Outcome after liver transplantation for cirrhosis due to alcohol and hepatitis C: comparison to alcoholic cirrhosis and hepatitis C cirrhosis

The Lower Survival in Patients With Alcoholism and Hepatitis C Continues in the DAA Era

BACKGROUND

Alcohol liver disease (ALD) may coexist with hepatitis C (HCV) in many transplant recipients (alcoholic cirrhosis with hepatitis C [AHC]). Our objective was to determine whether there were differences in postliver transplantation outcomes of patients with AHC when compared with those with alcoholic cirrhosis (AC) and/or alcoholic hepatitis (AH).

METHODS

Using UNOS explant data sets (2016-2020), the survival probabilities of AC, AH, and AHC were compared by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis was used to determine outcomes after adjusting for disease confounders. The outcomes were also compared with predirect antiviral agent (DAA) period.

RESULTS

During study period, 8369 biopsy-proven ALD liver transplant recipients were identified. Of those, 647 had AHC (HCV + alcohol), 353 had AH, and 7369 had AC. MELD-Na score (28.7 ± 9.5 versus 23.8 ± 10.7; P  < 0.001) and presence of ACLF-3 (19% versus 11%; P  < 0.001) were higher in AC + AH as compared with AHC. AHC and AC+AH has similar adjusted mortality at 1-y, but 3-y (hazard ratios, 1.76; 95% confidence intervals, 1.32-2.35; P  < 0.0001) and 5-y (hazard ratios, 1.64; 95% confidence intervals, 1.24-2.15; P  = 0.0004) mortality rates were higher in AHC. Survival improved in the DAA era (2016-2020) compared with 2009 to 2013 in AHC, but remained worse in AHC group versus AC and/or AH. Malignancy-related mortality was higher in AHC (15% versus 9.3% in AC) in the DAA era.

CONCLUSIONS

AHC was associated with lower 3- and 5-y post-LT survival as compared with ALD without HCV and the worse outcomes in AHC group continued in the DAA era.

Primary biliary cholangitis has the highest waitlist mortality in patients with cirrhosis and acute on chronic liver failure awaiting liver transplant

BACKGROUND

Data are sparse on etiology specific outcomes on waitlist (WL) and post-transplant outcomes among patients with acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a retrospective cohort of 14,774 adults from United network for organ sharing (UNOS) database listed for Liver transplantation (LT) with cirrhosis and ACLF (January 2013-June 2019), 40% were due to alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), followed by hepatitis C virus (HCV) at 20%, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (19%), cryptogenic cirrhosis (7%), autoimmune hepatitis (5%), primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) at 3%, and 2% each for hepatitis B, primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), and metabolic etiology. Using competing risk analysis, cumulative risk of WL mortality was highest for PBC at 20.5% and lowest for PSC at 13.3%, P < .001. Compared with ALD as reference, WL mortality was higher for PBC (1.45 [1.16-1.82]), and similar for other etiologies, P < .001. Of this cohort, 9650 (65.3%) patients received LT, with 1-year. patient survival of 91.6% for PBC, worst for cryptogenic cirrhosis (89.5%) and best for PSC and ALD (93.4%), P < .001.

CONCLUSION

Among listed candidates with ACLF, those with PBC have highest WL mortality 1-year. post-transplant survival was excellent among recipients for PBC. If these findings are validated in prospective studies, liver disease etiology should be considered for LT selection among patients in ACLF.

Alcohol-associated liver disease in the United States is associated with severe forms of disease among young, females and Hispanics

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use and alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) burden are increasing in young individuals.

AIM

To assess host factors associated with this burden.

METHODS

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), National Inpatient Sample (NIS), and United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) databases (2006-2016) were used to identify individuals with harmful alcohol use, ALD-related admissions, and ALD-related LT listings respectively.

RESULTS

Of 15 981 subjects in NHANES database, weighted prevalence of harmful alcohol use was 17.7%, 29.3% in <35 years (G1) versus 16.9% in 35-64 years (G2) versus 5.1% in ≥65 years (G3). Alcohol use was about 11 and 4.7 folds higher in G1 and G2 versus G3, respectively. Male gender and Hispanic race associated with harmful alcohol use. Of 593 600 ALD admissions (5%, 77%, and 18% in G1-G3 respectively), acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) occurred in 7.2%, (7.2 in G2 vs 6.7% in G1 and G3, P < 0.001). After controlling for other variables, ACLF development among ALD hospitalizations was higher by 14% and 10% in G1 and G2 versus G3, respectively. Female gender and Hispanic race were associated with increased ACLF risk by 8% and 17% respectively. Of 20,245 ALD LT listings (3.4%, 84.4%, and 12.2% in G1-G3 respectively), ACLF occurred in 28% candidates. Risk of severe (grade 2 or 3) ACLF was higher by about 1.7 fold in G1, 1.5 fold in females and 20% in Hispanics.

CONCLUSION

Young age, female gender, and Hispanic race are independently associated with ALD-related burden and ACLF in the United States. If these findings are validated in prospective studies, strategies will be needed to reduce alcohol use in high risk individuals to reduce burden from ALD.

Validating a novel score based on interaction between ACLF grade and MELD score to predict waitlist mortality

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Among candidates listed for liver transplant (LT), the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score may not capture acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) severity. Data on the interaction between ACLF and MELD score in predicting waitlist mortality are scarce.

METHODS

We analyzed the UNOS database (01/2002 to 06/2018) for LT listings in adults with cirrhosis and ACLF (without hepatocellular carcinoma). ACLF grades 1, 2, 3a, and 3b- were defined using the modified EASL-CLIF criteria.

RESULTS

Of 18,416 candidates with ACLF at listing (mean age 54 years, 69% males, 63% Caucasians), 90-day waitlist mortality (patient death or being too sick for LT) was 21.6% (18%, 20%, 25%, and 39% for ACLF grades 1, 2, 3a, and 3b, respectively). Using a Fine and Gray regression model, we identified an interaction between MELD and ACLF grade, with ACLF having a higher impact at lower MELD scores. Other variables included candidate's age, sex, liver disease etiology, listing MELD, ACLF grade, obesity, and performance status. A score developed using parameter estimates from the interaction model on the derivation cohort (n = 9,181) stratified the validation cohort (n = 9,235) into quartiles: Q1 (score <10.42), Q2 (10.42-12.81), Q3 (12.82-15.50), and Q4 (>15.50). Waitlist mortality increased with each quartile from 13%, 18%, 23%, and 36%, respectively. Observed vs. expected waitlist mortality deciles in the validation cohort showed good calibration (goodness of fit p = 0.98) and correlation (R = 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Among selected candidates who have ACLF at listing, MELD score and ACLF interact in predicting cumulative risk of 90-day waitlist mortality, with higher impact of ACLF grade at lower listing MELD score. Validating these findings in large prospective studies will support consideration of both MELD and ACLF when prioritizing transplant candidates and allocating liver grafts.

LAY SUMMARY

In patients with cirrhosis listed for liver transplantation, the presence of multiorgan failure, a condition referred to as acute-on-chronic liver failure, is associated with high waiting list mortality rates. Current organ allocation policy disadvantages patients with this condition. This study describes and validates a new scoring method that performs better than the currently available scoring systems. Further validation of this approach may reduce the deaths of patients with cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure on the transplant waiting list.

Hepatitis C remains leading indication for listings and receipt of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

With the availability of direct acting antivirals (DAA) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, alcoholic liver disease (ALD) has evolved as the leading indication for listing and receipt of liver transplantation (LT) followed by non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and HCV infection. However, data are limited on etiology specific trends on listings and need for LT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

We analyzed UNOS database to examine etiology specific listings and receipt of LT for patients with and without HCC. Listings and receipt of LT in the pre-DAA (2007-2012) era were compared to the DAA (2013-2018) era.

RESULTS

The analysis shows that among patients without HCV, there is a decreasing trend on the proportion of patients listed and transplanted for HCV, with simultaneous increase on listings and LT for NASH and ALD. Specifically for listings and transplants for HCC, the leading etiology remains HCV infection followed by NASH and ALD. The analysis also showed that LT for AH contributes to about 20% of increase in listings and receipt of LT for ALD.

Pharmacological interventions for acute hepatitis C infection

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a single-stranded RNA (ribonucleic acid) virus that has the potential to cause inflammation of the liver. The traditional definition of acute HCV infection is the first six months following infection with the virus. Another commonly used definition of acute HCV infection is the absence of HCV antibody and subsequent seroconversion (presence of HCV antibody in a person who was previously negative for HCV antibody). Approximately 40% to 95% of people with acute HCV infection develop chronic HCV infection, that is, have persistent HCV RNA in their blood. In 2010, an estimated 160 million people worldwide (2% to 3% of the world's population) had chronic HCV infection. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HCV remains controversial. Chronic HCV infection can damage the liver.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HCV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers to April 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for acute HCV infection.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with acute HCV infection. We excluded trials which included previously liver transplanted participants and those with other coexisting viral diseases. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with placebo or each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on the available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 randomised clinical trials with 488 randomised participants that met our inclusion criteria. All the trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, the evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality evidence. Nine trials (467 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. Three trials (99 participants) compared interferon-alpha versus no intervention. Three trials (90 participants) compared interferon-beta versus no intervention. One trial (21 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus no intervention, but it did not provide any data for analysis. One trial (41 participants) compared MTH-68/B vaccine versus no intervention. Two trials (237 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin. None of the trials compared direct-acting antivirals versus placebo or other interventions. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from six to 36 months.There was no short-term mortality (less than one year) in any group in any trial except for one trial where one participant died in the pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin group (1/95: 1.1%). In the trials that reported follow-up beyond one year, there were no further deaths. The number of serious adverse events was higher with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin than with pegylated interferon-alpha (rate ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.40 to 5.33; participants = 237; trials = 2; I² = 0%). The proportion of people with any adverse events was higher with interferon-alpha and interferon-beta compared with no intervention (OR 203.00, 95% CI 9.01 to 4574.81; participants = 33; trials = 1 and OR 27.88, 95% CI 1.48 to 526.12; participants = 40; trials = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, liver transplantation, decompensated liver disease, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma. The proportion of people with chronic HCV infection as indicated by the lack of sustained virological response was lower in the interferon-alpha group versus no intervention (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.76; participants = 99; trials = 3; I² = 0%). The differences between the groups were imprecise or not estimable (because neither group had any events) for all the remaining comparisons.Four of the 10 trials (40%) received financial or other assistance from pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the findings of the research; the source of funding was not available in five trials (50%), and one trial (10%) was funded by a hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that interferon-alpha may decrease the incidence of chronic HCV infection as measured by sustained virological response. However, the clinical impact such as improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease, and liver transplantation has not been reported. It is also not clear whether this finding is applicable in the current clinical setting dominated by the use of pegylated interferons and direct-acting antivirals, although we found no evidence to support that pegylated interferons or ribavirin or both are effective in people with acute HCV infection. We could find no randomised trials comparing direct-acting antivirals with placebo or other interventions for acute HCV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the benefits and harms of the interventions, and high-quality randomised clinical trials are required.

Co-existing Hepatitis C and Alcoholic Liver Disease: A Diminishing Indication for Liver Transplantation?

Aims

To provide an overview of published literature on the interaction of alcohol and hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the accelerated progression of liver disease to cirrhosis as relates to decision-making for the management of the liver transplant candidate and recipient.

Methods

General PubMed search was employed along with expert input to identify the relevant articles on the topic. The authors also utilized both backward and forward citation review of the relevant articles and reviews to identify articles on identified topic.

Results

In HCV cases, heavy alcohol use has been associated with more severe fibrosis, but even low rates of use may have deleterious effects. Patients with chronic hepatitis C and alcoholic liver disease can be cured of the HCV-theoretically positively impacting outcome and reducing the need for liver transplantation. Current antiviral therapy achieves virologic cure or sustained viral response (SVR) in over 90% of cases. Antiviral therapy is so effective that most liver transplant candidates or recipients can be cured of HCV either prior to or after transplantation. However, despite successful antiviral therapy, liver disease may progress after SVR due to the effects of ongoing alcohol use.

Conclusion

Antiviral therapy in patients with HCV plus alcohol should improve pre- and post-transplant outcomes, but providers must remain firm in limiting use of alcohol to avoid progression of liver disease post HCV cure.

Short Summary

Abusive alcohol use and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) commonly co-exist and both need to be addressed in liver disease. With high rates of HCV cure with new therapies, attention needs to turn toward ongoing abusive alcohol patterns that may determinately impact liver health both before and after liver transplant.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Alcoholic Liver Disease

Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) comprises a clinical-histologic spectrum including fatty liver, alcoholic hepatitis (AH), and cirrhosis with its complications. Most patients are diagnosed at advanced stages and data on the prevalence and profile of patients with early disease are limited. Diagnosis of ALD requires documentation of chronic heavy alcohol use and exclusion of other causes of liver disease. Prolonged abstinence is the most effective strategy to prevent disease progression. AH presents with rapid onset or worsening of jaundice, and in severe cases may transition to acute on chronic liver failure when the risk for mortality, depending on the number of extra-hepatic organ failures, may be as high as 20-50% at 1 month. Corticosteroids provide short-term survival benefit in about half of treated patients with severe AH and long-term mortality is related to severity of underlying liver disease and is dependent on abstinence from alcohol. General measures in patients hospitalized with ALD include inpatient management of liver disease complications, management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome, surveillance for infections and early effective antibiotic therapy, nutritional supplementation, and treatment of the underlying alcohol-use disorder. Liver transplantation, a definitive treatment option in patients with advanced alcoholic cirrhosis, may also be considered in selected patients with AH cases, who do not respond to medical therapy. There is a clinical unmet need to develop more effective and safer therapies for patients with ALD.

Pathophysiology and Management of Alcoholic Liver Disease: Update 2016

Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) is a leading cause of cirrhosis, liver cancer, and acute and chronic liver failure and as such causes significant morbidity and mortality. While alcohol consumption is slightly decreasing in several European countries, it is rising in others and remains high in many countries around the world. The pathophysiology of ALD is still incompletely understood but relates largely to the direct toxic effects of alcohol and its main intermediate, acetaldehyde. Recently, novel putative mechanisms have been identified in systematic scans covering the entire human genome and raise new hypotheses on previously unknown pathways. The latter also identify host genetic risk factors for significant liver injury, which may help design prognostic risk scores. The diagnosis of ALD is relatively easy with a panel of well-evaluated tests and only rarely requires a liver biopsy. Treatment of ALD is difficult and grounded in abstinence as the pivotal therapeutic goal; once cirrhosis is established, treatment largely resembles that of other etiologies of advanced liver damage. Liver transplantation is a sound option for carefully selected patients with cirrhosis and alcoholic hepatitis because relapse rates are low and prognosis is comparable to other etiologies. Still, many countries are restrictive in allocating donor livers for ALD patients. Overall, few therapeutic options exist for severe ALD. However, there is good evidence of benefit for only corticosteroids in severe alcoholic hepatitis, while most other efforts are of limited efficacy. Considering the immense burden of ALD worldwide, efforts of medical professionals and industry partners to develop targeted therapies in ALF has been disappointingly low.

Pharmacological interventions for acute hepatitis C infection: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a single-stranded RNA (ribonucleic acid) virus that has the potential to cause inflammation of the liver. The traditional definition of acute HCV infection is the first six months following infection with the virus. Another commonly used definition of acute HCV infection is the absence of HCV antibody and subsequent seroconversion (presence of HCV antibody in a person who was previously negative for HCV antibody). Approximately 40% to 95% of people with acute HCV infection develop chronic HCV infection, that is, have persistent HCV RNA in their blood. In 2010, an estimated 160 million people worldwide (2% to 3% of the world's population) had chronic HCV infection. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HCV remains controversial. Chronic HCV infection can damage the liver.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HCV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers to April 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for acute HCV infection.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with acute HCV infection. We excluded trials which included previously liver transplanted participants and those with other coexisting viral diseases. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with placebo or each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on the available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 randomised clinical trials with 488 randomised participants that met our inclusion criteria. All the trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, the evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality evidence. Nine trials (467 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. Three trials (99 participants) compared interferon-alpha versus no intervention. Three trials (90 participants) compared interferon-beta versus no intervention. One trial (21 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus no intervention, but it did not provide any data for analysis. One trial (41 participants) compared MTH-68/B vaccine versus no intervention. Two trials (237 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin. None of the trials compared direct-acting antivirals versus placebo or other interventions. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from six to 36 months.There was no short-term mortality (less than one year) in any group in any trial except for one trial where one participant died in the pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin group (1/95: 1.1%). In the trials that reported follow-up beyond one year, there were no further deaths. The number of serious adverse events was higher with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin than with pegylated interferon-alpha (rate ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.40 to 5.33; participants = 237; trials = 2; I2 = 0%). The proportion of people with any adverse events was higher with interferon-alpha and interferon-beta compared with no intervention (OR 203.00, 95% CI 9.01 to 4574.81; participants = 33; trials = 1 and OR 27.88, 95% CI 1.48 to 526.12; participants = 40; trials = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, liver transplantation, decompensated liver disease, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma. The proportion of people with chronic HCV infection as indicated by the lack of sustained virological response was lower in the interferon-alpha group versus no intervention (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.76; participants = 99; trials = 3; I2 = 0%). The differences between the groups were imprecise or not estimable (because neither group had any events) for all the remaining comparisons.Four of the 10 trials (40%) received financial or other assistance from pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the findings of the research; the source of funding was not available in five trials (50%), and one trial (10%) was funded by a hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that interferon-alpha may decrease the incidence of chronic HCV infection as measured by sustained virological response. However, the clinical impact such as improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease, and liver transplantation has not been reported. It is also not clear whether this finding is applicable in the current clinical setting dominated by the use of pegylated interferons and direct-acting antivirals, although we found no evidence to support that pegylated interferons or ribavirin or both are effective in people with acute HCV infection. We could find no randomised trials comparing direct-acting antivirals with placebo or other interventions for acute HCV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the benefits and harms of the interventions, and high-quality randomised clinical trials are required.

Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis is the Most Rapidly Growing Indication for Simultaneous Liver Kidney Transplantation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Frequency of liver transplantation (LT) is increasing in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with good post-transplant outcomes. Similar data on simultaneous liver kidney (SLK) transplants are limited.

METHODS

United Network for Organ Sharing database (2002-2011) queried for deceased donor first LT for primary biliary cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, or alcoholic cirrhosis (group I), NASH, and cryptogenic cirrhosis with body mass index greater than 30 (group II), and hepatitis C virus with and without alcohol, hepatitis B virus, and hepatocellular carcinoma (group III).

RESULTS

Of 38 533 LT (9495, 3665, and 25 383 in groups I-III, respectively), about 5.6% (N = 2162) received SLK with 584 (6.2%), 320 (8.7%), and 1258 (5%) in groups I-III, respectively. The SLK performed for group II increased from 6.3% in 2002 to 2003 to 19.2% in 2010 to 2011. Similar trends remained unchanged in group I (26.1 to 26.6%) and decreased in group III (67.6 to 54.5%). Five-year outcomes were similar comparing group II versus group I for liver graft (78 vs 74%, P = 0.14) and patient survival (81 vs 76%, P = 0.07). In contrast, kidney graft outcome was worse for group II (70 vs 79%, P = 0.002). Risk of kidney graft loss was over 1.5-fold higher among group II SLK recipients compared to group I after controlling for recipient characteristics. Estimated glomerular filtration rate remained lower in group II compared with group I at various time points after SLK transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The NASH is the most rapidly growing indication for SLK transplantation with poor renal outcomes. Studies are needed to examine mechanisms of these findings and develop strategies to improve renal outcomes in SLK recipients for NASH.

Liver Transplantation for Alcoholic and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Pretransplant Selection and Posttransplant Management

Alcoholic fatty liver disease (ALD) and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are common causes of chronic liver disease throughout the world. Although they have similar histologic features, a diagnosis of NAFLD requires the absence of significant alcohol use. ALD is seen commonly in patients with a long-standing history of excessive alcohol use, whereas NAFLD is encountered commonly in patients who have developed complications of obesity, such as insulin resistance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Lifestyle contributes to the development and progression of both diseases. Although alcohol abstinence can cause regression of ALD, and weight loss can cause regression of NAFLD, many patients with these diseases develop cirrhosis. ALD and NAFLD account for nearly 30% of liver transplants performed in the United States. Patients receiving liver transplants for ALD or NAFLD have similar survival times as patients receiving transplants for other liver disorders. Although ALD and NAFLD recur frequently after liver transplantation, graft loss from disease recurrence after transplantation is uncommon. Cardiovascular disease and de novo malignancy are leading causes of long-term mortality in liver transplant recipients with ALD or NAFLD.

Survival and risk factors related to death in outpatients with cirrhosis treated in a clinic in Southern Brazil

INTRODUCTION

Cirrhosis represents a public health issue that generally evolves and presents serious complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the outcomes of outpatients with cirrhosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used a retrospective outpatient-based cohort, assessing 527 patients with cirrhosis. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables were analyzed, as well as the risk factors related to death, using the Cox proportional-hazard regression model. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze survival rates.

RESULTS

Patients had a mean age of 52.9±9.7 years and were more frequently men (59%), presenting Child-Turcotte-Pugh B or C in 43% of the cases in addition to a mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 12.0±4.1. The predominant etiology of liver disease was the hepatitis C virus. The most frequent complications during follow-up were ascites (34%), hepatic encephalopathy (17%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (17%). The survival rate at years 5 and 10 was 73 and 57%, respectively. The main risk factors that were related to death were, in a multivariate analysis, hepatitis C virus etiology, presence of hepatocellular carcinoma, and serum levels of albumin.

CONCLUSION

Patients with cirrhosis monitored on an outpatient basis, despite showing a reasonable survival rate, have a worse prognosis when the etiology of liver disease is related to hepatitis C virus and when they have hepatocellular carcinoma or hypoalbuminemia.

Perceptions of post-transplant recidivism in liver transplantation for alcoholic liver disease

Although alcoholic liver disease (ALD) is regarded as a common indication for liver transplantation (LT), debatable issues exist on the requirement for preceding alcoholic abstinence, appropriate indication criteria, predictive factors for alcoholic recidivism, and outcomes following living-donor LT. In most institutions, an abstinence period of six months before LT has been adopted as a mandatory selection criterion. Data indicating that pre-transplant abstinence is an associated predictive factor for alcoholic recidivism supports the reasoning behind this. However, conclusive evidence about the benefit of adopting an abstinence period is yet to be established. On the other hand, a limited number of reports available on living-donor LT experiences for ALD patients suggest that organ donations from relatives have no suppressive effect on alcoholic recidivism. Prevention of alcoholic recidivism has proved to be the most important treatment after LT based on the resultant inferior long-term outcome of patients. Further evaluations are still needed to establish strategies before and after LT for ALD.

Restricting liver transplant recipients to younger donors does not increase the wait-list time or the dropout rate: the hepatitis C experience

Older donor age is associated with lower graft and patient survival among all recipients of liver transplantation (LT). Among patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV), donor age is one of the strongest predictors of fibrosis severity and graft loss. We evaluated the implementation of a donor age restriction policy for LT patients with HCV at a single center and the effects that this policy had on wait-list (WL) and post-LT outcomes for HCV and non-HCV patients. This was a cohort study of 2388 WL patients and 1015 LT recipients between March 2002 and January 2013 and reflected 3 different eras of donor age policies. With the donor age restriction, the median donor age was reduced in LT recipients with HCV versus LT recipients without HCV (30 versus 48 years, P < 0.001) without differences in the WL time (10.6 versus 8.0 months, P = 0.23). According to a competing risks regression, those with HCV and those without HCV had lower subhazard ratios (SHRs) of dropout or death on the WL during the donor age restriction era versus the era without donor age restriction [SHR = 0.68 (P < 0.01) and SHR = 0.64 (P = 0.01), respectively]. No differences were seen in early post-LT survival for patients with or without HCV between eras (P = 0.7 and P = 0.88, respectively). In conclusion, we show that donor age restriction for HCV results in a lower donor age for HCV recipients without obvious adverse WL consequences. Although additional studies are needed, our results demonstrate the feasibility of donor age restriction for LT recipients with HCV, and such information may be relevant to programs with limited access to new antiviral therapies for which modifying the risk of severe disease remains of paramount importance.

Outcomes after liver transplantation for combined alcohol and hepatitis C virus infection

Alcohol abuse and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are two major causes of chronic liver disease in the United States. About 10%-15% of liver transplants performed in the United States are for patients with cirrhosis due to combined alcohol and HCV infection. Data on outcomes on graft and patient survival, HCV recurrence, and relapse of alcohol use comparing transplants in hepatitis C positive drinkers compared to alcohol abuse or hepatitis C alone are conflicting in the literature. Some studies report a slightly better overall outcome in patients who were transplanted for alcoholic cirrhosis vs those transplanted for HCV alone or for combined HCV and alcohol related cirrhosis. However, some other studies do not support these observations. However, most studies are limited to a retrospective design or small sample size. Larger prospective multicenter studies are needed to better define the outcomes in hepatitis C drinkers.