Access to technology to support telehealth in areas without specialty care for liver disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Telehealth may be a successful strategy to increase access to specialty care for liver disease, but whether the areas with low access to care and a high burden of liver-related mortality have the necessary technology access to support a video-based telehealth strategy to expand access to care is unknown. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Access to liver disease specialty care was defined at the county level as <160.9 km (100 miles) from a liver transplant (LT) center or presence of local gastroenterology (GI). Liver-related mortality rates were compared by access to care, and access to technology was compared by degree of access to care and burden of liver-related mortality. Counties with low access to liver disease specialty care had higher rates of mortality from liver disease, and this was highest in areas both >160.9 km from an LT center and without local GI. These counties were more rural, had higher poverty, and had decreased access to devices and internet at broadband speeds. Technology access was lowest in areas with low access to care and the highest burden of liver-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Areas with poor access to liver disease specialty care have a greater burden of liver-related mortality, and many of their residents lack access to technology. Therefore, a telehealth strategy based solely on patient device ownership and internet access will exclude a large proportion of individuals in the areas of highest need. Further work should be done at the local and state levels to design optimal strategies to reach their populations of need.

Characterization of social determinants of health of a liver transplant referral population.

Disparities exist in referral and access to the liver transplant (LT) waitlist, and social determinants of health (SDOH) are increasingly recognized as important factors driving health inequities, including in LT. The SDOH of potential transplant candidates is therefore important to characterize when designing targeted interventions to promote equity in access to LT. Yet, it is uncertain how a transplant center should approach this issue, characterize SDOH, identify disparities, and use these data to inform interventions. We performed a retrospective study of referrals for first-time, single-organ LT to our center from 2016 to 2020. Addresses were geoprocessed and mapped to the corresponding county, census tract, and census block group to assess their geospatial distribution, identify potential disparities in referrals, and characterize their communities across multiple domains of SDOH to identify potential barriers to evaluation and selection. We identified variability in referral patterns and areas with disproportionately low referrals, including counties in the highest quartile of liver disease mortality (9%) and neighborhoods in the highest quintile of socioeconomic deprivation (17%) and quartile of poverty (21%). Black individuals were also under-represented compared with expected state demographics (12% vs. 18%). Among the referral population, several potential barriers to evaluation and selection for LT were identified, including poverty, educational attainment, access to healthy food, and access to technology. This approach to the characterization of a transplant center's referral population by geographic location and associated SDOH demonstrates a model for identifying disparities in a referral population and potential barriers to evaluation that can be used to inform targeted interventions for disparities in LT access.

Addressing Social Determinants of Liver Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: A Call to Action.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed healthcare inequities in the USA and highlighted the importance of social conditions in shaping the health of persons. In the field of hepatology, social determinants of health (SDOH) are closely linked to disparities in liver disease prevalence, outcomes, and access to treatment. The economic disruption and physical distancing policies brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic have further exacerbated these disparities, and may have long-lasting health consequences for marginalized patients with chronic liver disease. There are several ways that hepatology providers can bridge the gap in health equity through addressing SDOH, extending from the individual to the community and societal levels. Interventions at the individual level include implementation of systematic screening for social barriers in our hepatology practices to identify gaps in the care cascade. At the community and societal levels, interventions include creating collaborative partnerships with public health workers to expand healthcare access to the community, increasing funding for research investigating the association of SDOH, health disparities, and liver disease, engaging in advocacy to support policy reform that tackles the upstream social determinants, and addressing racism and implicit bias. As hepatology practices adapt to the "new normal," now is the time for us to address our patients' social needs within the context of healthcare delivery and reimagine ways in which to provide care to best serve our most vulnerable patients with liver disease in the COVID-19 era and beyond.

Equitable Access to Liver Transplant: Bridging the Gaps in the Social Determinants of Health.

The COVID-19 pandemic and social justice movement have highlighted the impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) and structural racism in the United States on both access to care and patient outcomes. With the evaluation for liver transplantation being a highly subjective process, there are multiple ways for SDOH to place vulnerable patients at a disadvantage. This policy corner focuses on three different methods to reverse the deleterious effects of SDOH-identify and reduce implicit bias, expand and optimize telemedicine, and improve community outreach.

A scoping review of inequities in access to organ transplant in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Organ transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage organ disease, yet the majority of patients with end-stage organ disease are never placed on the transplant waiting list. Limited access to the transplant waiting list combined with the scarcity of the organ pool result in over 100,000 deaths annually in the United States. Patients face unique barriers to referral and acceptance for organ transplant based on social determinants of health, and patients from disenfranchised groups suffer from disproportionately lower rates of transplantation. Our objective was to review the literature describing disparities in access to organ transplantation based on social determinants of health to integrate the existing knowledge and guide future research. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature reporting disparities in access to heart, lung, liver, pancreas and kidney transplantation based on social determinants of health (race, income, education, geography, insurance status, health literacy and engagement). Included studies were categorized based on steps along the transplant care continuum: referral for transplant, transplant evaluation and selection, living donor identification/evaluation, and waitlist outcomes. RESULTS: Our search generated 16,643 studies, of which 227 were included in our final review. Of these, 34 focused on disparities in referral for transplantation among patients with chronic organ disease, 82 on transplant selection processes, 50 on living donors, and 61 on waitlist management. In total, 15 studies involved the thoracic organs (heart, lung), 209 involved the abdominal organs (kidney, liver, pancreas), and three involved multiple organs. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and patients in lower socioeconomic status groups were less likely to be referred, evaluated, and added to the waiting list for organ transplant. The quality of the data describing these disparities across the transplant literature was variable and overwhelmingly focused on kidney transplant. CONCLUSIONS: This review contextualizes the quality of the data, identifies seminal work by organ, and reports gaps in the literature where future research on disparities in organ transplantation should focus. Future work should investigate the association of social determinants of health with access to the organ transplant waiting list, with a focus on prospective analyses that assess interventions to improve health equity.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Utilization of Telehealth in Patients with Liver Disease During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a rapid expansion of telehealth services in hepatology. However, known racial and socioeconomic disparities in internet access potentially translate into barriers for the use of telehealth, particularly video technology. The specific aim of this study was to determine if disparities in race or socioeconomic status exist among patients utilizing telehealth visits during COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients evaluated in hepatology clinics at Duke University Health System. Visit attempts from a pre-COVID baseline period (January 1, 2020 through February 29, 2020; n = 3328) were compared to COVID period (April 1, 2020 through May 30, 2020; n = 3771). RESULTS: On multinomial regression modeling, increasing age was associated with higher odds of a phone or incomplete visit (canceled, no-show, or rescheduled after May 30,2020), and non-Hispanic Black race was associated with nearly twice the odds of completing a phone visit instead of video visit, compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Compared to private insurance, Medicaid and Medicare were associated with increased odds of completing a telephone visit, and Medicaid was associated with increased odds of incomplete visits. Being single or previously married (separated, divorced, widowed) was associated with increased odds of completing a phone compared to video visit compared to being married. CONCLUSIONS: Though liver telehealth has expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, disparities in overall use and suboptimal use (phone versus video) remain for vulnerable populations including those that are older, non-Hispanic Black, or have Medicare/Medicaid health insurance.

Why do patients with chronic hepatitis C drink alcohol? An examination of pain, depression and drinking motives.

Alcohol consumption in the setting of chronic HCV is associated with accelerated progression towards cirrhosis, increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and higher mortality. This analysis contextualizes how sociodemographic factors, chronic pain and depression relate to the motivations of individuals with chronic HCV to consume alcohol. We conducted a secondary analysis of baseline data from the Hep ART trial of behavioural interventions on alcohol use among patients with HCV. Alcohol consumption was measured using the Drinking Motives Questionnaire and a novel 6-item measure of pain-related drinking motives. Statistical analyses performed included ANOVA for bivariate analyses and multivariable ordinary least-squares linear regression. At study baseline, 181 participants had an average age of 55 years; the majority (66.7%) reported beyond-minor pain; and a third (37%) met criteria for depression; drinking motives were higher for individuals with beyond-minor pain (means 9.9 vs. 4.6, p < .001) and who met criteria for depression (means 10.9 vs. 6.4, p < .001) when using the pain-related drinking motives items. Average pain(coef = 1.0410067141 < .001) was significantly associated with increased motives to drink to relieve pain in the full baseline model specification controlling for all covariates using ordinary at least squares; depression (coef = 7.06; 95% CI 1.32, 12.81; p = .016) was significantly associated with increased non-pain-related motives to drink. From baseline to 3-month follow-up, compared to participants who had mean average pain scores among the sample, motives to drink to relieve pain decreased in participants who had higher average pain scores (coef = -0.30; 95% CI -0.59, -0.01; p = .40). Physical pain and depression are associated with increased motives to consume alcohol. Patients with chronic liver disease should be screened for chronic pain and depression and, if present, referred to pain specialists or co-managed in partnership with pain specialists in hepatology clinics.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Integrated Alcohol Reduction Intervention in Patients With Hepatitis C Infection.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and alcohol use are patient risk factors for accelerated fibrosis progression, yet few randomized controlled trials have tested clinic-based alcohol interventions. APPROACH AND RESULTS: A total of 181 patients with HCV and qualifying alcohol screener scores at three liver center settings were randomly assigned to the following: (1) medical provider-delivered Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), including motivational interviewing counseling and referral out for alcohol treatment (SBIRT-only), or (2) SBIRT plus 6 months of integrated colocated alcohol therapy (SBIRT + Alcohol Treatment). The timeline followback method was used to assess alcohol use at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Coprimary outcomes were alcohol abstinence at 6 months and heavy drinking days between 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included grams of alcohol consumed per week at 6 months. Mean therapy hours across 6 months were 8.8 for SBIRT-only and 10.1 for SBIRT + Alcohol Treatment participants. The proportion of participants exhibiting full alcohol abstinence increased from baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months in both treatment arms, but no significant differences were found between arms (baseline to 6 months, 7.1% to 20.5% for SBIRT-only; 4.2% to 23.3% for SBIRT + Alcohol Treatment; P = 0.70). Proportions of participants with any heavy drinking days decreased in both groups at 6 months but did not significantly differ between the SBIRT-only (87.5% to 26.7%) and SBIRT + Alcohol Treatment (85.7% to 42.1%) arms (P = 0.30). Although both arms reduced average grams of alcohol consumed per week from baseline to 6 and 12 months, between-treatment effects were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with current or prior HCV infection will engage in alcohol treatment when encouraged by liver medical providers. Liver clinics should consider implementing provider-delivered SBIRT and tailored alcohol treatment referrals as part of the standard of care.

Socioeconomic Status Is Associated with the Risk of Hepatic Encephalopathy after Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation.

PURPOSE: To determine whether socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with hepatic encephalopathy (HE) risk after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-institution retrospective study included 368 patients (mean age = 56.7 years; n = 229 males) from 5 states who underwent TIPS creation. SES was estimated using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality SES index, a metric based on neighborhood housing, education, and income statistics. Episodes of new or worsening HE after TIPS creation, defined as hospitalization for HE or escalation in outpatient medical therapy, were identified from medical records. Multivariable ordinal regression, negative binomial regression, and competing risks survival analysis were used to identify factors associated with SES quartile, the number of episodes of new or worsening HE per unit time after TIPS creation, and mortality after TIPS creation, respectively. RESULTS: There were 83, 113, 99, and 73 patients in the lowest, second, third, and highest SES quartiles, respectively. In multivariable regression, only older age (ß = 0.04, confidence interval [CI] = 0.02-0.05; P < .001) and white, non-Hispanic ethnicity (ß = 0.64, CI = 0.07-1.21; P = .03) were associated with higher SES quartile. In multivariable regression, lower SES quartile (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.80, CI = 0.68-0.94; P = .004), along with older age, male sex, higher model for end-stage liver disease score, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and proton pump inhibitor use were associated with higher rates of HE after TIPS creation. Ethnicity was not associated with the rate of HE after TIPS creation (IRR = 0.77, CI = 0.46-1.29; P = .28). In multivariable survival analysis, neither SES quartile nor ethnicity predicted mortality after creation of a TIPS. CONCLUSION: Lower SES is associated with higher rates of new or worsening HE after TIPS creation.

The impact of human leukocyte antigen donor and recipient serotyping and matching on liver transplant graft failure in primary sclerosing cholangitis, autoimmune hepatitis, and primary biliary cholangitis.

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) serotyping is not considered to have significant impact on liver graft survival and does not factor into U.S. organ allocation. Immune-related liver diseases such as primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) have been speculated to represent a disease subgroup that may have significantly different graft outcomes depending on HLA donor/recipient characterization. The aim of this study was to investigate whether HLA serotyping/matching influenced post-transplant graft failure for immune-related liver diseases using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. From 1994 to 2015, 5665 patients underwent first-time liver-only transplants for PSC, AIH, and PBC with complete graft survival and donor/recipient HLA data. Graft failure was noted in 38.6% (2188/5665), and all groups had comparable 5-year graft survival (75.1%-78.8%, P = 0.069). The overall degree of, and loci-specific mismatch level, did not influence outcomes. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression noted increased graft failure risk for recipient HLA-B7, HLA-B57, HLA-B75, HLA-DR13 and donor HLA-B55, HLA-B58, and HLA-DR8 for PSC patients, protective effects for recipient HLA-DR1 and HLA-DR3 for AIH patients, and increased risk for HLA-DR7 for AIH patients. These findings warrant further investigation to evaluate the impact of HLA serotyping on post-transplant outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir in black patients with hepatitis C virus infection: A retrospective analysis of phase 3 data.

UNLABELLED: Black patients chronically infected with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) have historically had lower rates of response to interferon-based treatment than patients of other races. In the phase 3 ION program, the single-tablet regimen of the NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir and NS5B nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir was shown to be safe and highly effective in the general population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in black patients using data from the three open-label ION clinical trials, which evaluated the safety and efficacy of 8, 12, and 24 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin for the treatment of treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients with genotype 1 HCV, including those with compensated cirrhosis. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12). For our analysis, rates of SVR12, treatment-emergent adverse events, and graded laboratory abnormalities were analyzed in black versus non-black patients. Of the 1949 patients evaluated, 308 (16%) were black. On average, black patients were older, had higher body mass index, were more likely to be IL28B non-CC, and had a lower serum alanine aminotransferase at baseline than non-black patients. Overall, 95% of black and 97% of non-black patients achieved SVR12. The rate of relapse was 3% in black patients as compared with 2% in non-black patients. The most common adverse events included fatigue, headache, nausea, and insomnia. The majority of adverse events occurred more frequently in the ribavirin-containing arms of the studies. No differences were observed in overall safety by race. CONCLUSION: A once-daily dosage of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir was similarly effective in black and non-black patients with genotype 1 HCV infection. The addition of ribavirin did not appear to increase SVR12 but was associated with higher rates of adverse events.

Differences in Phenotypes and Liver Transplantation Outcomes by Age Group in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence for a heterogeneity of phenotypes in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), but differences across the age spectrum in adults with PSC have not been well characterized. AIMS: To characterize phenotypic variations and liver transplantation outcomes by age group in adults with PSC. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify waitlist registrations for primary liver transplantation in adults with PSC. Patients were split into three age groups: 18-39 (young), 40-59 (middle-aged), and ≥60 (older). Their clinical characteristics and outcomes on the waitlist and post-transplant were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 8272 adults with PSC were listed for liver transplantation during the study period, of which 28.9% were young, 52.0% were middle-aged, and 19.1% were older. The young age group had the greatest male predominance (70.0 vs. 66.2 vs. 65.1%, p = 0.001), the highest proportion of black individuals (20.0 vs. 11.0 vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001), and the most patients listed with concomitant autoimmune hepatitis (2.2 vs. 1.0 vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). Older patients experienced the greatest waitlist and post-transplant mortality. Graft survival was greatest in the middle-aged group. Young patients were most likely to experience acute rejection (31 vs. 22.8 vs. 18.0%, p < 0.001) and have graft failure due to chronic rejection or PSC recurrence (47.8 vs. 42.3 vs. 17.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Age-related differences exist among adults with PSC and are associated with outcomes pre- and post-transplant. Young patients may have a more robust immune-related phenotype that is associated with poorer graft survival. Future studies are needed to further investigate these findings.

Role of patient factors, preferences, and distrust in health care and access to liver transplantation and organ donation.

Despite major improvements in access to liver transplantation (LT), disparities remain. Little is known about how distrust in medical care, patient preferences, and the origins shaping those preferences contribute to differences surrounding access. We performed a single-center, cross-sectional survey of adults with end-stage liver disease and compared responses between LT listed and nonlisted patients as well as by race. Questionnaires were administered to 109 patients (72 nonlisted; 37 listed) to assess demographics, health care system distrust (HCSD), religiosity, and factors influencing LT and organ donation (OD). We found that neither HCSD nor religiosity explained differences in access to LT in our population. Listed patients attained higher education levels and were more likely to be insured privately. This was also the case for white versus black patients. All patients reported wanting LT if recommended. However, nonlisted patients were significantly less likely to have discussed LT with their physician or to be referred to a transplant center. They were also much less likely to understand the process of LT. Fewer blacks were referred (44.4% versus 69.7%; P = 0.03) or went to the transplant center if referred (44.4% versus 71.1%; P = 0.02). Fewer black patients felt that minorities had as equal access to LT as whites (29.6% versus 57.3%; P < 0.001). For OD, there were more significant differences in preferences by race than listing status. More whites indicated OD status on their driver's license, and more blacks were likely to become an organ donor if approached by someone of the same cultural or ethnic background (P < 0.01). In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates persistent barriers to LT and OD. With improved patient and provider education and communication, many of these disparities could be successfully overcome. Liver Transplantation 22 895-905 2016 AASLD.

A Systematic Review of Race and Ethnicity in Hepatitis C Clinical Trial Enrollment.

The African American/Black population in the United States (US) is disproportionately affected by hepatitis C virus (HCV) and has lower response rates to current treatments. This analysis evaluates the participation of African American/Blacks in North American and European HCV clinical trials. The data source for this analysis was the PubMed database. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) on HCV treatment with interferon 2a or 2b between January 2000 and December 2011 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria included English language and participants 18 years or older with chronic HCV. Exclusion criteria included non-randomized trials, case reports, cohort studies, ethnic specific studies, or studies not using interferon-alfa or PEG-interferon. Of the 588 trials identified, 314 (53.4%) fit inclusion criteria. The main outcome was the rate of African American/ Black participation in North American HCV clinical trials. A meta-analysis comparing the expected and observed rates was performed. Of the RCT's that met search criteria, 123 (39.2%) reported race. Clinical trials in North America were more likely to report racial data than European trials. Racial reporting increased over time. There was a statistically significant difference among the expected and observed participation of African Americans in HCV clinical trials in North America based on the prevalence of this disease within the population. The burden of HCV among African Americans in North America is not reflected in those clinical trials designed to treat HCV. Research on minority participation in clinical trials and how to increase minority participation in clinical trials is needed.

Pragmatic strategies to address health disparities along the continuum of care in chronic liver disease.

Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities exist in the prevalence and natural history of chronic liver disease, access to care, and clinical outcomes. Solutions to improve health equity range widely, from digital health tools to policy changes. The current review outlines the disparities along the chronic liver disease health care continuum from screening and diagnosis to the management of cirrhosis and considerations of pre-liver and post-liver transplantation. Using a health equity research and implementation science framework, we offer pragmatic strategies to address barriers to implementing high-quality equitable care for patients with chronic liver disease.