GEMA-Na and MELD 3.0 severity scores to address sex disparities for accessing liver transplantation: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.

Background: The Gender-Equity Model for liver Allocation corrected by serum sodium (GEMA-Na) and the Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 (MELD 3.0) could amend sex disparities for accessing liver transplantation (LT). We aimed to assess these inequities in Spain and to compare the performance of GEMA-Na and MELD 3.0. Methods: Nationwide cohort study including adult patients listed for a first elective LT (January 2016-December 2021). The primary outcome was mortality or delisting for sickness within the first 90 days. Independent predictors of the primary outcome were evaluated using multivariate Cox's regression with adjusted relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The discrimination of GEMA-Na and MELD 3.0was assessed using Harrell c-statistics (Hc). Findings: The study included 6071 patients (4697 men and 1374 women). Mortality or delisting for clinical deterioration occurred in 286 patients at 90 days (4.7%). Women had reduced access to LT (83.7% vs. 85.9%; p = 0.037) and increased risk of mortality or delisting for sickness at 90 days (adjusted RR = 1.57 [95% CI 1.09-2.28]; p = 0.017). Female sex remained as an independent risk factor when using MELD or MELD-Na but lost its significance in the presence of GEMA-Na or MELD 3.0. Among patients included for reasons other than tumours (n = 3606; 59.4%), GEMA-Na had Hc = 0.753 (95% CI 0.715-0.792), which was higher than MELD 3.0 (Hc = 0.726 [95% CI 0.686-0.767; p = 0.001), showing both models adequate calibration. Interpretation: GEMA-Na and MELD 3.0 might correct sex disparities for accessing LT, but GEMA-Na provides more accurate predictions of waiting list outcomes and could be considered the standard of care for waiting list prioritization. Funding: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Agencia Estatal de Investigación (Spain), and European Union.

Fatal case of HBV-liver failure after withdrawal of antiviral treatment.

We report a case of fatal HBV reactivation in a patient with chronic hepatitis B infection HBeAg-, who was withdrawn from antiviral therapy.. We think that it may be a warning of risks that this clinical decision may entail.

Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Reduces the Severity of COVID-19 in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: HIV-positive patients on tenofovir hydroxyl fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine have a lower risk of COVID-19 and hospitalization than those given other treatments. Our aim was to analyze the severity of COVID-19 in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) on TDF or entecavir (ETV). METHODS: Spanish hospital databases (n = 28) including information regarding adult CHB patients on TDF or ETV for the period February 1st to November 30th 2020 were searched for COVID-19, defined as a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction, and for severe COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 4736 patients, 117 had COVID-19 (2.5%), 67 on TDF and 50 on ETV. Compared to patients on TDF, those on ETV showed (p < 0.05) greater rates of obesity, diabetes, ischemic cardiopathy, and hypertension. COVID-19 incidence was similar in both groups (2.3 vs. 2.6%). Compared to TDF, patients on ETV more often (p < 0.01) had severe COVID-19 (36 vs. 6%), required intensive care unit (ICU) (10% vs. 0) or ventilatory support (20 vs. 3%), were hospitalized for longer (10.8 ± 19 vs. 3.1 ± 7 days) or died (10 vs. 1.5%, p = 0.08). In an IPTW propensity score analysis adjusted for age, sex, obesity, comorbidities, and fibrosis stage, TDF was associated with a sixfold reduction in severe COVID-19 risk (adjusted-IPTW-OR 0.17, 95%CI 0.04-0.67, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared to ETV, TDF seems to play a protective role in CHB patients with SARS-CoV-2 whereby the risk of severe COVID-19 is lowered.

Quality of care provided to outpatients with hepatic cirrhosis in a teaching hospital.

INTRODUCTION: a set of indicators to measure the quality of care of cirrhotic patients has been established and previously published studies report an adherence rate to clinical guide indications of 40-80 %. OBJECTIVE: to assess the adherence to quality indicators in a tertiary teaching hospital. METHODS: a retrospective observational study was performed of all cirrhotic outpatients seen during one semester in 2017. The charts were studied of 324 patients and quality indicators related to five domains were collected. An overall adherence to 14 quality indicators was recorded and analyzed based on the attending physician's experience. RESULTS: the results were excellent (more than 90 % adherence) for quality indicators related to prophylaxis of variceal bleeding and documentation of cirrhosis etiology, acceptable (60-90 % adherence) for hepatocellular carcinoma screening and disease severity assessment, and poor (less than 50 %) for vaccinations. Residents had significantly better results than experienced physicians in etiology, disease severity assessment and two indicators of prophylaxis of bleeding. Experienced physicians only presented a better adherence to hepatocellular carcinoma screening. CONCLUSIONS: despite excellent results for some quality indicators, most required improvement, especially vaccinations. The quality of care achieved by residents is equal to and even better than that of experienced physicians. Measuring quality of care is essential to analyze and improve the health care of cirrhotic outpatients and may be a useful tool for supervising specialists in training.