Liver Disease

People with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a lean or healthy body mass index are at increased risk for peripheral vascular disease, stroke, and cardiovascular disease, a surprise finding from a new study reveals.

“Our team had expected to see that those with a normal BMI would have a lower prevalence of any metabolic or cardiovascular conditions,” lead researcher Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing that previewed select research for Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2022. “So, we were very surprised to find this link to cardiovascular disease.”

The investigators saw this increased risk of cardiovascular disease despite this group having a lower prevalence of atherosclerotic risk factors and metabolic disease.

This first study of its kind suggests physicians should consider the risk of cardiovascular disease in all patients with NAFLD, not just in those who are overweight or living with obesity – groups traditionally thought to carry more risk.

NAFLD in lean individuals is not a benign disease.

“NAFLD patients with a normal BMI are often overlooked because we assume that the risk for more serious conditions is lower than for those who are overweight or obese. But this way of thinking may be putting these patients at risk,” added Dr. Wijarnpreecha, who is a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Key findings

Approximately 25% of U.S. adults live with NAFLD, an umbrella term for liver conditions in people who drink little to no alcohol. It is characterized by too much fat stored in the liver. Although most people have no symptoms, the condition can lead to other dangerous conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cirrhosis of the liver, Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

The investigators retrospectively studied a cohort of 18,793 adults diagnosed with NAFLD at the University of Michigan Hospital from 2012-2021. One aim was to compare the prevalence of cirrhosis, cardiovascular disease, metabolic diseases, and chronic kidney disease in relation to BMI.

They also classified people into four BMI categories: lean, overweight, obesity class 1, and obesity class 2-3.

Compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a higher prevalence of peripheral arterial disease and stroke and a similar rate of cardiovascular disease based on identification of ICD codes.

Almost 6% of lean patients had peripheral arterial disease, compared with rates of approximately 4%-5% in overweight people and people with obesity. Similarly, more than 6% of the lean group experienced a stroke compared with 5% or less of the other BMI groups.

“We found that lean patients with NAFLD also had a significant higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease, independent of age, sex, race, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

At the same time, compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a lower prevalence of cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease in an analysis that adjusted for confounders.
 

Exploring the unknown

Researchers now have a mystery on their hands: What is causing this unexpected higher risk of cardiovascular disease in lean people with NAFLD?

Loren Laine, MD, chief of the section of digestive diseases at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., and moderator of the media briefing, asked Wijarnpreecha for his leading theory behind this connection.

“We think that could be from a difference in lifestyle, diet, exercise, genetics, or even gut microbiota,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha replied. “But these are factors that we did not capture from this current study.”

“We are preparing to conduct additional research with longitudinal data to better understand NAFLD in lean patients,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha added.

“It’s an interesting finding, but there are some questions from this retrospective study,” said Arun J. Sanyal, MD, when asked to comment on the study.

Identifying and quantifying any alcohol use, smoking, or hypertension that could also have contributed to increased cardiovascular risk would be useful. Another question relates to how the population with NAFLD was identified. Was NAFLD an incidental finding in their diagnosis, asked Dr. Sanyal, director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease & Metabolic Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“I’m not dissing the study,” he said, “But like all the observations like this, I think we have to kick the tires.”

It’s an “important new observation” that requires further study to fully understand what it means and what the therapeutic implications might be. It is also important to assess any possible confounders and any causal relationship among these factors, Dr. Sanyal added.

“There’s no question it is important to continue to do these types of studies,” he added. “Through this kind of research we find new things that lead to the science that can then significantly change how we approach these issues.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was updated on May 18, 2022.

People with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a lean or healthy body mass index are at increased risk for peripheral vascular disease, stroke, and cardiovascular disease, a surprise finding from a new study reveals.

“Our team had expected to see that those with a normal BMI would have a lower prevalence of any metabolic or cardiovascular conditions,” lead researcher Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing that previewed select research for Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2022. “So, we were very surprised to find this link to cardiovascular disease.”

The investigators saw this increased risk of cardiovascular disease despite this group having a lower prevalence of atherosclerotic risk factors and metabolic disease.

This first study of its kind suggests physicians should consider the risk of cardiovascular disease in all patients with NAFLD, not just in those who are overweight or living with obesity – groups traditionally thought to carry more risk.

NAFLD in lean individuals is not a benign disease.

“NAFLD patients with a normal BMI are often overlooked because we assume that the risk for more serious conditions is lower than for those who are overweight or obese. But this way of thinking may be putting these patients at risk,” added Dr. Wijarnpreecha, who is a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Key findings

Approximately 25% of U.S. adults live with NAFLD, an umbrella term for liver conditions in people who drink little to no alcohol. It is characterized by too much fat stored in the liver. Although most people have no symptoms, the condition can lead to other dangerous conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cirrhosis of the liver, Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

The investigators retrospectively studied a cohort of 18,793 adults diagnosed with NAFLD at the University of Michigan Hospital from 2012-2021. One aim was to compare the prevalence of cirrhosis, cardiovascular disease, metabolic diseases, and chronic kidney disease in relation to BMI.

They also classified people into four BMI categories: lean, overweight, obesity class 1, and obesity class 2-3.

Compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a higher prevalence of peripheral arterial disease and stroke and a similar rate of cardiovascular disease based on identification of ICD codes.

Almost 6% of lean patients had peripheral arterial disease, compared with rates of approximately 4%-5% in overweight people and people with obesity. Similarly, more than 6% of the lean group experienced a stroke compared with 5% or less of the other BMI groups.

“We found that lean patients with NAFLD also had a significant higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease, independent of age, sex, race, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

At the same time, compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a lower prevalence of cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease in an analysis that adjusted for confounders.
 

Exploring the unknown

Researchers now have a mystery on their hands: What is causing this unexpected higher risk of cardiovascular disease in lean people with NAFLD?

Loren Laine, MD, chief of the section of digestive diseases at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., and moderator of the media briefing, asked Wijarnpreecha for his leading theory behind this connection.

“We think that could be from a difference in lifestyle, diet, exercise, genetics, or even gut microbiota,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha replied. “But these are factors that we did not capture from this current study.”

“We are preparing to conduct additional research with longitudinal data to better understand NAFLD in lean patients,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha added.

“It’s an interesting finding, but there are some questions from this retrospective study,” said Arun J. Sanyal, MD, when asked to comment on the study.

Identifying and quantifying any alcohol use, smoking, or hypertension that could also have contributed to increased cardiovascular risk would be useful. Another question relates to how the population with NAFLD was identified. Was NAFLD an incidental finding in their diagnosis, asked Dr. Sanyal, director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease & Metabolic Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“I’m not dissing the study,” he said, “But like all the observations like this, I think we have to kick the tires.”

It’s an “important new observation” that requires further study to fully understand what it means and what the therapeutic implications might be. It is also important to assess any possible confounders and any causal relationship among these factors, Dr. Sanyal added.

“There’s no question it is important to continue to do these types of studies,” he added. “Through this kind of research we find new things that lead to the science that can then significantly change how we approach these issues.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was updated on May 18, 2022.

People with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a lean or healthy body mass index are at increased risk for peripheral vascular disease, stroke, and cardiovascular disease, a surprise finding from a new study reveals.

“Our team had expected to see that those with a normal BMI would have a lower prevalence of any metabolic or cardiovascular conditions,” lead researcher Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing that previewed select research for Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2022. “So, we were very surprised to find this link to cardiovascular disease.”

The investigators saw this increased risk of cardiovascular disease despite this group having a lower prevalence of atherosclerotic risk factors and metabolic disease.

This first study of its kind suggests physicians should consider the risk of cardiovascular disease in all patients with NAFLD, not just in those who are overweight or living with obesity – groups traditionally thought to carry more risk.

NAFLD in lean individuals is not a benign disease.

“NAFLD patients with a normal BMI are often overlooked because we assume that the risk for more serious conditions is lower than for those who are overweight or obese. But this way of thinking may be putting these patients at risk,” added Dr. Wijarnpreecha, who is a transplant hepatology fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Key findings

Approximately 25% of U.S. adults live with NAFLD, an umbrella term for liver conditions in people who drink little to no alcohol. It is characterized by too much fat stored in the liver. Although most people have no symptoms, the condition can lead to other dangerous conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cirrhosis of the liver, Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

The investigators retrospectively studied a cohort of 18,793 adults diagnosed with NAFLD at the University of Michigan Hospital from 2012-2021. One aim was to compare the prevalence of cirrhosis, cardiovascular disease, metabolic diseases, and chronic kidney disease in relation to BMI.

They also classified people into four BMI categories: lean, overweight, obesity class 1, and obesity class 2-3.

Compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a higher prevalence of peripheral arterial disease and stroke and a similar rate of cardiovascular disease based on identification of ICD codes.

Almost 6% of lean patients had peripheral arterial disease, compared with rates of approximately 4%-5% in overweight people and people with obesity. Similarly, more than 6% of the lean group experienced a stroke compared with 5% or less of the other BMI groups.

“We found that lean patients with NAFLD also had a significant higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease, independent of age, sex, race, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha said.

At the same time, compared with non-lean patients, lean patients had a lower prevalence of cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease in an analysis that adjusted for confounders.
 

Exploring the unknown

Researchers now have a mystery on their hands: What is causing this unexpected higher risk of cardiovascular disease in lean people with NAFLD?

Loren Laine, MD, chief of the section of digestive diseases at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., and moderator of the media briefing, asked Wijarnpreecha for his leading theory behind this connection.

“We think that could be from a difference in lifestyle, diet, exercise, genetics, or even gut microbiota,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha replied. “But these are factors that we did not capture from this current study.”

“We are preparing to conduct additional research with longitudinal data to better understand NAFLD in lean patients,” Dr. Wijarnpreecha added.

“It’s an interesting finding, but there are some questions from this retrospective study,” said Arun J. Sanyal, MD, when asked to comment on the study.

Identifying and quantifying any alcohol use, smoking, or hypertension that could also have contributed to increased cardiovascular risk would be useful. Another question relates to how the population with NAFLD was identified. Was NAFLD an incidental finding in their diagnosis, asked Dr. Sanyal, director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease & Metabolic Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“I’m not dissing the study,” he said, “But like all the observations like this, I think we have to kick the tires.”

It’s an “important new observation” that requires further study to fully understand what it means and what the therapeutic implications might be. It is also important to assess any possible confounders and any causal relationship among these factors, Dr. Sanyal added.

“There’s no question it is important to continue to do these types of studies,” he added. “Through this kind of research we find new things that lead to the science that can then significantly change how we approach these issues.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was updated on May 18, 2022.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) demonstrate highly similar clinical courses and mortality rates, and a name change may not be clinically beneficial, based on data from more than 17,000 patients.

Instead, etiologic subcategorization of fatty liver disease (FLD) should be considered, reported lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of Betty and Guy Beatty Center for Integrated Research, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Va., and colleagues.

“There is debate about whether NAFLD is an appropriate name as the term ‘non-alcoholic’ overemphasizes the absence of alcohol use and underemphasizes the importance of the metabolic risk factors which are the main drivers of disease progression,” the investigators wrote in Hepatology. “It has been suggested that MAFLD may better reflect these risk factors. However, such a recommendation is made despite a lack of a general consensus on the definition of ‘metabolic health’ and disagreements in endocrinology circles about the term ‘metabolic syndrome.’ Nevertheless, a few investigators have suggested that MAFLD but not NAFLD is associated with increased fibrosis and mortality.”

To look for clinical differences between the two disease entities, Dr. Younossi and colleagues turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Specifically, the NHANES III and NHANES 2017-2018 cohorts were employed, including 12,878 and 4,328 participants, respectively.

MAFLD was defined as FLD with overweight/obesity, evidence of metabolic dysregulation, or type 2 diabetes mellitus. NAFLD was defined as FLD without excessive alcohol consumption or other causes of chronic liver disease. Patients were sorted into four groups: NAFLD, MAFLD, both disease types, or neither disease type. Since the categories were not mutually exclusive, the investigators compared clinical characteristics based on 95% confidence intervals. If no overlap was found, then differences were deemed statistically significant.

Diagnoses of NAFLD and MAFLD were highly concordant (kappa coefficient = 0.83-0.94). After a median of 22.8 years follow-up, no significant differences were found between groups for cause-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, or major clinical characteristics except those inherent to the disease definitions (for example, lack of alcohol use in NAFLD). Greatest risk factors for advanced fibrosis in both groups were obesity, high-risk fibrosis, and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

As anticipated, by definition, alcoholic liver disease and excess alcohol use were documented in approximately 15% of patients with MAFLD, but in no patients with NAFLD. As such, alcoholic liver disease predicted liver-specific mortality for MAFLD (hazard ratio, 4.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.89-10.75) but not NAFLD. Conversely, insulin resistance predicted liver-specific mortality in NAFLD (HR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.35-9.42) but not MAFLD (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.36-1.95).

“These data do not support the notion that a name change from NAFLD to MAFLD will better capture the risk for long-term outcomes of these patients or better define metabolically at-risk patients who present with FLD,” the investigators concluded. “On the other hand, enlarging the definition to FLD with subcategories of ‘alcoholic,’ ‘non-alcoholic,’ ‘drug-induced,’ etc. has merit and needs to be further considered. In this context, a true international consensus group of experts supported by liver and non-liver scientific societies must undertake an evidence-based and comprehensive approach to this issue and assess both the benefits and risks of changing the name.”

According to Rohit Loomba, MD, director of the NAFLD research center and professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of California, San Diego, the study offers a preview of the consequences if NAFLD were changed to MAFLD, most notably by making alcohol a key driver of outcomes.

“If we change the name of a disease entity ... how does that impact natural history?” Dr. Loomba asked in an interview. “This paper gives you an idea. If you start calling it MAFLD, then people are dying from alcohol use, and they’re not dying from what we are currently seeing patients with NAFLD die of.”

He also noted that the name change could disrupt drug development and outcome measures since most drugs currently in development are directed at nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

“Is it worth the headache?” Dr. Loomba asked. “How are we going to define NASH-related fibrosis? That probably will remain the same because the therapies that we will use to address that will remain consistent with what we are currently pursuing. ... It’s probably premature to change the nomenclature before assessing the impact on finding new treatment.”

Dr. Younossi disclosed relationships with BMS, Novartis, Gilead, and others. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myer Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89 bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) demonstrate highly similar clinical courses and mortality rates, and a name change may not be clinically beneficial, based on data from more than 17,000 patients.

Instead, etiologic subcategorization of fatty liver disease (FLD) should be considered, reported lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of Betty and Guy Beatty Center for Integrated Research, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Va., and colleagues.

“There is debate about whether NAFLD is an appropriate name as the term ‘non-alcoholic’ overemphasizes the absence of alcohol use and underemphasizes the importance of the metabolic risk factors which are the main drivers of disease progression,” the investigators wrote in Hepatology. “It has been suggested that MAFLD may better reflect these risk factors. However, such a recommendation is made despite a lack of a general consensus on the definition of ‘metabolic health’ and disagreements in endocrinology circles about the term ‘metabolic syndrome.’ Nevertheless, a few investigators have suggested that MAFLD but not NAFLD is associated with increased fibrosis and mortality.”

To look for clinical differences between the two disease entities, Dr. Younossi and colleagues turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Specifically, the NHANES III and NHANES 2017-2018 cohorts were employed, including 12,878 and 4,328 participants, respectively.

MAFLD was defined as FLD with overweight/obesity, evidence of metabolic dysregulation, or type 2 diabetes mellitus. NAFLD was defined as FLD without excessive alcohol consumption or other causes of chronic liver disease. Patients were sorted into four groups: NAFLD, MAFLD, both disease types, or neither disease type. Since the categories were not mutually exclusive, the investigators compared clinical characteristics based on 95% confidence intervals. If no overlap was found, then differences were deemed statistically significant.

Diagnoses of NAFLD and MAFLD were highly concordant (kappa coefficient = 0.83-0.94). After a median of 22.8 years follow-up, no significant differences were found between groups for cause-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, or major clinical characteristics except those inherent to the disease definitions (for example, lack of alcohol use in NAFLD). Greatest risk factors for advanced fibrosis in both groups were obesity, high-risk fibrosis, and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

As anticipated, by definition, alcoholic liver disease and excess alcohol use were documented in approximately 15% of patients with MAFLD, but in no patients with NAFLD. As such, alcoholic liver disease predicted liver-specific mortality for MAFLD (hazard ratio, 4.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.89-10.75) but not NAFLD. Conversely, insulin resistance predicted liver-specific mortality in NAFLD (HR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.35-9.42) but not MAFLD (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.36-1.95).

“These data do not support the notion that a name change from NAFLD to MAFLD will better capture the risk for long-term outcomes of these patients or better define metabolically at-risk patients who present with FLD,” the investigators concluded. “On the other hand, enlarging the definition to FLD with subcategories of ‘alcoholic,’ ‘non-alcoholic,’ ‘drug-induced,’ etc. has merit and needs to be further considered. In this context, a true international consensus group of experts supported by liver and non-liver scientific societies must undertake an evidence-based and comprehensive approach to this issue and assess both the benefits and risks of changing the name.”

According to Rohit Loomba, MD, director of the NAFLD research center and professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of California, San Diego, the study offers a preview of the consequences if NAFLD were changed to MAFLD, most notably by making alcohol a key driver of outcomes.

“If we change the name of a disease entity ... how does that impact natural history?” Dr. Loomba asked in an interview. “This paper gives you an idea. If you start calling it MAFLD, then people are dying from alcohol use, and they’re not dying from what we are currently seeing patients with NAFLD die of.”

He also noted that the name change could disrupt drug development and outcome measures since most drugs currently in development are directed at nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

“Is it worth the headache?” Dr. Loomba asked. “How are we going to define NASH-related fibrosis? That probably will remain the same because the therapies that we will use to address that will remain consistent with what we are currently pursuing. ... It’s probably premature to change the nomenclature before assessing the impact on finding new treatment.”

Dr. Younossi disclosed relationships with BMS, Novartis, Gilead, and others. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myer Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89 bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) demonstrate highly similar clinical courses and mortality rates, and a name change may not be clinically beneficial, based on data from more than 17,000 patients.

Instead, etiologic subcategorization of fatty liver disease (FLD) should be considered, reported lead author Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of Betty and Guy Beatty Center for Integrated Research, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Va., and colleagues.

“There is debate about whether NAFLD is an appropriate name as the term ‘non-alcoholic’ overemphasizes the absence of alcohol use and underemphasizes the importance of the metabolic risk factors which are the main drivers of disease progression,” the investigators wrote in Hepatology. “It has been suggested that MAFLD may better reflect these risk factors. However, such a recommendation is made despite a lack of a general consensus on the definition of ‘metabolic health’ and disagreements in endocrinology circles about the term ‘metabolic syndrome.’ Nevertheless, a few investigators have suggested that MAFLD but not NAFLD is associated with increased fibrosis and mortality.”

To look for clinical differences between the two disease entities, Dr. Younossi and colleagues turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Specifically, the NHANES III and NHANES 2017-2018 cohorts were employed, including 12,878 and 4,328 participants, respectively.

MAFLD was defined as FLD with overweight/obesity, evidence of metabolic dysregulation, or type 2 diabetes mellitus. NAFLD was defined as FLD without excessive alcohol consumption or other causes of chronic liver disease. Patients were sorted into four groups: NAFLD, MAFLD, both disease types, or neither disease type. Since the categories were not mutually exclusive, the investigators compared clinical characteristics based on 95% confidence intervals. If no overlap was found, then differences were deemed statistically significant.

Diagnoses of NAFLD and MAFLD were highly concordant (kappa coefficient = 0.83-0.94). After a median of 22.8 years follow-up, no significant differences were found between groups for cause-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, or major clinical characteristics except those inherent to the disease definitions (for example, lack of alcohol use in NAFLD). Greatest risk factors for advanced fibrosis in both groups were obesity, high-risk fibrosis, and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

As anticipated, by definition, alcoholic liver disease and excess alcohol use were documented in approximately 15% of patients with MAFLD, but in no patients with NAFLD. As such, alcoholic liver disease predicted liver-specific mortality for MAFLD (hazard ratio, 4.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.89-10.75) but not NAFLD. Conversely, insulin resistance predicted liver-specific mortality in NAFLD (HR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.35-9.42) but not MAFLD (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.36-1.95).

“These data do not support the notion that a name change from NAFLD to MAFLD will better capture the risk for long-term outcomes of these patients or better define metabolically at-risk patients who present with FLD,” the investigators concluded. “On the other hand, enlarging the definition to FLD with subcategories of ‘alcoholic,’ ‘non-alcoholic,’ ‘drug-induced,’ etc. has merit and needs to be further considered. In this context, a true international consensus group of experts supported by liver and non-liver scientific societies must undertake an evidence-based and comprehensive approach to this issue and assess both the benefits and risks of changing the name.”

According to Rohit Loomba, MD, director of the NAFLD research center and professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of California, San Diego, the study offers a preview of the consequences if NAFLD were changed to MAFLD, most notably by making alcohol a key driver of outcomes.

“If we change the name of a disease entity ... how does that impact natural history?” Dr. Loomba asked in an interview. “This paper gives you an idea. If you start calling it MAFLD, then people are dying from alcohol use, and they’re not dying from what we are currently seeing patients with NAFLD die of.”

He also noted that the name change could disrupt drug development and outcome measures since most drugs currently in development are directed at nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

“Is it worth the headache?” Dr. Loomba asked. “How are we going to define NASH-related fibrosis? That probably will remain the same because the therapies that we will use to address that will remain consistent with what we are currently pursuing. ... It’s probably premature to change the nomenclature before assessing the impact on finding new treatment.”

Dr. Younossi disclosed relationships with BMS, Novartis, Gilead, and others. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myer Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89 bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics.

A complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that Alabama’s Medicaid program is illegally denying curative drug treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection to people with substance use disorder.

The complaint was filed May 9 by the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI) of Harvard Law School, in partnership with AIDS Alabama.

It alleges that Alabama Medicaid has a policy of denying HCV treatment to people who have used illegal drugs or alcohol in the past 6 months.

CHLPI and AIDS Alabama argue that these restrictions violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects people who are disabled because of substance use disorder.

“Forced sobriety policies don’t just unfairly prevent people with substance use disorder from accessing life-saving treatment; they also severely hamper public health efforts to stop the spread of the disease,” Kevin Costello, CHLPI’s litigation director, said in a statement.

“These policies are rooted in stigma, not science, and they violate antidiscrimination provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act,” Mr. Costello said.

Filing an administrative complaint against Alabama is “an important milestone in fighting sobriety restrictions,” he added.
 

Morally wrong

Kathie Hiers, CEO of AIDS Alabama, noted that Alabama’s health outcomes are among the worst in the nation.

“Policies that prevent adequate medical care from being provided must end. HCV now has a cure, and withholding that cure from Alabamians based on a moral judgment is wrong and certainly doesn’t follow the science,” Ms. Hiers added.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy can cure up to 99% of people living with HCV.

The complaint against Alabama Medicaid builds on CHLPI’s successful policy advocacy and litigation campaigns to expand access to DAA therapy in state Medicaid programs across the country.

Since 2017, 19 states have removed treatment restrictions that were based on drug or alcohol use. In other states, however, “severe, illegal sobriety restrictions remain,” according to CHLPI.

Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, and South Dakota still require Medicaid enrollees with HCV to prove they have not used drugs or alcohol for 6 months before they can receive treatment. Iowa, North Dakota, and West Virginia have a 3-month abstinence requirement.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend DAA therapy for all patients with chronic HCV infection, regardless of drug or alcohol use.

CHLPI intends to expand this “enforcement campaign” to all states where sobriety restrictions persist.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that Alabama’s Medicaid program is illegally denying curative drug treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection to people with substance use disorder.

The complaint was filed May 9 by the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI) of Harvard Law School, in partnership with AIDS Alabama.

It alleges that Alabama Medicaid has a policy of denying HCV treatment to people who have used illegal drugs or alcohol in the past 6 months.

CHLPI and AIDS Alabama argue that these restrictions violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects people who are disabled because of substance use disorder.

“Forced sobriety policies don’t just unfairly prevent people with substance use disorder from accessing life-saving treatment; they also severely hamper public health efforts to stop the spread of the disease,” Kevin Costello, CHLPI’s litigation director, said in a statement.

“These policies are rooted in stigma, not science, and they violate antidiscrimination provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act,” Mr. Costello said.

Filing an administrative complaint against Alabama is “an important milestone in fighting sobriety restrictions,” he added.
 

Morally wrong

Kathie Hiers, CEO of AIDS Alabama, noted that Alabama’s health outcomes are among the worst in the nation.

“Policies that prevent adequate medical care from being provided must end. HCV now has a cure, and withholding that cure from Alabamians based on a moral judgment is wrong and certainly doesn’t follow the science,” Ms. Hiers added.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy can cure up to 99% of people living with HCV.

The complaint against Alabama Medicaid builds on CHLPI’s successful policy advocacy and litigation campaigns to expand access to DAA therapy in state Medicaid programs across the country.

Since 2017, 19 states have removed treatment restrictions that were based on drug or alcohol use. In other states, however, “severe, illegal sobriety restrictions remain,” according to CHLPI.

Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, and South Dakota still require Medicaid enrollees with HCV to prove they have not used drugs or alcohol for 6 months before they can receive treatment. Iowa, North Dakota, and West Virginia have a 3-month abstinence requirement.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend DAA therapy for all patients with chronic HCV infection, regardless of drug or alcohol use.

CHLPI intends to expand this “enforcement campaign” to all states where sobriety restrictions persist.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that Alabama’s Medicaid program is illegally denying curative drug treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection to people with substance use disorder.

The complaint was filed May 9 by the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI) of Harvard Law School, in partnership with AIDS Alabama.

It alleges that Alabama Medicaid has a policy of denying HCV treatment to people who have used illegal drugs or alcohol in the past 6 months.

CHLPI and AIDS Alabama argue that these restrictions violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects people who are disabled because of substance use disorder.

“Forced sobriety policies don’t just unfairly prevent people with substance use disorder from accessing life-saving treatment; they also severely hamper public health efforts to stop the spread of the disease,” Kevin Costello, CHLPI’s litigation director, said in a statement.

“These policies are rooted in stigma, not science, and they violate antidiscrimination provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act,” Mr. Costello said.

Filing an administrative complaint against Alabama is “an important milestone in fighting sobriety restrictions,” he added.
 

Morally wrong

Kathie Hiers, CEO of AIDS Alabama, noted that Alabama’s health outcomes are among the worst in the nation.

“Policies that prevent adequate medical care from being provided must end. HCV now has a cure, and withholding that cure from Alabamians based on a moral judgment is wrong and certainly doesn’t follow the science,” Ms. Hiers added.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy can cure up to 99% of people living with HCV.

The complaint against Alabama Medicaid builds on CHLPI’s successful policy advocacy and litigation campaigns to expand access to DAA therapy in state Medicaid programs across the country.

Since 2017, 19 states have removed treatment restrictions that were based on drug or alcohol use. In other states, however, “severe, illegal sobriety restrictions remain,” according to CHLPI.

Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, and South Dakota still require Medicaid enrollees with HCV to prove they have not used drugs or alcohol for 6 months before they can receive treatment. Iowa, North Dakota, and West Virginia have a 3-month abstinence requirement.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend DAA therapy for all patients with chronic HCV infection, regardless of drug or alcohol use.

CHLPI intends to expand this “enforcement campaign” to all states where sobriety restrictions persist.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a retrospective study to evaluate the impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on all-cause mortality in patients with cirrhosis, researchers found reduced mortality only in those hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding. They reported increased liver-related mortality associated with PPIs in all other patients with cirrhosis.

Patients on PPIs had an 18% reduction in all-cause mortality versus other patients if they had gastrointestinal bleeding. But in those without bleeding, PPIs were associated with a 23% increase in liver-related mortality.

Further analysis suggested that the mortality increase could be related to a 21% increased risk for severe infection with PPI exposure in patients with cirrhosis, as well as a 64% increased risk for decompensation.

“My takeaway from this study is that there should be a nuanced understanding of PPIs and cirrhosis,” corresponding author Nadim Mahmud, MD, MS, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview, adding that, if they are to be used in this setting, there should be “a very compelling indication.”

Based on the new analysis, Dr. Mahmud explained, in a patient with cirrhosis hospitalized with a potentially ulcer-related upper gastrointestinal bleed, “we shouldn’t be afraid” to use PPIs “out of fear of potential infection or decompensation because our data demonstrate pretty strongly that that sort of patient may have a mortality benefit.”

In contrast, patients with cirrhosis and “vague abdominal discomfort” are often started on a PPI “just to see if that helps,” Dr. Mahmud said, and they may stay on the medication “in perpetuity, just because they’re so ubiquitously prescribed.”

“In that patient, we should recognize that there is a potential risk of increased infection and decompensation,” he said. There “should be an active effort to deprescribe the PPI or at the very least reduce it to the minimum dose needed for efficacy, if it’s treating a symptom.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Looking at the big picture of PPIs in people with cirrhosis

The authors noted that the half-life of PPIs is “prolonged in patients with cirrhosis” and that alterations in the gastrointestinal microbiota as a result of gastric acid suppression “may allow for bacterial overgrowth and translocation,” thus increasing the risk for infections.

However, studies of the impact of PPIs on adverse outcomes in patients with cirrhosis have often been hampered by numerous limitations, such as small sample sizes, a “limited ability to control for complex confounding,” or a “narrow focus” on hospitalized patients.

To overcome these problems, the team retrospectively examined data from the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver Diseases cohort, including all adults with incident cirrhosis between January 2008 and June 2021.

They excluded patients with Fibrosis-4 scores less than 1.45 at baseline, as well as those with prior liver transplantation, decompensated cirrhosis at baseline, a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma within 6 months of the index date, and less than 6 months of follow-up.

In all, 76,251 patients with incident cirrhosis met the inclusion criteria, 21% of whom were on a PPI at baseline. The most commonly used PPIs were omeprazole (76.7%), followed by pantoprazole (22.2%) and lansoprazole (0.1%).

Those taking the drugs were more likely than other patients to be White, have metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, have a higher median body mass index, and were more likely to have cirrhosis because of alcohol-related liver disease or metabolic-associated fatty liver disease.

Over 49 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was recorded for 37.5% of patients, of whom 59% experienced non–liver-related death and 41% liver-related mortality.

Multivariate analysis revealed that PPI exposure was not associated with all-cause mortality overall but was significantly associated with reduced all-cause mortality in patients with hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding, at a hazard ratio of 0.88.

However, PPI exposure in patients without gastrointestinal bleeding was associated with an increased risk for liver-related mortality (HR, 1.23), but a reduced risk for non–liver-related mortality (HR, 0.88).

Dr. Mahmud and colleagues found that PPI exposure was significantly associated with severe infection (HR, 1.21) and cirrhosis decompensation (HR, 1.64).

The authors suggested that these increased risks “may mediate the observed increased in liver-related mortality.”
 

Large study suggests limited protective PPI indication

Nancy S. Reau, MD, chair of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said that “multiple studies” point to a link between PPI exposure and infection in cirrhosis.

“Although this is a retrospective study, it is very large so we should give credit to the associations,” she said in an interview. She was not involved with the current study.

“The most important message is that we need to be judicious with our therapy,” Dr. Reau added, qualifying that “everything is a risk-benefit ratio.”

“PPI use in cirrhosis has a role but should not overstep its boundary,” she explained. “More simply, if the PPI is indicated, you should not avoid it in a patient with cirrhosis. On the other hand, if you have a patient with advanced liver disease who is chronically taking a PPI, you should question its indication.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of hepatology, University of Miami Health Systems, said in an interview that, when it comes to PPI use in patients with cirrhosis, “judicious is the right word. They should be clearly used if there’s a bona fide indication ... and probably for a finite period of time.”

In a common scenario, “a patient is put on a PPI after they’ve undergone endoscopy with obliteration of varices, and the thought is that PPIs help the ulcers induced by the banding to heal,” said Dr. Martin, who was not associated with the research. “This paper didn’t specifically tease out whether that’s beneficial or not, but it certainly suggests, in patients with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, that PPIs are still beneficial.”

Dr. Mahmud is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One coauthor is supported by a National Institutes of Health K23 grant; another is supported by a VA Merit Grant and by a National Cancer Institute R01; a third has received unrelated support from Gilead, Glycotest, and Bayer and also is supported by VA Merit Grants. Dr. Reau and Dr. Martin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a retrospective study to evaluate the impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on all-cause mortality in patients with cirrhosis, researchers found reduced mortality only in those hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding. They reported increased liver-related mortality associated with PPIs in all other patients with cirrhosis.

Patients on PPIs had an 18% reduction in all-cause mortality versus other patients if they had gastrointestinal bleeding. But in those without bleeding, PPIs were associated with a 23% increase in liver-related mortality.

Further analysis suggested that the mortality increase could be related to a 21% increased risk for severe infection with PPI exposure in patients with cirrhosis, as well as a 64% increased risk for decompensation.

“My takeaway from this study is that there should be a nuanced understanding of PPIs and cirrhosis,” corresponding author Nadim Mahmud, MD, MS, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview, adding that, if they are to be used in this setting, there should be “a very compelling indication.”

Based on the new analysis, Dr. Mahmud explained, in a patient with cirrhosis hospitalized with a potentially ulcer-related upper gastrointestinal bleed, “we shouldn’t be afraid” to use PPIs “out of fear of potential infection or decompensation because our data demonstrate pretty strongly that that sort of patient may have a mortality benefit.”

In contrast, patients with cirrhosis and “vague abdominal discomfort” are often started on a PPI “just to see if that helps,” Dr. Mahmud said, and they may stay on the medication “in perpetuity, just because they’re so ubiquitously prescribed.”

“In that patient, we should recognize that there is a potential risk of increased infection and decompensation,” he said. There “should be an active effort to deprescribe the PPI or at the very least reduce it to the minimum dose needed for efficacy, if it’s treating a symptom.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Looking at the big picture of PPIs in people with cirrhosis

The authors noted that the half-life of PPIs is “prolonged in patients with cirrhosis” and that alterations in the gastrointestinal microbiota as a result of gastric acid suppression “may allow for bacterial overgrowth and translocation,” thus increasing the risk for infections.

However, studies of the impact of PPIs on adverse outcomes in patients with cirrhosis have often been hampered by numerous limitations, such as small sample sizes, a “limited ability to control for complex confounding,” or a “narrow focus” on hospitalized patients.

To overcome these problems, the team retrospectively examined data from the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver Diseases cohort, including all adults with incident cirrhosis between January 2008 and June 2021.

They excluded patients with Fibrosis-4 scores less than 1.45 at baseline, as well as those with prior liver transplantation, decompensated cirrhosis at baseline, a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma within 6 months of the index date, and less than 6 months of follow-up.

In all, 76,251 patients with incident cirrhosis met the inclusion criteria, 21% of whom were on a PPI at baseline. The most commonly used PPIs were omeprazole (76.7%), followed by pantoprazole (22.2%) and lansoprazole (0.1%).

Those taking the drugs were more likely than other patients to be White, have metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, have a higher median body mass index, and were more likely to have cirrhosis because of alcohol-related liver disease or metabolic-associated fatty liver disease.

Over 49 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was recorded for 37.5% of patients, of whom 59% experienced non–liver-related death and 41% liver-related mortality.

Multivariate analysis revealed that PPI exposure was not associated with all-cause mortality overall but was significantly associated with reduced all-cause mortality in patients with hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding, at a hazard ratio of 0.88.

However, PPI exposure in patients without gastrointestinal bleeding was associated with an increased risk for liver-related mortality (HR, 1.23), but a reduced risk for non–liver-related mortality (HR, 0.88).

Dr. Mahmud and colleagues found that PPI exposure was significantly associated with severe infection (HR, 1.21) and cirrhosis decompensation (HR, 1.64).

The authors suggested that these increased risks “may mediate the observed increased in liver-related mortality.”
 

Large study suggests limited protective PPI indication

Nancy S. Reau, MD, chair of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said that “multiple studies” point to a link between PPI exposure and infection in cirrhosis.

“Although this is a retrospective study, it is very large so we should give credit to the associations,” she said in an interview. She was not involved with the current study.

“The most important message is that we need to be judicious with our therapy,” Dr. Reau added, qualifying that “everything is a risk-benefit ratio.”

“PPI use in cirrhosis has a role but should not overstep its boundary,” she explained. “More simply, if the PPI is indicated, you should not avoid it in a patient with cirrhosis. On the other hand, if you have a patient with advanced liver disease who is chronically taking a PPI, you should question its indication.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of hepatology, University of Miami Health Systems, said in an interview that, when it comes to PPI use in patients with cirrhosis, “judicious is the right word. They should be clearly used if there’s a bona fide indication ... and probably for a finite period of time.”

In a common scenario, “a patient is put on a PPI after they’ve undergone endoscopy with obliteration of varices, and the thought is that PPIs help the ulcers induced by the banding to heal,” said Dr. Martin, who was not associated with the research. “This paper didn’t specifically tease out whether that’s beneficial or not, but it certainly suggests, in patients with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, that PPIs are still beneficial.”

Dr. Mahmud is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One coauthor is supported by a National Institutes of Health K23 grant; another is supported by a VA Merit Grant and by a National Cancer Institute R01; a third has received unrelated support from Gilead, Glycotest, and Bayer and also is supported by VA Merit Grants. Dr. Reau and Dr. Martin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a retrospective study to evaluate the impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on all-cause mortality in patients with cirrhosis, researchers found reduced mortality only in those hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding. They reported increased liver-related mortality associated with PPIs in all other patients with cirrhosis.

Patients on PPIs had an 18% reduction in all-cause mortality versus other patients if they had gastrointestinal bleeding. But in those without bleeding, PPIs were associated with a 23% increase in liver-related mortality.

Further analysis suggested that the mortality increase could be related to a 21% increased risk for severe infection with PPI exposure in patients with cirrhosis, as well as a 64% increased risk for decompensation.

“My takeaway from this study is that there should be a nuanced understanding of PPIs and cirrhosis,” corresponding author Nadim Mahmud, MD, MS, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview, adding that, if they are to be used in this setting, there should be “a very compelling indication.”

Based on the new analysis, Dr. Mahmud explained, in a patient with cirrhosis hospitalized with a potentially ulcer-related upper gastrointestinal bleed, “we shouldn’t be afraid” to use PPIs “out of fear of potential infection or decompensation because our data demonstrate pretty strongly that that sort of patient may have a mortality benefit.”

In contrast, patients with cirrhosis and “vague abdominal discomfort” are often started on a PPI “just to see if that helps,” Dr. Mahmud said, and they may stay on the medication “in perpetuity, just because they’re so ubiquitously prescribed.”

“In that patient, we should recognize that there is a potential risk of increased infection and decompensation,” he said. There “should be an active effort to deprescribe the PPI or at the very least reduce it to the minimum dose needed for efficacy, if it’s treating a symptom.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Looking at the big picture of PPIs in people with cirrhosis

The authors noted that the half-life of PPIs is “prolonged in patients with cirrhosis” and that alterations in the gastrointestinal microbiota as a result of gastric acid suppression “may allow for bacterial overgrowth and translocation,” thus increasing the risk for infections.

However, studies of the impact of PPIs on adverse outcomes in patients with cirrhosis have often been hampered by numerous limitations, such as small sample sizes, a “limited ability to control for complex confounding,” or a “narrow focus” on hospitalized patients.

To overcome these problems, the team retrospectively examined data from the Veterans Outcomes and Costs Associated with Liver Diseases cohort, including all adults with incident cirrhosis between January 2008 and June 2021.

They excluded patients with Fibrosis-4 scores less than 1.45 at baseline, as well as those with prior liver transplantation, decompensated cirrhosis at baseline, a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma within 6 months of the index date, and less than 6 months of follow-up.

In all, 76,251 patients with incident cirrhosis met the inclusion criteria, 21% of whom were on a PPI at baseline. The most commonly used PPIs were omeprazole (76.7%), followed by pantoprazole (22.2%) and lansoprazole (0.1%).

Those taking the drugs were more likely than other patients to be White, have metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, have a higher median body mass index, and were more likely to have cirrhosis because of alcohol-related liver disease or metabolic-associated fatty liver disease.

Over 49 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was recorded for 37.5% of patients, of whom 59% experienced non–liver-related death and 41% liver-related mortality.

Multivariate analysis revealed that PPI exposure was not associated with all-cause mortality overall but was significantly associated with reduced all-cause mortality in patients with hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding, at a hazard ratio of 0.88.

However, PPI exposure in patients without gastrointestinal bleeding was associated with an increased risk for liver-related mortality (HR, 1.23), but a reduced risk for non–liver-related mortality (HR, 0.88).

Dr. Mahmud and colleagues found that PPI exposure was significantly associated with severe infection (HR, 1.21) and cirrhosis decompensation (HR, 1.64).

The authors suggested that these increased risks “may mediate the observed increased in liver-related mortality.”
 

Large study suggests limited protective PPI indication

Nancy S. Reau, MD, chair of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said that “multiple studies” point to a link between PPI exposure and infection in cirrhosis.

“Although this is a retrospective study, it is very large so we should give credit to the associations,” she said in an interview. She was not involved with the current study.

“The most important message is that we need to be judicious with our therapy,” Dr. Reau added, qualifying that “everything is a risk-benefit ratio.”

“PPI use in cirrhosis has a role but should not overstep its boundary,” she explained. “More simply, if the PPI is indicated, you should not avoid it in a patient with cirrhosis. On the other hand, if you have a patient with advanced liver disease who is chronically taking a PPI, you should question its indication.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of hepatology, University of Miami Health Systems, said in an interview that, when it comes to PPI use in patients with cirrhosis, “judicious is the right word. They should be clearly used if there’s a bona fide indication ... and probably for a finite period of time.”

In a common scenario, “a patient is put on a PPI after they’ve undergone endoscopy with obliteration of varices, and the thought is that PPIs help the ulcers induced by the banding to heal,” said Dr. Martin, who was not associated with the research. “This paper didn’t specifically tease out whether that’s beneficial or not, but it certainly suggests, in patients with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, that PPIs are still beneficial.”

Dr. Mahmud is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One coauthor is supported by a National Institutes of Health K23 grant; another is supported by a VA Merit Grant and by a National Cancer Institute R01; a third has received unrelated support from Gilead, Glycotest, and Bayer and also is supported by VA Merit Grants. Dr. Reau and Dr. Martin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This spring, global health advisories have been issued regarding an alarming – and as-yet unexplained – uptick of hepatitis in children. Currently, over 200 cases have been reported worldwide, a relatively small amount that nonetheless belies a considerable toll, including several deaths and the need for liver transplantation in a number of patients. The long-term implications are not yet known. Global health officials are working hard to determine a cause, with many focusing on the underlying cases of adenovirus that several patients have presented with.

To understand more, this news organization reached out to frequent contributor William F. Balistreri, MD, a specialist in pediatric gastroenterology and hepatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, where to date they have treated at least six cases of hepatitis in otherwise healthy young children, with one requiring a liver transplant. Dr. Balistreri discussed how the outbreak has developed to date, his advice to hepatologists and pediatricians, and where we stand now in this fast-evolving crisis.
 

Tracing the outbreak in the United States

How has this outbreak played out thus far in the United States, and what have we learned from that?

Sporadic reports of cases in multiple states are appearing. On April 21, 2022, a health alert was issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommending testing for adenovirus in children with acute hepatitis of an unknown etiology.

Baker and colleagues recently described five children with severe hepatitis and adenovirus viremia who were admitted to a children’s hospital in Birmingham, Ala., between October and November 2021. In collaboration with local and state officials, the CDC reviewed clinical records in order to identify patients with hepatitis and concomitant adenovirus infection, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

By February 2022, a total of nine children were identified. There was no epidemiologic linkage among these nine patients; all were well and immunocompetent. The prodromal features were somewhat similar: upper respiratory infection, vomiting, diarrhea, and jaundice. All children had markedly elevated aminotransferase levels and variably elevated total bilirubin levels. Extensive workup for other causes of acute liver injury (for example, other viruses, toxins/drugs, metabolic and autoimmune diseases) was unrevealing.

Specifically, none had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, in all nine children, adenovirus was detected in whole blood samples. In the six children who underwent liver biopsy, there was nonspecific hepatitis, without inclusions or immunohistochemical detection of viral agents, including adenovirus. In three patients, the liver injury progressed, and despite the administration of antiviral agents, two underwent liver transplantation.

Baker and colleagues also suggested that measurement of adenovirus titers in whole blood (rather than plasma) may be more sensitive.

The CDC has recommended monitoring and surveillance in order to more fully understand the nature of the illness.
 

European and global cases

What has been the experience with this in Europe and elsewhere globally?

In mid-to-late 2021, several cases of acute hepatitis of unknown nature in children were identified in Europe. Public health officials in the United Kingdom investigated the high number of cases seen in children from England, Scotland, and Wales. They noted approximately 60 cases in England, mostly in children aged 2-5 years.

Marsh and colleagues reported a cluster of cases of severe hepatitis of unknown origin in Scotland affecting children aged 3-5 years. In Scotland, admitted cases were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 13 cases, five had a recent positive test. They discussed the possibility of increased severity of disease following infection with Omicron BA.2 (the dominant SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating in Scotland at that time) or infection by an uncharacterized SARS-CoV-2 variant. None of the children had been vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

On April 15, 2022, the World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News published a report of acute hepatitis of unknown etiology occurring in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By April 21, 2022, 169 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown origin in children younger than 16 years had been reported from 11 countries in the WHO European region and 1 country in the WHO region of the Americas. Approximately 10% required a liver transplantation and at least one death was reported.

What has been established about the possible connection to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, particularly as it relates to coinfection with adenovirus?

In that WHO report of 169 cases, adenovirus was detected in 74 and SARS-CoV-2 in 20. Of note, 19 cases had a SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus coinfection.

The report’s authors emphasized that, “while adenovirus is a possible hypothesis, investigations are ongoing for the causative agent.” The authors questioned whether this represents a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis or reflects an increased awareness.

The stated priority of the WHO is to determine the cause and to further refine control and prevention actions.

Given the worldwide nature of this outbreak, have connections between any of the cases been made yet?

Not to my knowledge.
 

What clinicians need to know

What makes this outbreak of hepatitis cases particularly concerning to the health care community, in comparison to other childhood diseases that occur globally? Is it because the cause is unknown or is it for other reasons?

It may be a collective heightened concern following the emergence of COVID.

Whether it represents a new form of acute hepatitis, a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis, or an increased awareness because of the well-publicized alerts remains to be determined. We certainly saw “viral-induced hepatitis” in the past.

Young patients may first be brought to pediatricians. What, if anything, should pediatricians be on the lookout for? Do they need a heightened index of suspicion or are the cases too rare at this point?

An awareness of the “outbreak” may allow the clinician to extend the typical workup of a child presenting with an undefined, presumably viral illness.

In the cases reported, the prodromal and/or presenting symptoms were respiratory and gastrointestinal in nature. They include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.

Specifically, if jaundice and/or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Should pediatricians consider early referral to a pediatric gastroenterologist or hepatologist?

Yes, because there is the potential for finding a treatable cause (for example, autoimmune hepatitis or a specific metabolic disease) in a patient presenting in this fashion.

In addition, the potential for progression to acute liver failure (with coagulopathy and encephalopathy), albeit rare, exists.

What do hepatologists need to be doing when presented with suspected cases?

The typical clinical picture holds and the workup is standard. The one new key, given the recent data, is to test for adenovirus, using whole blood versus plasma, as the former may be more sensitive.

In addition, it is prudent to check for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.

What are the major questions that remain and that you’d like to see elucidated going forward?

There are many. Is this a new disease? A new variant of adenovirus? A synergy or susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is it related to a variant of SARS-CoV-2? Is it triggering an adverse immune response? Are there other epigenetic factors involved? And finally, is this an increase, or is it related to a collective heightened concern following the pandemic?

Dr. Balistreri is the Dorothy M.M. Kersten Professor of Pediatrics, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center, medical director emeritus of liver transplantation, and professor at the University of Cincinnati; he is also with the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This spring, global health advisories have been issued regarding an alarming – and as-yet unexplained – uptick of hepatitis in children. Currently, over 200 cases have been reported worldwide, a relatively small amount that nonetheless belies a considerable toll, including several deaths and the need for liver transplantation in a number of patients. The long-term implications are not yet known. Global health officials are working hard to determine a cause, with many focusing on the underlying cases of adenovirus that several patients have presented with.

To understand more, this news organization reached out to frequent contributor William F. Balistreri, MD, a specialist in pediatric gastroenterology and hepatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, where to date they have treated at least six cases of hepatitis in otherwise healthy young children, with one requiring a liver transplant. Dr. Balistreri discussed how the outbreak has developed to date, his advice to hepatologists and pediatricians, and where we stand now in this fast-evolving crisis.
 

Tracing the outbreak in the United States

How has this outbreak played out thus far in the United States, and what have we learned from that?

Sporadic reports of cases in multiple states are appearing. On April 21, 2022, a health alert was issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommending testing for adenovirus in children with acute hepatitis of an unknown etiology.

Baker and colleagues recently described five children with severe hepatitis and adenovirus viremia who were admitted to a children’s hospital in Birmingham, Ala., between October and November 2021. In collaboration with local and state officials, the CDC reviewed clinical records in order to identify patients with hepatitis and concomitant adenovirus infection, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

By February 2022, a total of nine children were identified. There was no epidemiologic linkage among these nine patients; all were well and immunocompetent. The prodromal features were somewhat similar: upper respiratory infection, vomiting, diarrhea, and jaundice. All children had markedly elevated aminotransferase levels and variably elevated total bilirubin levels. Extensive workup for other causes of acute liver injury (for example, other viruses, toxins/drugs, metabolic and autoimmune diseases) was unrevealing.

Specifically, none had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, in all nine children, adenovirus was detected in whole blood samples. In the six children who underwent liver biopsy, there was nonspecific hepatitis, without inclusions or immunohistochemical detection of viral agents, including adenovirus. In three patients, the liver injury progressed, and despite the administration of antiviral agents, two underwent liver transplantation.

Baker and colleagues also suggested that measurement of adenovirus titers in whole blood (rather than plasma) may be more sensitive.

The CDC has recommended monitoring and surveillance in order to more fully understand the nature of the illness.
 

European and global cases

What has been the experience with this in Europe and elsewhere globally?

In mid-to-late 2021, several cases of acute hepatitis of unknown nature in children were identified in Europe. Public health officials in the United Kingdom investigated the high number of cases seen in children from England, Scotland, and Wales. They noted approximately 60 cases in England, mostly in children aged 2-5 years.

Marsh and colleagues reported a cluster of cases of severe hepatitis of unknown origin in Scotland affecting children aged 3-5 years. In Scotland, admitted cases were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 13 cases, five had a recent positive test. They discussed the possibility of increased severity of disease following infection with Omicron BA.2 (the dominant SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating in Scotland at that time) or infection by an uncharacterized SARS-CoV-2 variant. None of the children had been vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

On April 15, 2022, the World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News published a report of acute hepatitis of unknown etiology occurring in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By April 21, 2022, 169 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown origin in children younger than 16 years had been reported from 11 countries in the WHO European region and 1 country in the WHO region of the Americas. Approximately 10% required a liver transplantation and at least one death was reported.

What has been established about the possible connection to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, particularly as it relates to coinfection with adenovirus?

In that WHO report of 169 cases, adenovirus was detected in 74 and SARS-CoV-2 in 20. Of note, 19 cases had a SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus coinfection.

The report’s authors emphasized that, “while adenovirus is a possible hypothesis, investigations are ongoing for the causative agent.” The authors questioned whether this represents a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis or reflects an increased awareness.

The stated priority of the WHO is to determine the cause and to further refine control and prevention actions.

Given the worldwide nature of this outbreak, have connections between any of the cases been made yet?

Not to my knowledge.
 

What clinicians need to know

What makes this outbreak of hepatitis cases particularly concerning to the health care community, in comparison to other childhood diseases that occur globally? Is it because the cause is unknown or is it for other reasons?

It may be a collective heightened concern following the emergence of COVID.

Whether it represents a new form of acute hepatitis, a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis, or an increased awareness because of the well-publicized alerts remains to be determined. We certainly saw “viral-induced hepatitis” in the past.

Young patients may first be brought to pediatricians. What, if anything, should pediatricians be on the lookout for? Do they need a heightened index of suspicion or are the cases too rare at this point?

An awareness of the “outbreak” may allow the clinician to extend the typical workup of a child presenting with an undefined, presumably viral illness.

In the cases reported, the prodromal and/or presenting symptoms were respiratory and gastrointestinal in nature. They include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.

Specifically, if jaundice and/or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Should pediatricians consider early referral to a pediatric gastroenterologist or hepatologist?

Yes, because there is the potential for finding a treatable cause (for example, autoimmune hepatitis or a specific metabolic disease) in a patient presenting in this fashion.

In addition, the potential for progression to acute liver failure (with coagulopathy and encephalopathy), albeit rare, exists.

What do hepatologists need to be doing when presented with suspected cases?

The typical clinical picture holds and the workup is standard. The one new key, given the recent data, is to test for adenovirus, using whole blood versus plasma, as the former may be more sensitive.

In addition, it is prudent to check for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.

What are the major questions that remain and that you’d like to see elucidated going forward?

There are many. Is this a new disease? A new variant of adenovirus? A synergy or susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is it related to a variant of SARS-CoV-2? Is it triggering an adverse immune response? Are there other epigenetic factors involved? And finally, is this an increase, or is it related to a collective heightened concern following the pandemic?

Dr. Balistreri is the Dorothy M.M. Kersten Professor of Pediatrics, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center, medical director emeritus of liver transplantation, and professor at the University of Cincinnati; he is also with the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This spring, global health advisories have been issued regarding an alarming – and as-yet unexplained – uptick of hepatitis in children. Currently, over 200 cases have been reported worldwide, a relatively small amount that nonetheless belies a considerable toll, including several deaths and the need for liver transplantation in a number of patients. The long-term implications are not yet known. Global health officials are working hard to determine a cause, with many focusing on the underlying cases of adenovirus that several patients have presented with.

To understand more, this news organization reached out to frequent contributor William F. Balistreri, MD, a specialist in pediatric gastroenterology and hepatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, where to date they have treated at least six cases of hepatitis in otherwise healthy young children, with one requiring a liver transplant. Dr. Balistreri discussed how the outbreak has developed to date, his advice to hepatologists and pediatricians, and where we stand now in this fast-evolving crisis.
 

Tracing the outbreak in the United States

How has this outbreak played out thus far in the United States, and what have we learned from that?

Sporadic reports of cases in multiple states are appearing. On April 21, 2022, a health alert was issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommending testing for adenovirus in children with acute hepatitis of an unknown etiology.

Baker and colleagues recently described five children with severe hepatitis and adenovirus viremia who were admitted to a children’s hospital in Birmingham, Ala., between October and November 2021. In collaboration with local and state officials, the CDC reviewed clinical records in order to identify patients with hepatitis and concomitant adenovirus infection, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

By February 2022, a total of nine children were identified. There was no epidemiologic linkage among these nine patients; all were well and immunocompetent. The prodromal features were somewhat similar: upper respiratory infection, vomiting, diarrhea, and jaundice. All children had markedly elevated aminotransferase levels and variably elevated total bilirubin levels. Extensive workup for other causes of acute liver injury (for example, other viruses, toxins/drugs, metabolic and autoimmune diseases) was unrevealing.

Specifically, none had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, in all nine children, adenovirus was detected in whole blood samples. In the six children who underwent liver biopsy, there was nonspecific hepatitis, without inclusions or immunohistochemical detection of viral agents, including adenovirus. In three patients, the liver injury progressed, and despite the administration of antiviral agents, two underwent liver transplantation.

Baker and colleagues also suggested that measurement of adenovirus titers in whole blood (rather than plasma) may be more sensitive.

The CDC has recommended monitoring and surveillance in order to more fully understand the nature of the illness.
 

European and global cases

What has been the experience with this in Europe and elsewhere globally?

In mid-to-late 2021, several cases of acute hepatitis of unknown nature in children were identified in Europe. Public health officials in the United Kingdom investigated the high number of cases seen in children from England, Scotland, and Wales. They noted approximately 60 cases in England, mostly in children aged 2-5 years.

Marsh and colleagues reported a cluster of cases of severe hepatitis of unknown origin in Scotland affecting children aged 3-5 years. In Scotland, admitted cases were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 13 cases, five had a recent positive test. They discussed the possibility of increased severity of disease following infection with Omicron BA.2 (the dominant SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating in Scotland at that time) or infection by an uncharacterized SARS-CoV-2 variant. None of the children had been vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

On April 15, 2022, the World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News published a report of acute hepatitis of unknown etiology occurring in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By April 21, 2022, 169 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown origin in children younger than 16 years had been reported from 11 countries in the WHO European region and 1 country in the WHO region of the Americas. Approximately 10% required a liver transplantation and at least one death was reported.

What has been established about the possible connection to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, particularly as it relates to coinfection with adenovirus?

In that WHO report of 169 cases, adenovirus was detected in 74 and SARS-CoV-2 in 20. Of note, 19 cases had a SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus coinfection.

The report’s authors emphasized that, “while adenovirus is a possible hypothesis, investigations are ongoing for the causative agent.” The authors questioned whether this represents a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis or reflects an increased awareness.

The stated priority of the WHO is to determine the cause and to further refine control and prevention actions.

Given the worldwide nature of this outbreak, have connections between any of the cases been made yet?

Not to my knowledge.
 

What clinicians need to know

What makes this outbreak of hepatitis cases particularly concerning to the health care community, in comparison to other childhood diseases that occur globally? Is it because the cause is unknown or is it for other reasons?

It may be a collective heightened concern following the emergence of COVID.

Whether it represents a new form of acute hepatitis, a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis, or an increased awareness because of the well-publicized alerts remains to be determined. We certainly saw “viral-induced hepatitis” in the past.

Young patients may first be brought to pediatricians. What, if anything, should pediatricians be on the lookout for? Do they need a heightened index of suspicion or are the cases too rare at this point?

An awareness of the “outbreak” may allow the clinician to extend the typical workup of a child presenting with an undefined, presumably viral illness.

In the cases reported, the prodromal and/or presenting symptoms were respiratory and gastrointestinal in nature. They include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.

Specifically, if jaundice and/or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Should pediatricians consider early referral to a pediatric gastroenterologist or hepatologist?

Yes, because there is the potential for finding a treatable cause (for example, autoimmune hepatitis or a specific metabolic disease) in a patient presenting in this fashion.

In addition, the potential for progression to acute liver failure (with coagulopathy and encephalopathy), albeit rare, exists.

What do hepatologists need to be doing when presented with suspected cases?

The typical clinical picture holds and the workup is standard. The one new key, given the recent data, is to test for adenovirus, using whole blood versus plasma, as the former may be more sensitive.

In addition, it is prudent to check for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.

What are the major questions that remain and that you’d like to see elucidated going forward?

There are many. Is this a new disease? A new variant of adenovirus? A synergy or susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is it related to a variant of SARS-CoV-2? Is it triggering an adverse immune response? Are there other epigenetic factors involved? And finally, is this an increase, or is it related to a collective heightened concern following the pandemic?

Dr. Balistreri is the Dorothy M.M. Kersten Professor of Pediatrics, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center, medical director emeritus of liver transplantation, and professor at the University of Cincinnati; he is also with the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) – a newly defined condition – may be more likely to die from COVID-19, researchers say.

A cohort of people hospitalized for COVID-19 in Central Military Hospital, Mexico City, who met the criteria for MAFLD died at a higher rate than a control group without fatty liver disease, said Martín Uriel Vázquez-Medina, MSc, a researcher in the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City.

Patients who met only the criteria for the traditional classification, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), also died of COVID-19 at a higher rate than the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

“It is important to screen for MAFLD,” Mr. Vázquez-Medina told this news organization. “It’s a new definition, but it has really helped us to identify which patients are going to get worse by COVID-19.”

The study was published in Hepatology Communications.
 

More evidence for clinical relevance of MAFLD

The finding lends support to an initiative to use MAFLD instead of NAFLD to identify patients whose liver steatosis poses a threat to their health, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.

NAFLD affects as much as a quarter of the world’s population. No drugs have been approved to treat it. Some researchers have reasoned that the imprecision of the definition of NAFLD could be one reason for the lack of progress in treatment.

“NAFLD is something that doesn’t have positive criteria to be diagnosed,” said Mr. Vázquez-Medina. “You only say NAFLD when you don’t find hepatitis or another disease.”

In an article published in Gastroenterology, an international consensus panel proposed MAFLD as an alternative, arguing that a focus on metabolic dysfunction could more accurately reflect the pathogenesis of the disease and help stratify patients.

Previous research has suggested that patients with MAFLD have a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and that the prevalence of colorectal adenomas is a higher in these patients, compared with patients with NAFLD.

The high prevalence of MAFLD in Mexico – about 30% – could help explain the country’s high rate of mortality from COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. Almost 6% of people diagnosed with COVID in Mexico have died from it, according to the Johns Hopkins University and Medical Center Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Sorting COVID outcomes by liver steatosis

To understand the interaction of MAFLD, NAFLD, liver fibrosis, and COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina and his colleagues analyzed the records of all patients admitted to the Central Military Hospital with COVID-19 from April 4, 2020, to June 24, 2020.

They excluded patients for whom complete data were lacking or for whom a liver function test was not conducted in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Also excluded were patients with significant consumption of alcohol (> 30 g/day for men and > 20 g/day for women) and those with a history of autoimmune liver disease, liver cancer, decompensated cirrhosis, platelet disorders, or myopathies.

The remaining patients were divided into three groups – 220 who met the criteria for MAFLD, 79 who met the criteria for NAFLD but not MAFLD, and 60 other patients as a control group.

The researchers defined MAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis detected with a noninvasive method and one of the following: overweight (body mass index, 25-29.9 kg/m2), type 2 diabetes, or the presence of two metabolic abnormalities (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg, plasma triglycerides > 150 mg/dL, plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 40 mg/dL in men and < 50 mg/dL in women, and prediabetes).

They defined NAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis without the other criteria for MAFLD.

The patients with MAFLD were the most likely to be intubated and were the most likely to die (intubation, 44.09%; mortality, 55%), followed by those with NAFLD (intubation, 40.51%; mortality, 51.9%) and those in the control group (intubation, 20%; mortality, 38.33%).

The difference in mortality between the MAFLD group and the control group was statistically significant (P = .02). The mortality difference between the NAFLD and the control group fell just short of statistical significance (P = .07).

For intubation, the difference between the MAFLD and the control group was highly statistically significant (P = .001), and the difference between the NAFLD and the control group was also statistically significant (P = .01)

Patients with advanced fibrosis and either MAFLD or NAFLD were also more likely to die than patients in the control group with advanced fibrosis.

That’s why screening for MAFLD is important, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.
 

Next steps and new questions

Future research should examine whether patients with MAFLD have elevated levels of biomarkers for inflammation, such as interleukin 6, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. A “chronic low proinflammatory state” may be the key to understanding the vulnerability of patients to MAFLD to COVID-19, he speculated.

The metabolic traits associated with MAFLD could explain the higher mortality and intubation rates with COVID, said Rohit Loomba, MD, MHSc, a professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study.

“Hypertension, diabetes, and obesity increase the risk of complications from COVID in all patients, whether they have been diagnosed with NAFLD or not,” he told this news organization in an email.

Mr. Vasquez-Medina pointed out that the patients with MAFLD had a higher risk of mortality even after adjusting for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, overweight, and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). MAFLD also was more strongly associated with a poor outcome than either hypertension alone or obesity alone. Only age emerged as a significant independent covariate in the study.

Dr. Loomba also questioned whether the regression model used in this study for liver steatosis was “fully reflective of NAFLD.”

The researchers identified liver steatosis with a diagnostic formula that used noninvasive clinical BMI and laboratory tests (alanine aminotransferase), citing a study that found the regression formula was better at diagnosing NAFLD than FibroScan.

Mr. Vázquez-Medina reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse Bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics. He is co-founder of LipoNexus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) – a newly defined condition – may be more likely to die from COVID-19, researchers say.

A cohort of people hospitalized for COVID-19 in Central Military Hospital, Mexico City, who met the criteria for MAFLD died at a higher rate than a control group without fatty liver disease, said Martín Uriel Vázquez-Medina, MSc, a researcher in the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City.

Patients who met only the criteria for the traditional classification, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), also died of COVID-19 at a higher rate than the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

“It is important to screen for MAFLD,” Mr. Vázquez-Medina told this news organization. “It’s a new definition, but it has really helped us to identify which patients are going to get worse by COVID-19.”

The study was published in Hepatology Communications.
 

More evidence for clinical relevance of MAFLD

The finding lends support to an initiative to use MAFLD instead of NAFLD to identify patients whose liver steatosis poses a threat to their health, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.

NAFLD affects as much as a quarter of the world’s population. No drugs have been approved to treat it. Some researchers have reasoned that the imprecision of the definition of NAFLD could be one reason for the lack of progress in treatment.

“NAFLD is something that doesn’t have positive criteria to be diagnosed,” said Mr. Vázquez-Medina. “You only say NAFLD when you don’t find hepatitis or another disease.”

In an article published in Gastroenterology, an international consensus panel proposed MAFLD as an alternative, arguing that a focus on metabolic dysfunction could more accurately reflect the pathogenesis of the disease and help stratify patients.

Previous research has suggested that patients with MAFLD have a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and that the prevalence of colorectal adenomas is a higher in these patients, compared with patients with NAFLD.

The high prevalence of MAFLD in Mexico – about 30% – could help explain the country’s high rate of mortality from COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. Almost 6% of people diagnosed with COVID in Mexico have died from it, according to the Johns Hopkins University and Medical Center Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Sorting COVID outcomes by liver steatosis

To understand the interaction of MAFLD, NAFLD, liver fibrosis, and COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina and his colleagues analyzed the records of all patients admitted to the Central Military Hospital with COVID-19 from April 4, 2020, to June 24, 2020.

They excluded patients for whom complete data were lacking or for whom a liver function test was not conducted in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Also excluded were patients with significant consumption of alcohol (> 30 g/day for men and > 20 g/day for women) and those with a history of autoimmune liver disease, liver cancer, decompensated cirrhosis, platelet disorders, or myopathies.

The remaining patients were divided into three groups – 220 who met the criteria for MAFLD, 79 who met the criteria for NAFLD but not MAFLD, and 60 other patients as a control group.

The researchers defined MAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis detected with a noninvasive method and one of the following: overweight (body mass index, 25-29.9 kg/m2), type 2 diabetes, or the presence of two metabolic abnormalities (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg, plasma triglycerides > 150 mg/dL, plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 40 mg/dL in men and < 50 mg/dL in women, and prediabetes).

They defined NAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis without the other criteria for MAFLD.

The patients with MAFLD were the most likely to be intubated and were the most likely to die (intubation, 44.09%; mortality, 55%), followed by those with NAFLD (intubation, 40.51%; mortality, 51.9%) and those in the control group (intubation, 20%; mortality, 38.33%).

The difference in mortality between the MAFLD group and the control group was statistically significant (P = .02). The mortality difference between the NAFLD and the control group fell just short of statistical significance (P = .07).

For intubation, the difference between the MAFLD and the control group was highly statistically significant (P = .001), and the difference between the NAFLD and the control group was also statistically significant (P = .01)

Patients with advanced fibrosis and either MAFLD or NAFLD were also more likely to die than patients in the control group with advanced fibrosis.

That’s why screening for MAFLD is important, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.
 

Next steps and new questions

Future research should examine whether patients with MAFLD have elevated levels of biomarkers for inflammation, such as interleukin 6, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. A “chronic low proinflammatory state” may be the key to understanding the vulnerability of patients to MAFLD to COVID-19, he speculated.

The metabolic traits associated with MAFLD could explain the higher mortality and intubation rates with COVID, said Rohit Loomba, MD, MHSc, a professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study.

“Hypertension, diabetes, and obesity increase the risk of complications from COVID in all patients, whether they have been diagnosed with NAFLD or not,” he told this news organization in an email.

Mr. Vasquez-Medina pointed out that the patients with MAFLD had a higher risk of mortality even after adjusting for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, overweight, and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). MAFLD also was more strongly associated with a poor outcome than either hypertension alone or obesity alone. Only age emerged as a significant independent covariate in the study.

Dr. Loomba also questioned whether the regression model used in this study for liver steatosis was “fully reflective of NAFLD.”

The researchers identified liver steatosis with a diagnostic formula that used noninvasive clinical BMI and laboratory tests (alanine aminotransferase), citing a study that found the regression formula was better at diagnosing NAFLD than FibroScan.

Mr. Vázquez-Medina reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse Bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics. He is co-founder of LipoNexus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) – a newly defined condition – may be more likely to die from COVID-19, researchers say.

A cohort of people hospitalized for COVID-19 in Central Military Hospital, Mexico City, who met the criteria for MAFLD died at a higher rate than a control group without fatty liver disease, said Martín Uriel Vázquez-Medina, MSc, a researcher in the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City.

Patients who met only the criteria for the traditional classification, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), also died of COVID-19 at a higher rate than the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

“It is important to screen for MAFLD,” Mr. Vázquez-Medina told this news organization. “It’s a new definition, but it has really helped us to identify which patients are going to get worse by COVID-19.”

The study was published in Hepatology Communications.
 

More evidence for clinical relevance of MAFLD

The finding lends support to an initiative to use MAFLD instead of NAFLD to identify patients whose liver steatosis poses a threat to their health, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.

NAFLD affects as much as a quarter of the world’s population. No drugs have been approved to treat it. Some researchers have reasoned that the imprecision of the definition of NAFLD could be one reason for the lack of progress in treatment.

“NAFLD is something that doesn’t have positive criteria to be diagnosed,” said Mr. Vázquez-Medina. “You only say NAFLD when you don’t find hepatitis or another disease.”

In an article published in Gastroenterology, an international consensus panel proposed MAFLD as an alternative, arguing that a focus on metabolic dysfunction could more accurately reflect the pathogenesis of the disease and help stratify patients.

Previous research has suggested that patients with MAFLD have a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and that the prevalence of colorectal adenomas is a higher in these patients, compared with patients with NAFLD.

The high prevalence of MAFLD in Mexico – about 30% – could help explain the country’s high rate of mortality from COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. Almost 6% of people diagnosed with COVID in Mexico have died from it, according to the Johns Hopkins University and Medical Center Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Sorting COVID outcomes by liver steatosis

To understand the interaction of MAFLD, NAFLD, liver fibrosis, and COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina and his colleagues analyzed the records of all patients admitted to the Central Military Hospital with COVID-19 from April 4, 2020, to June 24, 2020.

They excluded patients for whom complete data were lacking or for whom a liver function test was not conducted in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Also excluded were patients with significant consumption of alcohol (> 30 g/day for men and > 20 g/day for women) and those with a history of autoimmune liver disease, liver cancer, decompensated cirrhosis, platelet disorders, or myopathies.

The remaining patients were divided into three groups – 220 who met the criteria for MAFLD, 79 who met the criteria for NAFLD but not MAFLD, and 60 other patients as a control group.

The researchers defined MAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis detected with a noninvasive method and one of the following: overweight (body mass index, 25-29.9 kg/m2), type 2 diabetes, or the presence of two metabolic abnormalities (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg, plasma triglycerides > 150 mg/dL, plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 40 mg/dL in men and < 50 mg/dL in women, and prediabetes).

They defined NAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis without the other criteria for MAFLD.

The patients with MAFLD were the most likely to be intubated and were the most likely to die (intubation, 44.09%; mortality, 55%), followed by those with NAFLD (intubation, 40.51%; mortality, 51.9%) and those in the control group (intubation, 20%; mortality, 38.33%).

The difference in mortality between the MAFLD group and the control group was statistically significant (P = .02). The mortality difference between the NAFLD and the control group fell just short of statistical significance (P = .07).

For intubation, the difference between the MAFLD and the control group was highly statistically significant (P = .001), and the difference between the NAFLD and the control group was also statistically significant (P = .01)

Patients with advanced fibrosis and either MAFLD or NAFLD were also more likely to die than patients in the control group with advanced fibrosis.

That’s why screening for MAFLD is important, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.
 

Next steps and new questions

Future research should examine whether patients with MAFLD have elevated levels of biomarkers for inflammation, such as interleukin 6, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. A “chronic low proinflammatory state” may be the key to understanding the vulnerability of patients to MAFLD to COVID-19, he speculated.

The metabolic traits associated with MAFLD could explain the higher mortality and intubation rates with COVID, said Rohit Loomba, MD, MHSc, a professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study.

“Hypertension, diabetes, and obesity increase the risk of complications from COVID in all patients, whether they have been diagnosed with NAFLD or not,” he told this news organization in an email.

Mr. Vasquez-Medina pointed out that the patients with MAFLD had a higher risk of mortality even after adjusting for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, overweight, and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). MAFLD also was more strongly associated with a poor outcome than either hypertension alone or obesity alone. Only age emerged as a significant independent covariate in the study.

Dr. Loomba also questioned whether the regression model used in this study for liver steatosis was “fully reflective of NAFLD.”

The researchers identified liver steatosis with a diagnostic formula that used noninvasive clinical BMI and laboratory tests (alanine aminotransferase), citing a study that found the regression formula was better at diagnosing NAFLD than FibroScan.

Mr. Vázquez-Medina reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse Bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics. He is co-founder of LipoNexus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For injection drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, providing treatment opportunities within a local needle exchange program can provide care to more patients and eventually cure more patients, a new study suggests.

The study’s findings help “counteract the implicit belief within the medical community that people who inject drugs can’t or don’t want to engage in health care,” lead author Benjamin Eckhardt, MD, with NYU Grossman School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“By simply focusing on patient accompaniment, limiting stigma, and removing the punitive response for missed appointments, we can effectively engage people who inject drugs in health care and more specifically cure their infection, making significant inroads to HCV elimination,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

The study was published online  in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Nonjudgmental, patient-centered approach

Researchers included 165 injection drug users with HCV (mean age, 42 years; 78% men); 82 were randomly allocated to the accessible care intervention and 83 to a usual care control group.

The accessible care model provides HCV treatment within a community-based needle exchange program in a comfortable, nonjudgmental atmosphere, “without fear of shame or stigma that people who inject drugs often experience in mainstream institutions,” the investigators explain.

Control participants were connected to a patient navigator who facilitated referrals to community direct antigen antiviral therapy programs that were not at a syringe service program.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, those enrolled in the accessible care group achieved sustained viral eradication at 12 months at significantly higher rates than those in the control group (67% vs. 23%; P < .001).

Once patients initiated treatment, cure rates were the same in both groups (86%), indicating that the major benefit of the accessible care program was in facilitating treatment, rather than increasing adherence to or response to treatment, the researchers noted.

This is reflected in the fact that the percentage of participants who advanced along the care cascade was significantly higher at each step for the accessible care group than the control group, from referral to an HCV clinician (93% vs. 45%), attendance of the initial HCV clinical visit (87% vs. 37%), completion of baseline laboratory testing (87% vs. 31%), and treatment initiation (78% vs. 27%).
 

Getting to the population in need

“The most surprising aspect of the study was how successful we were at recruiting, engaging, and treating people who inject drugs who lived outside the immediate community where the syringe exchange program was located and had no prior connection to the program,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

“We had numerous individuals travel 45-plus minutes on the subway from the South Bronx, passing four major medical centers with robust hepatitis C treatment programs, to seek care for hepatitis C in a small, dark office – but also an office they’d heard can be trusted – without fear of stigma or preconditions,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

Commenting on the study’s findings, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said, “This is another successful example of making therapy accessible to the population who is in need versus trying to move them into a tertiary care model.”

Dr. Reau noted that similar care models exist in the United States but are not always accessible to the population in need.

“The safety and efficacy of current therapy and the simplified care cascade make HCV an appropriate disease for this delivery,” she said, adding that this study “highlights not just the importance of these programs but also the necessity of engaging the medical community, changing policy, and using patient navigators and monetary support/prioritization to provide appropriate HCV management to those who are at high risk for the disease and for transmission.”
 

Accessible care beyond HCV

The coauthors of an accompanying editor’s note point out that the treatment for HCV has improved substantially, but it can be a real challenge to provide treatment to injection drug users because the U.S. health care system is not oriented toward the needs of this population.

“It is not surprising that the accessible care arm achieved a higher rate of viral eradication, as it created a patient-focused experience,” write Asha Choudhury, MD, MPH, with the University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell Katz, MD, with NYC Health and Hospitals. “Creating inviting and engaging environments is particularly important when caring for patients from stigmatized groups. Having more sites that are accessible and inclusive like this for treating patients will likely increase treatment of hepatitis C.”

In their view, the study raises “two dueling questions: Is this model replicable across the U.S.? And, conversely, why isn’t all medical care offered in friendly, nonjudgmental settings with the intention of meeting patient goals?”

They conclude that the study’s lessons extend beyond this particular population and have implications for the field at large.

“The model is replicable to the extent that health care systems are prepared to provide nonjudgmental supportive care for persons who inject drugs,” they write. “However, all patients would benefit from a health care system that provided more patient-centered environments.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Eckhardt reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Gilead during the conduct of the study. Dr. Choudhury, Dr. Katz, and Dr. Reau report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For injection drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, providing treatment opportunities within a local needle exchange program can provide care to more patients and eventually cure more patients, a new study suggests.

The study’s findings help “counteract the implicit belief within the medical community that people who inject drugs can’t or don’t want to engage in health care,” lead author Benjamin Eckhardt, MD, with NYU Grossman School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“By simply focusing on patient accompaniment, limiting stigma, and removing the punitive response for missed appointments, we can effectively engage people who inject drugs in health care and more specifically cure their infection, making significant inroads to HCV elimination,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

The study was published online  in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Nonjudgmental, patient-centered approach

Researchers included 165 injection drug users with HCV (mean age, 42 years; 78% men); 82 were randomly allocated to the accessible care intervention and 83 to a usual care control group.

The accessible care model provides HCV treatment within a community-based needle exchange program in a comfortable, nonjudgmental atmosphere, “without fear of shame or stigma that people who inject drugs often experience in mainstream institutions,” the investigators explain.

Control participants were connected to a patient navigator who facilitated referrals to community direct antigen antiviral therapy programs that were not at a syringe service program.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, those enrolled in the accessible care group achieved sustained viral eradication at 12 months at significantly higher rates than those in the control group (67% vs. 23%; P < .001).

Once patients initiated treatment, cure rates were the same in both groups (86%), indicating that the major benefit of the accessible care program was in facilitating treatment, rather than increasing adherence to or response to treatment, the researchers noted.

This is reflected in the fact that the percentage of participants who advanced along the care cascade was significantly higher at each step for the accessible care group than the control group, from referral to an HCV clinician (93% vs. 45%), attendance of the initial HCV clinical visit (87% vs. 37%), completion of baseline laboratory testing (87% vs. 31%), and treatment initiation (78% vs. 27%).
 

Getting to the population in need

“The most surprising aspect of the study was how successful we were at recruiting, engaging, and treating people who inject drugs who lived outside the immediate community where the syringe exchange program was located and had no prior connection to the program,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

“We had numerous individuals travel 45-plus minutes on the subway from the South Bronx, passing four major medical centers with robust hepatitis C treatment programs, to seek care for hepatitis C in a small, dark office – but also an office they’d heard can be trusted – without fear of stigma or preconditions,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

Commenting on the study’s findings, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said, “This is another successful example of making therapy accessible to the population who is in need versus trying to move them into a tertiary care model.”

Dr. Reau noted that similar care models exist in the United States but are not always accessible to the population in need.

“The safety and efficacy of current therapy and the simplified care cascade make HCV an appropriate disease for this delivery,” she said, adding that this study “highlights not just the importance of these programs but also the necessity of engaging the medical community, changing policy, and using patient navigators and monetary support/prioritization to provide appropriate HCV management to those who are at high risk for the disease and for transmission.”
 

Accessible care beyond HCV

The coauthors of an accompanying editor’s note point out that the treatment for HCV has improved substantially, but it can be a real challenge to provide treatment to injection drug users because the U.S. health care system is not oriented toward the needs of this population.

“It is not surprising that the accessible care arm achieved a higher rate of viral eradication, as it created a patient-focused experience,” write Asha Choudhury, MD, MPH, with the University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell Katz, MD, with NYC Health and Hospitals. “Creating inviting and engaging environments is particularly important when caring for patients from stigmatized groups. Having more sites that are accessible and inclusive like this for treating patients will likely increase treatment of hepatitis C.”

In their view, the study raises “two dueling questions: Is this model replicable across the U.S.? And, conversely, why isn’t all medical care offered in friendly, nonjudgmental settings with the intention of meeting patient goals?”

They conclude that the study’s lessons extend beyond this particular population and have implications for the field at large.

“The model is replicable to the extent that health care systems are prepared to provide nonjudgmental supportive care for persons who inject drugs,” they write. “However, all patients would benefit from a health care system that provided more patient-centered environments.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Eckhardt reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Gilead during the conduct of the study. Dr. Choudhury, Dr. Katz, and Dr. Reau report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For injection drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, providing treatment opportunities within a local needle exchange program can provide care to more patients and eventually cure more patients, a new study suggests.

The study’s findings help “counteract the implicit belief within the medical community that people who inject drugs can’t or don’t want to engage in health care,” lead author Benjamin Eckhardt, MD, with NYU Grossman School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“By simply focusing on patient accompaniment, limiting stigma, and removing the punitive response for missed appointments, we can effectively engage people who inject drugs in health care and more specifically cure their infection, making significant inroads to HCV elimination,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

The study was published online  in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Nonjudgmental, patient-centered approach

Researchers included 165 injection drug users with HCV (mean age, 42 years; 78% men); 82 were randomly allocated to the accessible care intervention and 83 to a usual care control group.

The accessible care model provides HCV treatment within a community-based needle exchange program in a comfortable, nonjudgmental atmosphere, “without fear of shame or stigma that people who inject drugs often experience in mainstream institutions,” the investigators explain.

Control participants were connected to a patient navigator who facilitated referrals to community direct antigen antiviral therapy programs that were not at a syringe service program.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, those enrolled in the accessible care group achieved sustained viral eradication at 12 months at significantly higher rates than those in the control group (67% vs. 23%; P < .001).

Once patients initiated treatment, cure rates were the same in both groups (86%), indicating that the major benefit of the accessible care program was in facilitating treatment, rather than increasing adherence to or response to treatment, the researchers noted.

This is reflected in the fact that the percentage of participants who advanced along the care cascade was significantly higher at each step for the accessible care group than the control group, from referral to an HCV clinician (93% vs. 45%), attendance of the initial HCV clinical visit (87% vs. 37%), completion of baseline laboratory testing (87% vs. 31%), and treatment initiation (78% vs. 27%).
 

Getting to the population in need

“The most surprising aspect of the study was how successful we were at recruiting, engaging, and treating people who inject drugs who lived outside the immediate community where the syringe exchange program was located and had no prior connection to the program,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

“We had numerous individuals travel 45-plus minutes on the subway from the South Bronx, passing four major medical centers with robust hepatitis C treatment programs, to seek care for hepatitis C in a small, dark office – but also an office they’d heard can be trusted – without fear of stigma or preconditions,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

Commenting on the study’s findings, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said, “This is another successful example of making therapy accessible to the population who is in need versus trying to move them into a tertiary care model.”

Dr. Reau noted that similar care models exist in the United States but are not always accessible to the population in need.

“The safety and efficacy of current therapy and the simplified care cascade make HCV an appropriate disease for this delivery,” she said, adding that this study “highlights not just the importance of these programs but also the necessity of engaging the medical community, changing policy, and using patient navigators and monetary support/prioritization to provide appropriate HCV management to those who are at high risk for the disease and for transmission.”
 

Accessible care beyond HCV

The coauthors of an accompanying editor’s note point out that the treatment for HCV has improved substantially, but it can be a real challenge to provide treatment to injection drug users because the U.S. health care system is not oriented toward the needs of this population.

“It is not surprising that the accessible care arm achieved a higher rate of viral eradication, as it created a patient-focused experience,” write Asha Choudhury, MD, MPH, with the University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell Katz, MD, with NYC Health and Hospitals. “Creating inviting and engaging environments is particularly important when caring for patients from stigmatized groups. Having more sites that are accessible and inclusive like this for treating patients will likely increase treatment of hepatitis C.”

In their view, the study raises “two dueling questions: Is this model replicable across the U.S.? And, conversely, why isn’t all medical care offered in friendly, nonjudgmental settings with the intention of meeting patient goals?”

They conclude that the study’s lessons extend beyond this particular population and have implications for the field at large.

“The model is replicable to the extent that health care systems are prepared to provide nonjudgmental supportive care for persons who inject drugs,” they write. “However, all patients would benefit from a health care system that provided more patient-centered environments.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Eckhardt reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Gilead during the conduct of the study. Dr. Choudhury, Dr. Katz, and Dr. Reau report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with White people, Black people are less likely to develop cirrhosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but are more likely to die when hospitalized with this condition, researchers say.

The finding highlights the importance of addressing hepatic complications and nonhepatic comorbidities with a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach that includes social determinants of health, said Emad Qayed, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta.

“Clinicians should realize that in Black patients with NASH and NASH cirrhosis, mortality can be high despite a low rate of hepatic complications,” he told this news organization.

The study by Dr. Qayed and colleagues was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

A nationwide analysis

Previous studies have indicated that Black people are less likely than White people to develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), despite the fact that prevalence is increasing. Furthermore, when Black people do develop NAFLD, the disease is less likely to progress to NASH. In cases in which NASH does develop, the evidence has been mixed as to the effect of race on hospital outcomes.

To shed new light on that question, Dr. Qayed and colleagues analyzed data from 2016 to 2018 from the National Inpatient Sample, which is produced by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and is sponsored by the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality.

They identified 43,409 hospitalizations for NASH, with 41,143 White patients and 2,266 Black patients. The mean age of the Black patients was less than that of the White patients (56.4 years vs. 63.0 years), and Black patients were more likely to be women (69.9% vs. 61.6%).

More of the Black patients had hypertension, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure, while more of the White patients had diabetes, dyslipidemia, and ischemic heart disease.

Among the Black patients, 33.6% had cirrhosis, compared with 56.4% of the White patients. Likewise, among the Black patients, there were fewer manifestations of decompensated cirrhosis, compared with the White patients. Black patients were also less likely to have had to undergo upper endoscopy and paracentesis.

The Black patients died in the hospital at a rate of 3.9%, which was not significantly higher than the 3.7% rate for the White patients (unadjusted odds ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval: 0.84-1.32; P = .6). But, when the researchers adjusted for age, sex, cirrhosis, risk of mortality (based on the overall number and severity of diseases), and insurance status, there were significantly higher odds of mortality among the Black patients (adjusted OR, 1.34; 95% CI: 1.05-1.71; P = .018).

They did not find any association between hospital size, location, or region with mortality.

They also found no difference in mortality between Black patients and White patients among those those with and those without cirrhosis. However, they found that Black patients were more likely to have acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure.

Regarding the reasons for hospitalization, the researchers found liver-related illnesses, such as hepatic failure and noninfectious hepatitis, to be most common among the White patients. Circulatory disorders, such as heart failure, and endocrine disorders, such as diabetes mellitus with complications, were found to be most common among the Black patients.

The length of time in the hospital was longer for the Black patients than the White patients (6.3 days vs. 5.6 days; P < .0001). The cost of hospitalization was higher for Black patients as well ($18,603 vs. $17,467). This suggests that Black patients were sicker overall, despite their lower rates of liver complications.

“Some of these differences are likely related to socioeconomic factors and clinical comorbidities, such as cardiac and renal disease,” Dr. Qayed said. “However, the underlying etiologies for such disparities in NASH and cirrhosis remain unclear. Further research is warranted to clarify these etiologies.”
 

NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome

“Clinicians should consider NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome,” Paul Martin, MD, chief of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“Typically, these patients have a number of risk factors for fatty liver, including obesity and often hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” he said. “Clinicians should screen their patients for such comorbidities and then treat them.”

Genetic factors could also play a role in the difference in susceptibility to fatty liver disease found between Black and White patients, he added.

Dr. Martin noted a prevalence of fatty liver in many Hispanic populations and that it is found in Asia but sometimes in the absence of the risk factors associated with it in the United States.

Dr. Qayed and Dr. Martin reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with White people, Black people are less likely to develop cirrhosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but are more likely to die when hospitalized with this condition, researchers say.

The finding highlights the importance of addressing hepatic complications and nonhepatic comorbidities with a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach that includes social determinants of health, said Emad Qayed, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta.

“Clinicians should realize that in Black patients with NASH and NASH cirrhosis, mortality can be high despite a low rate of hepatic complications,” he told this news organization.

The study by Dr. Qayed and colleagues was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

A nationwide analysis

Previous studies have indicated that Black people are less likely than White people to develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), despite the fact that prevalence is increasing. Furthermore, when Black people do develop NAFLD, the disease is less likely to progress to NASH. In cases in which NASH does develop, the evidence has been mixed as to the effect of race on hospital outcomes.

To shed new light on that question, Dr. Qayed and colleagues analyzed data from 2016 to 2018 from the National Inpatient Sample, which is produced by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and is sponsored by the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality.

They identified 43,409 hospitalizations for NASH, with 41,143 White patients and 2,266 Black patients. The mean age of the Black patients was less than that of the White patients (56.4 years vs. 63.0 years), and Black patients were more likely to be women (69.9% vs. 61.6%).

More of the Black patients had hypertension, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure, while more of the White patients had diabetes, dyslipidemia, and ischemic heart disease.

Among the Black patients, 33.6% had cirrhosis, compared with 56.4% of the White patients. Likewise, among the Black patients, there were fewer manifestations of decompensated cirrhosis, compared with the White patients. Black patients were also less likely to have had to undergo upper endoscopy and paracentesis.

The Black patients died in the hospital at a rate of 3.9%, which was not significantly higher than the 3.7% rate for the White patients (unadjusted odds ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval: 0.84-1.32; P = .6). But, when the researchers adjusted for age, sex, cirrhosis, risk of mortality (based on the overall number and severity of diseases), and insurance status, there were significantly higher odds of mortality among the Black patients (adjusted OR, 1.34; 95% CI: 1.05-1.71; P = .018).

They did not find any association between hospital size, location, or region with mortality.

They also found no difference in mortality between Black patients and White patients among those those with and those without cirrhosis. However, they found that Black patients were more likely to have acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure.

Regarding the reasons for hospitalization, the researchers found liver-related illnesses, such as hepatic failure and noninfectious hepatitis, to be most common among the White patients. Circulatory disorders, such as heart failure, and endocrine disorders, such as diabetes mellitus with complications, were found to be most common among the Black patients.

The length of time in the hospital was longer for the Black patients than the White patients (6.3 days vs. 5.6 days; P < .0001). The cost of hospitalization was higher for Black patients as well ($18,603 vs. $17,467). This suggests that Black patients were sicker overall, despite their lower rates of liver complications.

“Some of these differences are likely related to socioeconomic factors and clinical comorbidities, such as cardiac and renal disease,” Dr. Qayed said. “However, the underlying etiologies for such disparities in NASH and cirrhosis remain unclear. Further research is warranted to clarify these etiologies.”
 

NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome

“Clinicians should consider NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome,” Paul Martin, MD, chief of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“Typically, these patients have a number of risk factors for fatty liver, including obesity and often hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” he said. “Clinicians should screen their patients for such comorbidities and then treat them.”

Genetic factors could also play a role in the difference in susceptibility to fatty liver disease found between Black and White patients, he added.

Dr. Martin noted a prevalence of fatty liver in many Hispanic populations and that it is found in Asia but sometimes in the absence of the risk factors associated with it in the United States.

Dr. Qayed and Dr. Martin reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with White people, Black people are less likely to develop cirrhosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but are more likely to die when hospitalized with this condition, researchers say.

The finding highlights the importance of addressing hepatic complications and nonhepatic comorbidities with a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach that includes social determinants of health, said Emad Qayed, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta.

“Clinicians should realize that in Black patients with NASH and NASH cirrhosis, mortality can be high despite a low rate of hepatic complications,” he told this news organization.

The study by Dr. Qayed and colleagues was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

A nationwide analysis

Previous studies have indicated that Black people are less likely than White people to develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), despite the fact that prevalence is increasing. Furthermore, when Black people do develop NAFLD, the disease is less likely to progress to NASH. In cases in which NASH does develop, the evidence has been mixed as to the effect of race on hospital outcomes.

To shed new light on that question, Dr. Qayed and colleagues analyzed data from 2016 to 2018 from the National Inpatient Sample, which is produced by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and is sponsored by the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality.

They identified 43,409 hospitalizations for NASH, with 41,143 White patients and 2,266 Black patients. The mean age of the Black patients was less than that of the White patients (56.4 years vs. 63.0 years), and Black patients were more likely to be women (69.9% vs. 61.6%).

More of the Black patients had hypertension, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure, while more of the White patients had diabetes, dyslipidemia, and ischemic heart disease.

Among the Black patients, 33.6% had cirrhosis, compared with 56.4% of the White patients. Likewise, among the Black patients, there were fewer manifestations of decompensated cirrhosis, compared with the White patients. Black patients were also less likely to have had to undergo upper endoscopy and paracentesis.

The Black patients died in the hospital at a rate of 3.9%, which was not significantly higher than the 3.7% rate for the White patients (unadjusted odds ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval: 0.84-1.32; P = .6). But, when the researchers adjusted for age, sex, cirrhosis, risk of mortality (based on the overall number and severity of diseases), and insurance status, there were significantly higher odds of mortality among the Black patients (adjusted OR, 1.34; 95% CI: 1.05-1.71; P = .018).

They did not find any association between hospital size, location, or region with mortality.

They also found no difference in mortality between Black patients and White patients among those those with and those without cirrhosis. However, they found that Black patients were more likely to have acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure.

Regarding the reasons for hospitalization, the researchers found liver-related illnesses, such as hepatic failure and noninfectious hepatitis, to be most common among the White patients. Circulatory disorders, such as heart failure, and endocrine disorders, such as diabetes mellitus with complications, were found to be most common among the Black patients.

The length of time in the hospital was longer for the Black patients than the White patients (6.3 days vs. 5.6 days; P < .0001). The cost of hospitalization was higher for Black patients as well ($18,603 vs. $17,467). This suggests that Black patients were sicker overall, despite their lower rates of liver complications.

“Some of these differences are likely related to socioeconomic factors and clinical comorbidities, such as cardiac and renal disease,” Dr. Qayed said. “However, the underlying etiologies for such disparities in NASH and cirrhosis remain unclear. Further research is warranted to clarify these etiologies.”
 

NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome

“Clinicians should consider NASH as part of the metabolic syndrome,” Paul Martin, MD, chief of digestive health and liver diseases at the University of Miami, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“Typically, these patients have a number of risk factors for fatty liver, including obesity and often hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” he said. “Clinicians should screen their patients for such comorbidities and then treat them.”

Genetic factors could also play a role in the difference in susceptibility to fatty liver disease found between Black and White patients, he added.

Dr. Martin noted a prevalence of fatty liver in many Hispanic populations and that it is found in Asia but sometimes in the absence of the risk factors associated with it in the United States.

Dr. Qayed and Dr. Martin reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) before liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has significantly increased in the United States within the past 15 years, a recent analysis suggests. Data show that liver transplant candidates with HCC who have elevated tumor burden and patients with more compensated liver disease have received a greater number of treatments while awaiting transplant.

According to the researchers, led by Allison Kwong, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, liver transplant remains a curative option for individuals with unresectable HCC who meet prespecified size criteria. In the United States, a mandated waiting period of 6 months prior “to gaining exception points has been implemented” in an effort “to allow for consideration of tumor biology and reduce the disparities in wait-list dropout between HCC and non-HCC patients,” the researchers wrote.

Several forms of LRT are now available for HCC, including chemoembolization, external beam radiation, radioembolization, and radiofrequency or microwave ablation. In the liver transplant setting, these LRT options enable management of intrahepatic disease in patients who are waiting for liver transplant, Dr. Kwong and colleagues explained.

The researchers, who published their study findings in the May issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, sought to examine the national temporal trends and wait-list outcomes of LRT in 31,609 patients eligible for liver transplant with greater than or equal to one approved HCC exception application in the United States.

Patient data were obtained from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database and comprised primary adult LT candidates who were listed from the years 2003 to 2018. The investigators assessed explant histology and performed multivariable competing risk analysis to examine the relationship between the type of first LRT and time to wait-list dropout.

The wait-list dropout variable was defined by list removal because of death or excessive illness. The researchers noted that list removal likely represents disease progression “beyond transplantable criteria and beyond which patients were unlikely to benefit from or be eligible for further LRT.”

In the study population, the median age was 59 years, and approximately 77% of patients were male. More than half (53.1%) of the cohort had hepatitis C as the predominant liver disease etiology. Patients had a median follow-up period of 214 days on the waiting list.

Most patients (79%) received deceased or living-donor transplants, and 18.6% of patients were removed from the waiting list. Between the 2003 and 2006 period, the median wait-list time was 123 days, but this median wait-list duration increased to 257 days for patients listed between 2015 and 2018.

A total of 34,610 LRTs were performed among 24,145 liver transplant candidates during the study period. From 2003 to 2018, the proportion of patients with greater than or equal to 1 LRT recorded in the database rose from 42.3% to 92.4%, respectively. Most patients (67.8%) who received liver-directed therapy had a single LRT, while 23.8% of patients had two LRTs, 6.2% had three LRTs, and 2.2% had greater than or equal to four LRTs.

The most frequent type of LRT performed was chemoembolization, followed by thermal ablation. Radioembolization increased from less than 5% in 2013 to 19% in 2018. Moreover, in 2018, chemoembolization accounted for 50% of LRTs, while thermal ablation accounted for 22% of LRTs.

The incidence rates of LRT per 100 wait-list days was above average in patients who had an initial tumor burden beyond the Milan criteria (0.188), an alpha-fetoprotein level of 21-40 (0.171) or 41-500 ng/mL (0.179), Child-Pugh class A (0.160), patients in short (0.151) and medium (0.154) wait-time regions, as well as patients who were listed following implementation of cap-and-delay in October 2015 (0.192).

In the multivariable competing-risk analysis for wait-list dropout, adjusting for initial tumor burden and AFP, Child-Pugh class, wait region, and listing era, no locoregional therapy was associated with an increased risk of wait-list dropout versus chemoembolization as the first LRT in a multivariable competing-risk analysis (subhazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.28-1.47). The inverse probability of treatment weighting–adjusted analysis found an association between radioembolization, when compared with chemoembolization, and a reduced risk of wait-list dropout (sHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89). Thermal ablation was also associated with a reduced risk of wait-list dropout, compared with chemoembolization (sHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99). “Radioembolization and thermal ablation may be superior to chemoembolization and prove to be more cost-effective options, depending on the clinical context,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that they were unable to distinguish patients who were removed from the waiting list between those with disease progression versus liver failure.

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. The study received no industry funding.

The use of bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) before liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has significantly increased in the United States within the past 15 years, a recent analysis suggests. Data show that liver transplant candidates with HCC who have elevated tumor burden and patients with more compensated liver disease have received a greater number of treatments while awaiting transplant.

According to the researchers, led by Allison Kwong, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, liver transplant remains a curative option for individuals with unresectable HCC who meet prespecified size criteria. In the United States, a mandated waiting period of 6 months prior “to gaining exception points has been implemented” in an effort “to allow for consideration of tumor biology and reduce the disparities in wait-list dropout between HCC and non-HCC patients,” the researchers wrote.

Several forms of LRT are now available for HCC, including chemoembolization, external beam radiation, radioembolization, and radiofrequency or microwave ablation. In the liver transplant setting, these LRT options enable management of intrahepatic disease in patients who are waiting for liver transplant, Dr. Kwong and colleagues explained.

The researchers, who published their study findings in the May issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, sought to examine the national temporal trends and wait-list outcomes of LRT in 31,609 patients eligible for liver transplant with greater than or equal to one approved HCC exception application in the United States.

Patient data were obtained from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database and comprised primary adult LT candidates who were listed from the years 2003 to 2018. The investigators assessed explant histology and performed multivariable competing risk analysis to examine the relationship between the type of first LRT and time to wait-list dropout.

The wait-list dropout variable was defined by list removal because of death or excessive illness. The researchers noted that list removal likely represents disease progression “beyond transplantable criteria and beyond which patients were unlikely to benefit from or be eligible for further LRT.”

In the study population, the median age was 59 years, and approximately 77% of patients were male. More than half (53.1%) of the cohort had hepatitis C as the predominant liver disease etiology. Patients had a median follow-up period of 214 days on the waiting list.

Most patients (79%) received deceased or living-donor transplants, and 18.6% of patients were removed from the waiting list. Between the 2003 and 2006 period, the median wait-list time was 123 days, but this median wait-list duration increased to 257 days for patients listed between 2015 and 2018.

A total of 34,610 LRTs were performed among 24,145 liver transplant candidates during the study period. From 2003 to 2018, the proportion of patients with greater than or equal to 1 LRT recorded in the database rose from 42.3% to 92.4%, respectively. Most patients (67.8%) who received liver-directed therapy had a single LRT, while 23.8% of patients had two LRTs, 6.2% had three LRTs, and 2.2% had greater than or equal to four LRTs.

The most frequent type of LRT performed was chemoembolization, followed by thermal ablation. Radioembolization increased from less than 5% in 2013 to 19% in 2018. Moreover, in 2018, chemoembolization accounted for 50% of LRTs, while thermal ablation accounted for 22% of LRTs.

The incidence rates of LRT per 100 wait-list days was above average in patients who had an initial tumor burden beyond the Milan criteria (0.188), an alpha-fetoprotein level of 21-40 (0.171) or 41-500 ng/mL (0.179), Child-Pugh class A (0.160), patients in short (0.151) and medium (0.154) wait-time regions, as well as patients who were listed following implementation of cap-and-delay in October 2015 (0.192).

In the multivariable competing-risk analysis for wait-list dropout, adjusting for initial tumor burden and AFP, Child-Pugh class, wait region, and listing era, no locoregional therapy was associated with an increased risk of wait-list dropout versus chemoembolization as the first LRT in a multivariable competing-risk analysis (subhazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.28-1.47). The inverse probability of treatment weighting–adjusted analysis found an association between radioembolization, when compared with chemoembolization, and a reduced risk of wait-list dropout (sHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89). Thermal ablation was also associated with a reduced risk of wait-list dropout, compared with chemoembolization (sHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99). “Radioembolization and thermal ablation may be superior to chemoembolization and prove to be more cost-effective options, depending on the clinical context,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that they were unable to distinguish patients who were removed from the waiting list between those with disease progression versus liver failure.

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. The study received no industry funding.

The use of bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) before liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has significantly increased in the United States within the past 15 years, a recent analysis suggests. Data show that liver transplant candidates with HCC who have elevated tumor burden and patients with more compensated liver disease have received a greater number of treatments while awaiting transplant.

According to the researchers, led by Allison Kwong, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, liver transplant remains a curative option for individuals with unresectable HCC who meet prespecified size criteria. In the United States, a mandated waiting period of 6 months prior “to gaining exception points has been implemented” in an effort “to allow for consideration of tumor biology and reduce the disparities in wait-list dropout between HCC and non-HCC patients,” the researchers wrote.

Several forms of LRT are now available for HCC, including chemoembolization, external beam radiation, radioembolization, and radiofrequency or microwave ablation. In the liver transplant setting, these LRT options enable management of intrahepatic disease in patients who are waiting for liver transplant, Dr. Kwong and colleagues explained.

The researchers, who published their study findings in the May issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, sought to examine the national temporal trends and wait-list outcomes of LRT in 31,609 patients eligible for liver transplant with greater than or equal to one approved HCC exception application in the United States.

Patient data were obtained from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database and comprised primary adult LT candidates who were listed from the years 2003 to 2018. The investigators assessed explant histology and performed multivariable competing risk analysis to examine the relationship between the type of first LRT and time to wait-list dropout.

The wait-list dropout variable was defined by list removal because of death or excessive illness. The researchers noted that list removal likely represents disease progression “beyond transplantable criteria and beyond which patients were unlikely to benefit from or be eligible for further LRT.”

In the study population, the median age was 59 years, and approximately 77% of patients were male. More than half (53.1%) of the cohort had hepatitis C as the predominant liver disease etiology. Patients had a median follow-up period of 214 days on the waiting list.

Most patients (79%) received deceased or living-donor transplants, and 18.6% of patients were removed from the waiting list. Between the 2003 and 2006 period, the median wait-list time was 123 days, but this median wait-list duration increased to 257 days for patients listed between 2015 and 2018.

A total of 34,610 LRTs were performed among 24,145 liver transplant candidates during the study period. From 2003 to 2018, the proportion of patients with greater than or equal to 1 LRT recorded in the database rose from 42.3% to 92.4%, respectively. Most patients (67.8%) who received liver-directed therapy had a single LRT, while 23.8% of patients had two LRTs, 6.2% had three LRTs, and 2.2% had greater than or equal to four LRTs.

The most frequent type of LRT performed was chemoembolization, followed by thermal ablation. Radioembolization increased from less than 5% in 2013 to 19% in 2018. Moreover, in 2018, chemoembolization accounted for 50% of LRTs, while thermal ablation accounted for 22% of LRTs.

The incidence rates of LRT per 100 wait-list days was above average in patients who had an initial tumor burden beyond the Milan criteria (0.188), an alpha-fetoprotein level of 21-40 (0.171) or 41-500 ng/mL (0.179), Child-Pugh class A (0.160), patients in short (0.151) and medium (0.154) wait-time regions, as well as patients who were listed following implementation of cap-and-delay in October 2015 (0.192).

In the multivariable competing-risk analysis for wait-list dropout, adjusting for initial tumor burden and AFP, Child-Pugh class, wait region, and listing era, no locoregional therapy was associated with an increased risk of wait-list dropout versus chemoembolization as the first LRT in a multivariable competing-risk analysis (subhazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.28-1.47). The inverse probability of treatment weighting–adjusted analysis found an association between radioembolization, when compared with chemoembolization, and a reduced risk of wait-list dropout (sHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89). Thermal ablation was also associated with a reduced risk of wait-list dropout, compared with chemoembolization (sHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99). “Radioembolization and thermal ablation may be superior to chemoembolization and prove to be more cost-effective options, depending on the clinical context,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that they were unable to distinguish patients who were removed from the waiting list between those with disease progression versus liver failure.

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. The study received no industry funding.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.