Safety and efficacy of continuous terlipressin infusion in HRS-AKI in a transplant population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While liver transplantation is the definitive treatment, continuous terlipressin infusion for HRS-AKI may provide benefit and as such was assessed in a population comprised of liver transplant (LT) candidates. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty hospitalized, LT-eligible patients with HRS-AKI received a single bolus followed by continuous terlipressin infusion. ACLF grade 3, serum creatinine (SCr)>5.0 mg/dL, or MELD≥35 were exclusions. Fifty hospitalized patients who received midodrine and octreotide (M&O) or norepinephrine (NorEpi) for HRS-AKI served as a historical comparator cohort. Complete response (CR) was defined as ≥30% decrease in SCr with EOT SCr≤1.5, partial response (PR) as ≥30% decrease in SCr with EOT SCr>1.5, and non-response (NR) as <30% decrease in SCr. CR rate was significantly higher in the terlipressin cohort compared to the historical cohort (64% vs. 16%, p<0.001). Survival, while numerically higher in those who received terlipressin, was statistically similar (D30: 94% vs. 82%, p=0.12; D90: 78% vs. 68%, p=0.37). Renal replacement therapy (RRT) was more common among terlipressin NR than CR and PR (70% vs. 3% vs. 13%, p<0.001). EOT MELD and SCr were significantly lower within terlipressin cohort (MELD: 19 vs. 25, SCr: 1.4 vs. 2.1 mg/dL, p<0.001). Sixteen of 40 terlipressin-treated patients received LT-alone (terlipressin CR in 10/16). One patient on terlipressin had hypoxic respiratory failure that responded to diuretics; one possibly had drug-related rash. CONCLUSIONS: With continuous terlipressin infusion, a CR rate of 64% was observed with a favorable safety profile. Terlipressin use was associated with lower EOT MELD and SCr than the historical M&O/NorEpi cohort; LT-alone was accomplished in a high proportion of complete terlipressin responders.

Nursing care for patients with cirrhosis.

Cirrhosis represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality, leading to a marked impairment in the quality of life of patients and their caregivers, and resulting in a major burden on healthcare systems. Currently, in most countries, nurses still play a limited role in the care of patients with cirrhosis, which is mainly restricted to the care of patients hospitalised for acute complications of the disease. The current manuscript reviews the established and potential new and innovative roles that nurses can play in the care of patients with cirrhosis. In the hospital setting, specialised nurses should become an integral part of interprofessional teams, helping to improve the quality of care and outcomes of patients with cirrhosis. In the primary care setting, nurses should play an important role in the care of patients with compensated cirrhosis and also facilitate early diagnosis of cirrhosis in those at risk of liver diseases. This review calls for an improved global liver disease education programme for nurses and increased awareness among all healthcare providers and policymakers of the positive impacts of advanced or specialist nursing practice in this domain.

Subjective and objective burden on providers from a multicenter app-based study of patients with cirrhosis and caregivers.

BACKGROUND: App-based technologies could enhance patient and caregiver communication and provide alerts that potentially reducing readmissions. However, the burden of App alerts needs to be optimized to reduce provider burnout. AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine subjective and objective burden of using the Patient Buddy App, a health information technology (HIT) on providers in a randomized multicenter trial, who completed a semi-quantitative Likert scale survey regarding training procedures, data and privacy concerns, follow-up details, and technical support. This randomized multicenter trial recruits cirrhosis inpatients and their caregivers, and randomizes them into standard-of-care, HIT (communication only via App) and HIT+visits (App+phone calls/visits) for 30 days after discharge. The alerts are monitored by providers through a central iPad. The reason(s) and number of alerts were recorded as the objective burden. A total of 1442 messages were sent as alerts from the 103 dyads (patient + caregiver) (n=206) randomized to HIT arms. The most common messages related to Hepatic Encephalopathy (HE) (high or low bowel movement=50% or orientation tests=37%). Twelve providers completed the surveys reflecting the following themes-92% and 100%, felt adequately trained and confident about educating the patients and caregivers before roll out of App and had no concerns related to data and privacy; 70%, felt that appropriate time was spent on pursuing reason for data not being logged; 60% each, had issues with availability of adequate technical support and connectivity. CONCLUSION: The Patient Buddy App randomized multicenter trial till date shows an overall favorable rating regarding training procedures/education, privacy concerns, and ease of message follow-up, from providers. However, it is important to gauge and address subjective and objective burdens of monitoring human resources in current and future HIT studies to avoid burnout and to ensure successful study completion.

Perspectives of Inpatients With Cirrhosis and Caregivers on Using Health Information Technology: Cross-sectional Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Health information technology (IT) interventions to decrease readmissions for cirrhosis may be limited by patient-associated factors. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine perspectives regarding adoption versus refusal of health IT interventions among patient-caregiver dyads. METHODS: Inpatients with cirrhosis and their caregivers were approached to participate in a randomized health IT intervention trial requiring daily contact with research teams via the Patient Buddy app. This app focuses on ascites, medications, and hepatic encephalopathy over 30 days. Regression analyses for characteristics associated with acceptance were performed. For those who declined, a semistructured interview was performed with themes focused on caregivers, protocol, transport/logistics, technology demands, and privacy. RESULTS: A total of 349 patient-caregiver dyads were approached (191 from Virginia Commonwealth University, 56 from Richmond Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and 102 from Mayo Clinic), 87 of which (25%) agreed to participate. On regression, dyads agreeing included a male patient (odds ratio [OR] 2.08, P=.01), gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 2.3, P=.006), or hepatic encephalopathy admission (OR 2.0, P=.01), whereas opioid use (OR 0.46, P=.03) and alcohol-related etiology (OR 0.54, P=.02) were associated with refusal. Race, study site, and other admission reasons did not contribute to refusing participation. Among the 262 dyads who declined randomization, caregiver reluctance (43%), perceived burden (31%), technology-related issues (14%), transportation/logistics (10%), and others (4%), but not privacy, were highlighted as major concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cirrhosis admitted with hepatic encephalopathy and gastrointestinal bleeding without opioid use or alcohol-related etiologies were more likely to participate in a health IT intervention focused on preventing readmissions. Caregiver and study burden but not privacy were major reasons to decline participation. Reducing perceived patient-caregiver burden and improving communication may improve participation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03564626; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03564626.

Comparison of mortality risk in patients with cirrhosis and COVID-19 compared with patients with cirrhosis alone and COVID-19 alone: multicentre matched cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Comorbid conditions are associated with poor prognosis in COVID-19. Registry data show that patients with cirrhosis may be at high risk. However, outcome comparisons among patients with cirrhosis+COVID-19 versus patients with COVID-19 alone and cirrhosis alone are lacking. The aim of this study was to perform these comparisons. DESIGN: A multicentre study of inpatients with cirrhosis+COVID-19 compared with age/gender-matched patients with COVID-19 alone and cirrhosis alone was performed. COVID-19 and cirrhosis characteristics, development of organ failures and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) and mortality (inpatient death+hospice) were compared. RESULTS: 37 patients with cirrhosis+COVID-19 were matched with 108 patients with COVID-19 and 127 patients with cirrhosis from seven sites. Race/ethnicity were similar. Patients with cirrhosis+COVID-19 had higher mortality compared with patients with COVID-19 (30% vs 13%, p=0.03) but not between patients with cirrhosis+COVID-19 and patients with cirrhosis (30% vs 20%, p=0.16). Patients with cirrhosis+COVID-19 versus patients with COVID-19 alone had equivalent respiratory symptoms, chest findings and rates of intensive care unit transfer and ventilation. However, patients with cirrhosis+COVID-19 had worse Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI 6.5±3.1 vs 3.3±2.5, p<0.001), lower presenting GI symptoms and higher lactate. Patients with cirrhosis alone had higher cirrhosis-related complications, maximum model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and lower BiPAP/ventilation requirement compared with patients with cirrhosis+COVID-19, but CCI and ACLF rates were similar. In the entire group, CCI (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37, p<0.0001) was the only variable predictive of mortality on multivariable regression. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre North American contemporaneously enrolled study, age/gender-matched patients with cirrhosis+COVID-19 had similar mortality compared with patients with cirrhosis alone but higher than patients with COVID-19 alone. CCI was the only independent mortality predictor in the entire matched cohort.

National Differences in Remission of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery-Subgroup Analysis of 2-Year Results of the Diabetes Surgery Study Comparing Taiwanese with Americans with Mild Obesity (BMI 30-35 kg/m2).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare effects of different nations on Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) vs. intensive medical management (IMM) in achieving remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 2008 and December 2011, this randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted at four teaching hospitals in the United States and Taiwan involving 71 participants with mild obesity (BMI 30-35 kg/m2). Thirty-six of 71 participants were randomly assigned to the RYGB group, and the others were in IMM group. Partial or complete remission of T2DM was defined as blood HbA1c < 6.5 % (48 mmol/mol) or <6 % (42 mmol/mol) without any antihyperglycemic medication for at least 1-year duration, respectively. RESULTS: At baseline, Taiwanese participants had a lower BMI, younger age, and shorter duration of T2DM than American participants. At 24 months, weight loss was greater in the RYGB group in both populations than in the IMM group. No IMM participant of either population had partial or complete remission of T2DM. In the RYGB group, a substantial proportion of the subjects achieved complete or partial remission (57 % in Taiwanese and 27 % in American participants, P = 0.08). Logistic regression revealed stimulated C-peptide (Odds ratio 2.22, P = 0.02) but not nationality as a significant predictor of diabetes remission. CONCLUSION: Adding RYGB to lifestyle and medical management was associated with a greater likelihood of remission of T2DM in both Taiwanese and American subjects with mild obesity with type 2 diabetes. Residual beta-cell function at baseline appears to be the major factor predicting remission of T2DM. Trial registry number: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00641251.

Durability of Addition of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass to Lifestyle Intervention and Medical Management in Achieving Primary Treatment Goals for Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes in Mild to Moderate Obesity: A Randomized Control Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We compared 3-year achievement of an American Diabetes Association composite treatment goal (HbA1c <7.0%, LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dL, and systolic blood pressure <130 mmHg) after 2 years of intensive lifestyle-medical management intervention, with and without Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, with one additional year of usual care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 120 adult participants, with BMI 30.0-39.9 kg/m(2) and HbA1c ≥8.0%, were randomized 1:1 to two treatment arms at three clinical sites in the U.S. and one in Taiwan. All patients received the lifestyle-medical management intervention for 24 months; half were randomized to also receive gastric bypass. RESULTS: At 36 months, the triple end point goal was met in 9% of lifestyle-medical management patients and 28% of gastric bypass patients (P = 0.01): 10% and 19% lower than at 12 months. Mean (SD) HbA1c values at 3 years were 8.6% (3.5) and 6.7% (2.0) (P < 0.001). No lifestyle-medical management patient had remission of diabetes at 36 months, whereas 17% of gastric bypass patients had full remission and 19% had partial remission. Lifestyle-medical management patients used more medications than gastric bypass patients: mean (SD) 3.8 (3.3) vs. 1.8 (2.4). Percent weight loss was mean (SD) 6.3% (16.1) in lifestyle-medical management vs. 21.0% (14.5) in gastric bypass (P < 0.001). Over 3 years, 24 serious or clinically significant adverse events were observed in lifestyle-medical management vs. 51 with gastric bypass. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric bypass is more effective than lifestyle-medical management intervention in achieving diabetes treatment goals, mainly by improved glycemic control. However, the effect of surgery diminishes with time and is associated with more adverse events.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for diabetes (the Diabetes Surgery Study): 2-year outcomes of a 5-year, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes are often inadequate. We aimed to assess outcomes of diabetes control and treatment risks 2 years after adding Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to intensive lifestyle and medical management. METHODS: We report 2-year outcomes of a 5-year randomised trial (the Diabetes Surgery Study) at four teaching hospitals (three in the USA and one in Taiwan). At baseline, eligible participants had to have HbA1c of at least 8·0% (64 mmol/mol), BMI between 30·0 and 39·9 kg/m(2), and type 2 diabetes for at least 6 months, and be aged 30-67 years. We randomly assigned participants to receive either intensive lifestyle and medical management alone (lifestyle and medical management), or lifestyle and medical management plus standard Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (gastric bypass). Staff from the clinical centres had access to data from individual patients, but were masked to other patients' data and aggregated data until the 2-year follow-up. Drugs for hyperglycaemia, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia were prescribed by protocol. The primary endpoint was achievement of the composite treatment goal of HbA1c less than 7·0% (53 mmol/mol), LDL cholesterol less than 2·59 mmol/L, and systolic blood pressure less than 130 mm Hg at 12 months; here we report the composite outcome and other pre-planned secondary outcomes at 24 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with multiple imputations for missing data. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00641251, and is still ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2008, and Nov 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 120 eligible patients to either lifestyle and medical management alone (n=60) or with the addition of gastric bypass (n=60). One patient in the lifestyle and medical management group died (from pancreatic cancer), thus 119 were included in the primary analysis. Significantly more participants in the gastric bypass group achieved the composite triple endpoint at 24 months than in the lifestyle and medical management group (26 [43%] vs eight [14%]; odds ratio 5·1 [95% CI 2·0-12·6], p=0·0004), mainly through improved glycaemic control (HbA1c <7·0% [53 mmol/mol] in 45 [75%] vs 14 [24%]; treatment difference -1·9% (-2·5 to -1·4); p=0·0001). 46 clinically important adverse events occurred in the gastric bypass group and 25 in the lifestyle and medical management group (mainly infections in both groups [four in the lifestyle and medical management group, eight in the gastric bypass group]). With a negative binomial model adjusted for site, the event rate for the gastric bypass group was non-significantly higher than the lifestyle and medical management group by a factor of 1·67 (95% CI 0·98-2·87, p=0·06). Across both years of the study, the gastric bypass group had seven serious falls with five fractures, compared with three serious falls and one fracture in the lifestyle and medical management group. All fractures happened in women. Many more nutritional deficiencies occurred in the gastric bypass group (mainly deficiencies in iron, albumin, calcium, and vitamin D), despite protocol use of nutritional supplements. INTERPRETATION: The addition of gastric bypass to lifestyle and medical management in patients with type 2 diabetes improved diabetes control, but adverse events and nutritional deficiencies were more frequent. Larger and longer studies are needed to investigate whether the benefits and risk of gastric bypass for type 2 diabetes can be balanced. FUNDING: Covidien, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Nutrition Obesity Research Centers, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.