Efficacy and safety of infliximab in patients with autoimmune hepatitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A limited number of drugs are used as standard or alternative therapies in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). No specific-recommendations are available for patients failing to respond to these therapies. We analyzed the efficacy and safety of infliximab in patients with AIH. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective study of 42 patients with AIH who received infliximab at 21 liver centers in 12 countries. Patients were categorized according to the reason for infliximab therapy. Patients in group 1 (n=20) had failed standard, second-line (mycophenolate mofetil and 6-mercaptopurine) or third-line (tacrolimus or cyclosporine) therapy. In group 2 (n=22), infliximab was given for treatment of concomitant extrahepatic autoimmune diseases. Patients received a median of 17 (range: 3-104) infliximab infusions. Complete biochemical response (CR) was achieved or maintained in 33 (78%) patients during infliximab therapy. In group 1, infliximab induced CR in 11 of 20 (55%) patients. In group 2, 16 patients with CR prior to infliximab maintained remission, and the remaining six patients with active AIH (five on standard and one on both second and third-line therapy) showed CR following infliximab therapy. Infliximab led to CR in 75% (6/8) of non-responders to second-line and in 46% (6/13) of failing third-line therapy. Overall, 65% (17/26) of the patients with active AIH achieved CR on infliximab. Infliximab was discontinued in three patients of group 1. One patient had a severe allergic reaction and two developed anti-infliximab autoantibodies. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that infliximab may be an effective and safe rescue therapy in AIH.

Liver injury after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: Features of immune-mediated hepatitis, role of corticosteroid therapy and outcome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A few case reports of autoimmune hepatitis-like liver injury have been reported after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. We evaluated clinical features, treatment response and outcomes of liver injury following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a large case series. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We collected data from cases in 18 countries. The type of liver injury was assessed with the R-value. The study population was categorized according to features of immune-mediated hepatitis (positive autoantibodies and elevated immunoglobulin G levels) and corticosteroid therapy for the liver injury. We identified 87 patients (63%, female), median age 48 (range: 18-79) years at presentation. Liver injury was diagnosed a median 15 (range: 3-65) days after vaccination. Fifty-one cases (59%) were attributed to the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine, 20 (23%) cases to the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOX1 nCoV-19) vaccine and 16 (18%) cases to the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine. The liver injury was predominantly hepatocellular (84%) and 57% of patients showed features of immune-mediated hepatitis. Corticosteroids were given to 46 (53%) patients, more often for grade 3-4 liver injury than for grade 1-2 liver injury (88.9% vs. 43.5%, p = 0.001) and more often for patients with than without immune-mediated hepatitis (71.1% vs. 38.2%, p = 0.003). All patients showed resolution of liver injury except for one man (1.1%) who developed liver failure and underwent liver transplantation. Steroid therapy was withdrawn during the observation period in 12 (26%) patients after complete biochemical resolution. None had a relapse during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can be associated with liver injury. Corticosteroid therapy may be beneficial in those with immune-mediated features or severe hepatitis. Outcome was generally favorable, but vaccine-associated liver injury led to fulminant liver failure in one patient.

Outcome of COVID-19 in Patients With Autoimmune Hepatitis: An International Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data regarding outcome of COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) are lacking. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective study on patients with AIH and COVID-19 from 34 centers in Europe and the Americas. We analyzed factors associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care admission, and/or death. The outcomes of patients with AIH were compared to a propensity score-matched cohort of patients without AIH but with chronic liver diseases (CLD) and COVID-19. The frequency and clinical significance of new-onset liver injury (alanine aminotransferase > 2 × the upper limit of normal) during COVID-19 was also evaluated. We included 110 patients with AIH (80% female) with a median age of 49 (range, 18-85) years at COVID-19 diagnosis. New-onset liver injury was observed in 37.1% (33/89) of the patients. Use of antivirals was associated with liver injury (P = 0.041; OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.05-10.78), while continued immunosuppression during COVID-19 was associated with a lower rate of liver injury (P = 0.009; OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71). The rates of severe COVID-19 (15.5% versus 20.2%, P = 0.231) and all-cause mortality (10% versus 11.5%, P = 0.852) were not different between AIH and non-AIH CLD. Cirrhosis was an independent predictor of severe COVID-19 in patients with AIH (P < 0.001; OR, 17.46; 95% CI, 4.22-72.13). Continuation of immunosuppression or presence of liver injury during COVID-19 was not associated with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: This international, multicenter study reveals that patients with AIH were not at risk for worse outcomes with COVID-19 than other causes of CLD. Cirrhosis was the strongest predictor for severe COVID-19 in patients with AIH. Maintenance of immunosuppression during COVID-19 was not associated with increased risk for severe COVID-19 but did lower the risk for new-onset liver injury during COVID-19.

Effects of immunosuppressive drugs on COVID-19 severity in patients with autoimmune hepatitis.

BACKGROUND: We investigated associations between baseline use of immunosuppressive drugs and severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of AIH patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 were retrospectively collected from 15 countries. The outcomes of AIH patients who were on immunosuppression at the time of COVID-19 were compared to patients who were not on AIH medication. The clinical courses of COVID-19 were classified as (i)-no hospitalization, (ii)-hospitalization without oxygen supplementation, (iii)-hospitalization with oxygen supplementation by nasal cannula or mask, (iv)-intensive care unit (ICU) admission with non-invasive mechanical ventilation, (v)-ICU admission with invasive mechanical ventilation or (vi)-death and analysed using ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: We included 254 AIH patients (79.5%, female) with a median age of 50 (range, 17-85) years. At the onset of COVID-19, 234 patients (92.1%) were on treatment with glucocorticoids (n = 156), thiopurines (n = 151), mycophenolate mofetil (n = 22) or tacrolimus (n = 16), alone or in combinations. Overall, 94 (37%) patients were hospitalized and 18 (7.1%) patients died. Use of systemic glucocorticoids (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.73, 95% CI 1.12-25.89) and thiopurines (aOR 4.78, 95% CI 1.33-23.50) for AIH was associated with worse COVID-19 severity, after adjusting for age-sex, comorbidities and presence of cirrhosis. Baseline treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (aOR 3.56, 95% CI 0.76-20.56) and tacrolimus (aOR 4.09, 95% CI 0.69-27.00) were also associated with more severe COVID-19 courses in a smaller subset of treated patients. CONCLUSION: Baseline treatment with systemic glucocorticoids or thiopurines prior to the onset of COVID-19 was significantly associated with COVID-19 severity in patients with AIH.

Extrahepatic autoimmune diseases in primary biliary cholangitis: Prevalence and significance for clinical presentation and disease outcome.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The prevalence and clinical significance of extrahepatic autoimmune diseases (EHAIDs) have not been evaluated in a large cohort of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). METHODS: The medical records of 1554 patients with PBC from 20 international centers were retrospectively reviewed. Development of decompensated cirrhosis (ascites, variceal bleeding, and/or hepatic encephalopathy) and hepatocellular carcinoma were considered clinical endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 35 different EHAIDs were diagnosed in 440 (28.3%) patients with PBC. Patients with EHAIDs were more often female (92.5% vs 86.1%, P < 0.001) and seropositive for anti-mitochondrial antibodies (88% vs 84%, P = 0.05) and antinuclear antibodies and/or smooth muscle antibodies (53.8% vs 43.6%, P = 0.005). At presentation, patients with EHAIDs had significantly lower levels of alkaline phosphatase (1.76 vs 1.98 × upper limit of normal [ULN], P = 0.006), aspartate aminotransferase (1.29 vs 1.50 × ULN, P < 0.001), and total bilirubin (0.53 vs 0.58 × ULN, P = 0.002). Patients with EHAIDs and without EHAIDs had similar rates of GLOBE high-risk status (12.3% vs 16.1%, P = 0.07) and Paris II response (71.4% vs 69.4%, P = 0.59). Overall, event-free survival was not different in patients with and without EHAIDs (90.8% vs 90.7%, P = 0.53, log rank). Coexistence of each autoimmune thyroid diseases (10.6%), Sjögren disease (8.3%), systemic sclerosis (2.9%), rheumatoid arthritis (2.7%), systemic lupus erythematosus (1.7%), celiac disease (1.7%), psoriasis (1.5%), and inflammatory bowel diseases (1.3%) did not influence the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that EHAIDs are frequently diagnosed in patients with PBC. The presence of EHAIDs may influence the clinical phenotype of PBC at presentation but has no impact on PBC outcome.

Combined Versus Separate Sessions of Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for the Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma with Biliary Obstruction.

BACKGROUND: A single-procedure session combining EUS and ERCP (EUS/ERCP) for tissue diagnosis and biliary decompression for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is technically feasible. While EUS/ERCP may offer expedience and convenience over an approach of separate procedures sessions, the technical success and risk for complications of a combined approach is unclear. AIMS: Compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS/ERCP versus separate session approaches for PDAC. METHODS: Study patients (2010-2015) were identified within our ERCP database. Patients were analyzed in three groups based on approach: Group A: Single-session EUS-FNA and ERCP (EUS/ERCP), Group B: EUS-FNA followed by separate, subsequent ERCP (EUS then ERCP), and Group C: ERCP with/without separate EUS (ERCP ± EUS). Rates of technical success, number of procedures, complications, and time to initiation of PDAC therapies were compared between groups. RESULTS: Two hundred patients met study criteria. EUS/ERCP approach (Group A) had a longer index procedure duration (median 66 min, p = 0.023). No differences were observed between Group A versus sequential procedure approaches (Groups B and C) for complications (p = 0.109) and success of EUS-FNA (p = 0.711) and ERCP (p = 0.109). Subgroup analysis (> 2 months of follow-up, not referred to hospice, n = 126) was performed. No differences were observed for stent failure (p = 0.307) or need for subsequent procedures (p = 0.220). EUS/ERCP (Group A) was associated with a shorter time to initiation of PDAC therapies (mean, 25.2 vs 42.7 days, p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: EUS/ERCP approach has comparable rates of success and complications compared to separate, sequential approaches. An EUS/ERCP approach equates to shorter time interval to initiation of PDAC therapies.

Rapid Response to Treatment of Autoimmune Hepatitis Associated With Remission at 6 and 12 Months.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Changes in serum levels of transaminases immediately after initiation of treatment for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) might be associated with biochemical markers of remission and liver-related events. We assessed the outcomes of patients with vs without rapid response to treatment of AIH in a large international cohort. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study, collecting data from 2 independent cohorts of adults with AIH from 12 centers in 7 countries in Europe. We collected information on patient demographics; serologic, histologic, and biochemical analyses; and treatment. We used a receiver operating characteristic curve and Youden index to calculate the optimal percentage decrease in level of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) after 8 weeks of treatment that associated with normalization of transaminase levels after 26 weeks of treatment with predniso(lo)ne (primary outcome) in the first (discovery) cohort (n = 370). We evaluated the results in the second (validation) cohort (n = 370). Secondary outcomes were liver-related death or transplantation. We performed univariate and multivariable logistic and Cox regression with correction for confounders. RESULTS: A significant decrease in level of AST after 8 weeks of treatment was significantly associated with normalization of transaminase levels at 26 and 52 weeks (P < .001); a decrease of more than 80% in level of AST was associated with optimal normalization. In both cohorts, rapid responders (≥80% decrease in level of AST after 8 weeks) were more likely to achieve normalization of transaminases at 26 and 52 weeks when compared to non-rapid responders. Rapid responders in the discovery cohort had lower risk of liver-related death or transplantation (adjusted hazard ratio 0.18; 95% CI 0.05-0.63; P = .007), although this was not confirmed in the validation cohort. Results from measurement of alanine aminotransferase did not differ significantly from those of AST for the primary outcome. Slow responders (without normalization of transaminases after 1 year) had the highest risk of liver transplantation or liver-related death. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective study of patients with AIH, we found that a rapid response to treatment, based on level of AST after 8 weeks, associates with normalization of transaminase levels in the following year. Patients with a rapid response also have a lower risk of liver-related death or transplantation than patients without this rapid response.

High discontinuation rate of azathioprine in autoimmune hepatitis, independent of time of treatment initiation.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines regarding treatment for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) favour two strategies for azathioprine (AZA) introduction: concurrent with steroids at induction or delayed by 2-4 weeks. The safety and efficacy of both strategies have been unexplored. METHODS: We established a cohort of 900 AIH patients from 12 centres in 7 European countries. There were 631 patients who used AZA as part of the therapeutic regimen. We distinguished two groups: patients with early AZA (<2 weeks) or delayed AZA initiation (≥2 weeks). Primary outcome was discontinuation of AZA in the first year of treatment. Cox regression and propensity score matching was performed to determine difference in outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Patients with early AZA initiation had significantly lower transaminases and bilirubin at baseline. Discontinuation rates of AZA did not differ between early and delayed starters (16.6% vs 14.2%), which did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.61-1.55, P = .90). Stratification according to baseline disease activity or propensity score matching did not alter the results. Main reason for AZA discontinuation was intolerance to treatment (14.0% vs 13.2%, P = .78) with nausea and vomiting as main side effects. AIH remission rates were comparable among groups. CONCLUSION: The discontinuation rate of AZA in AIH treatment is ~15% in the first year of treatment. Early or delayed AZA initiation does not differ in remission and discontinuation rates in AIH induction therapy. Our data suggest that either strategy may be used as part of AIH treatment.

Validation of Risk Scoring Systems in Ursodeoxycholic Acid-Treated Patients With Primary Biliary Cholangitis.

INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification based on biochemical variables is a useful tool for monitoring ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-treated patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). Several UDCA response criteria and scoring systems have been proposed for risk prediction in PBC, but these have not been validated in large external cohorts. METHODS: We performed a study on data of 1746 UDCA-treated patients with PBC from 25 centers in Europe, United States, and Canada. The prognostic performance of the risk scoring systems (GLOBE and UK-PBC) and the UDCA response criteria (Barcelona, Paris I, Paris II, Rotterdam, and Toronto) were evaluated. We regarded cirrhosis-related complications (ascites, variceal bleeding, and/or hepatic encephalopathy) as clinical end points. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients reached a clinical end point during a median 7 years (range 1-16 years) of follow-up. The 5-, 10- and 15-year adverse outcome-free survivals were 95%, 85%, and 77%. The GLOBE and UK-PBC scores predicted cirrhosis-related complications better than the UDCA response criteria. The hazard ratio (HR) for a 1 standard deviation increase was HR 5.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.43-5.74, P < 0.001) for the GLOBE score and HR 3.39 (95% CI: 3.10-3.72, P < 0.001) for the UK-PBC score. Overall, the GLOBE and UK-PBC risk scores showed similar and excellent prognostic performance (C-statistic, 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91%-95% vs 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91%-0.96%). DISCUSSION: In our international, multicenter PBC cohort, the GLOBE and UK-PBC risk scoring systems were good predictors of future cirrhosis-related complications.