Non-Invasive Prediction of High-Risk Varices in Patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Precision medicine in primary biliary cholangitis

For many years the one-size-fits-all approach has been the only one available to manage patients affected by primary biliary cholangitis. The introduction of obeticholic acid in 2016 as a second-line treatment, together with the creation and validation of several biochemically based scores to stratify the risk of progressive disease, has opened up the need to redefine clinical practice by changing the actual paradigm. The precision medicine initiative is a model of patient-centered health care that aims to improve medicine based on genotypic and molecular characteristics that correlate to specific phenotypic, individual characteristics. In summary, the aim of the precision medicine is to define the right treatment for the right person at the right time. The availability of a second-line disease-modifying drug and new molecules in phase 2 or 3 trials makes this an exciting time for the precision medicine initiative in primary biliary cholangitis. In this review we describe the current risk stratification tools and we track a possible path towards the application of precision medicine in clinical daily life.

Noninvasive Predictors of High-Risk Varices in Patients with Non-Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension

Non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH) comprises a heterogeneous group of liver disorders causing portal hypertension without cirrhosis and carries a high risk of variceal bleeding. Recent guidelines, based largely on patients with viral cirrhosis, suggest low likelihood of high risk varices (HRV) in patients with a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) <20 kPa and platelet count >150 × 10⁹/L. In NCPH, LSM is often higher than healthy controls but lower than matched cirrhotic patients. The aim of this study was to assess whether LSM or other noninvasive assessments of portal hypertension could predict HRV in NCPH patients. Methods. Records of patients with NCPH seen at a single centre between 2007 and 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Primary outcome measure was presence or absence of HRV at gastroscopy within 12 months of clinical assessment. Association of LSM or other clinical features of portal hypertension (spleen size, platelet count, platelet count/spleen length ratio (PSL), LSM-spleen length/platelet count ratio score (LSP)) with HRV and ability of these variables to predict HRV was analysed. Results. Of 44 patients with NCPH who met inclusion criteria, 34% (15/44) had HRV. In a multivariate model, spleen size and PSL correlated with HRV but platelet count, LSM, and LSP did not (spleen size: β = 0.35, p = 0.02; OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.06-1.92; PSL: β = -1.47, p = 0.02; OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.80). There was no significant difference between spleen size and PSL in predicting HRV (AUROC 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 - 0.91) versus 0.71 (95% CI 0.54 - 0.84), respectively, p = 0.400). Spleen size >17.2cm had sensitivity 78.6% and specificity 64.3% for prediction of HRV. Conclusions. In NCPH patients, spleen size may predict risk of HRV at gastroscopy within 12 months. LSM and platelet count are not useful to assess risk of HRV in NCPH.

Contrast-Enhanced CT May Be a Diagnostic Alternative for Gastroesophageal Varices in Cirrhosis with and without Previous Endoscopic Variceal Therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Liver fibrosis blood tests, platelet count/spleen diameter ratio (PSR), and contrast-enhanced CT are diagnostic alternatives for gastroesophageal varices, but they have heterogeneous diagnostic performance among different study populations. Our study is aimed at evaluating their diagnostic accuracy for esophageal varices (EVs) and gastric varices (GVs) in cirrhotic patients with and without previous endoscopic variceal therapy.

METHODS

Patients with liver cirrhosis who underwent blood tests and contrast-enhanced CT scans as well as endoscopic surveillance should be potentially eligible. EVs needing treatment (EVNTs) and GVs needing treatment (GVNTs) were recorded according to the endoscopic results. Area under the curves (AUCs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 279 patients were included. In 175 patients without previous endoscopic variceal therapy, including primary prophylaxis population (n = 70), acute bleeding population (n = 38), and previous bleeding population (n = 67), the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT for EVNTs was higher (AUCs = 0.816-0.876) as compared to blood tests and PSR; by comparison, the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT for GVNTs was statistically significant among primary prophylaxis population (AUC = 0.731, P = 0.0316), but not acute or previous bleeding population. In 104 patients with previous endoscopic variceal therapy (i.e., secondary prophylaxis population), contrast-enhanced CT was the only statistically significant alternative for diagnosing EVNTs and GVNTs but with modest accuracy (AUCs = 0.673 and 0.661, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrast-enhanced CT might be a diagnostic alternative for EVNTs in cirrhotic patients, but its diagnostic performance was slightly weakened in secondary prophylaxis population. Additionally, contrast-enhanced CT may be considered for diagnosis of GVNTs in primary prophylaxis population without previous endoscopic variceal therapy and secondary prophylaxis population.