed that Black race is significantly associated with a lower LDR and transplant to death ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients face a disparity in access to LT due to low listing rates for transplant relative to deaths from ESLD.

Simultaneous EUS-guided portosystemic pressure measurement and liver biopsy sampling correlate with clinically meaningful outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The measurement of the portosystemic pressure gradient (PSG) in patients with advanced liver disease is helpful to assess the severity of portal hypertension (PH) and predict adverse clinical outcomes. EUS-guided PSG (EUS-PSG) measurement is a novel tool to assess PSG in all patients with advanced liver disease. We sought to assess the safety, feasibility, and technical success of simultaneous EUS-PSG measurement and EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling using a single-center experience. METHODS: Patients with suspected liver disease or cirrhosis were enrolled prospectively from 2020 to 2021. EUS-PSG was measured by calculating the difference between the mean portal pressure and the mean hepatic vein pressure. PH was defined as PSG >5 mm Hg and clinically significant PH as PSG ≥10 mm Hg. The primary outcomes were procedural technical success rate and correlation of EUS-PSG with fibrosis stage obtained from concurrent EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling and the correlation of EUS-PSG with patients' imaging, clinical, and laboratory findings. The secondary outcome was occurrence of procedural adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were included in the study. PSG measurement and EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling were successful in 23 patients (technical success rate of 96%) and 24 patients (100% success), respectively. Analysis revealed a significant association between both PSG and liver stiffness measured on transient elastography (P = .011) and fibrosis-4 score (P = .026). No significant correlation was found between the fibrosis stage on histology and measured PSG (P = .559). One mild AE of abdominal pain was noted. Additionally, EUS-PSG was predictive of clinically evident PH. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous EUS-PSG measurement and EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling were both feasible and safe and correlated with clinically evident PH and noninvasive markers of fibrosis.

Sociodemographic characteristics of living liver donors: Few changes over 20 years.

INTRODUCTION: Although there are well-documented challenges in access to living donor liver transplant (LDLT) among recipients, it is unclear whether living liver donors (LLDs) face similar challenges. METHODS: We analyzed the UNOS Standard Transplant Analysis and Research database, including LLDs ≥ 18 years in the United States from 1/1998 to 12/2018. We compared sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, employment status, BMI, and relationship to recipient) of LLDs across three eras-pre-MELD (1998-2002), MELD (2003-2013), and post-direct acting antivirals (DAA) (2014-2018). We also described sociodemographic characteristics of living donor recipients and waitlisted patients. Chi-squared and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2018, 4756 LDLTs and 99 765 DDLTs were performed. Across the three eras, LLD age did not change significantly (P = .3), but donors were generally young (mean age 37 ± 11). While men comprised most LLDs in the pre-MELD era (55.2%), women surpassed them in the post-DAA era (52.9%), P < .001. In total, White donors comprised 81.5% of total LLDs, while Black and Asian donors were a small minority of total donors (3.7% and 2.5%, respectively). Most donors had at least a college education and were employed. Educational attainment and employment did not significantly change over the study period. CONCLUSION: During the last 20 years, LLDs have remained White, employed, highly educated, and young with increasing numbers of women LLDs. The relative lack of change in the characteristics of donors is likely attributable largely to socioeconomic factors, which should be assessed in future investigation.

Can Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States Reach Its Potential?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a vital tool to address the growing organ shortage in the United States caused by increasing numbers of patients diagnosed with end-stage liver disease. LDLT still only makes up a very small proportion of all liver transplantations performed each year, but there are many innovations taking place in the field that may increase its acceptance among both transplant programs and patients. These innovations include ways to improve access to LDLT, such as through nondirected donation, paired exchange, transplant chains, transplant of ABO-incompatible donors, and transplants in patients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores. Surgical innovations, such as laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy, and portal flow modulation, are also increasingly being implemented. Policy changes, including decreasing the financial burden associated with LDLT, may make it a more feasible option for a wider range of patients. Lastly, center-level behavior, such as ensuring surgical expertise and providing culturally competent education, will help toward LDLT expansion. Although it is challenging to know which of these innovations will take hold, we are already seeing LDLT numbers improve within the past 2 years.

National Trends in Location of Death in Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease.

Despite improvement in the care of patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD), mortality is rising. In the United States, patients are increasingly choosing to die at hospice and home, but data in patients with ESLD are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the trends in location of death in patients with ESLD. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging OnLine Data for Epidemiologic Research from 2003 to 2018. Death location was categorized as hospice, home, inpatient facility, nursing home, or other. Comparisons were made between sex, age, ethnicity, race, region, and other causes of death. Comparisons were also made between rates of change (calculated as annual percent change), proportion of deaths in 2018, and multivariable logistic regression. A total of 535,261 deaths were attributed to ESLD-most were male, non-Hispanic, and White. The proportion of deaths at hospice and home increased during the study period from 0.2% to 10.6% and 20.3% to 25.7%, respectively. Whites had the highest proportion of deaths in hospice and home. In multivariable analysis, elderly patients were more likely to die in hospice or home (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.35), whereas Black patients were less likely (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46-0.73). Compared with other causes of death, ESLD had the second highest proportion of deaths in hospice but lagged behind non-hepatocellular carcinoma malignancy. Deaths in patients with ESLD are increasingly common at hospice and home overall, and although the rates have been increasing among Black patients, they are still less likely to die at hospice or home. Efforts to improve this disparity, promote end-of-life care planning, and enhance access to death at hospice and home are needed.

Medicaid Expansion Association With End-Stage Liver Disease Mortality Depends on Leniency of Medicaid Hepatitis C Virus Coverage.

The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid around the same time that direct-acting antivirals became widely available for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV). However, there is significant variation in Medicaid HCV treatment eligibility criteria between states. We explored the combined effects of Medicaid expansion and leniency of HCV coverage under Medicaid on liver outcomes. We assessed state-level end-stage liver disease (ESLD) mortality rates, listings for liver transplantation (LT), and listing-to-death ratios (LDRs) for adults aged 25 to 64 years using data from United Network for Organ Sharing and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research. States were divided into 4 nonoverlapping groups based on expansion status on January 1, 2014 (expansion versus nonexpansion) and leniency of Medicaid HCV coverage (lenient versus restrictive coverage). Joinpoint regression analysis evaluated the significant changes in slope over time (joinpoints) during the pre-expansion (2009-2013) and postexpansion (2014-2018) time periods. We found significant changes in the annual percent change for population-adjusted ESLD deaths between 2014 and 2015 in all cohorts except for the nonexpansion/restrictive cohort, in which deaths increased at the same annual percent change from 2009 to 2018 (annual percent change of +2.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-3.3]). In the expansion/lenient coverage cohort, deaths increased at an annual percent change of +2.6% (95% CI, 1.8-3.5) until 2014 and then tended to decrease at an annual percent change of -0.4% (95% CI, -1.5 to 0.8). LT listings tended to decrease over time for all cohorts. For LDRs, only the expansion/lenient and expansion/restrictive cohorts had statistically significant joinpoints. Improvements in ESLD mortality and LDRs were associated with both Medicaid expansion and leniency of HCV coverage under Medicaid. These findings suggest the importance of implementing more lenient and widespread public health insurance to improve liver disease outcomes, including mortality.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Matched Case-Control Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although current literature has addressed gastrointestinal presentations including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abnormal liver chemistries, and hyperlipasemia as possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) manifestations, the risk and type of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in this population is not well characterized. METHODS: This is a matched case-control (1:2) study with 41 cases of GIB (31 upper and 10 lower) in patients with COVID-19 and 82 matched controls of patients with COVID-19 without GIB. The primary objective was to characterize bleeding etiologies, and our secondary aim was to discuss outcomes and therapeutic approaches. RESULTS: There was no difference in the presenting symptoms of the cases and controls, and no difference in severity of COVID-19 manifestations (P > 0.05) was observed. Ten (32%) patients with upper GIB underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy and 5 (50%) patients with lower GIBs underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. The most common upper and lower GIB etiologies were gastric or duodenal ulcers (80%) and rectal ulcers related to rectal tubes (60%), respectively. Four of the esophagogastroduodenoscopies resulted in therapeutic interventions, and the 3 patients with rectal ulcers were referred to colorectal surgery for rectal packing. Successful hemostasis was achieved in all 7 cases that required interventions. Transfusion requirements between patients who underwent endoscopic therapy and those who were conservatively managed were not significantly different. Anticoagulation and rectal tube usage trended toward being a risk factor for GIB, although it did not reach statistical significance. DISCUSSION: In COVID-19 patients with GIB, compared with matched controls of COVID-19 patients without GIB, there seemed to be no difference in initial presenting symptoms. Of those with upper and lower GIB, the most common etiology was peptic ulcer disease and rectal ulcers from rectal tubes, respectively. Conservative management seems to be a reasonable initial approach in managing these complex cases, but larger studies are needed to guide management.