Impact of hepatic encephalopathy on liver transplant waiting list mortality in regions with different transplantation rates

Liver Transplantation in Chronic Liver Disease and Acute on Chronic Liver Failure- Indication, Timing and Practices

Liver transplantation (LT) is the second most common solid organ transplantation worldwide. LT is considered the best and most definitive therapeutic option for patients with decompensated chronic liver disease (CLD), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), acute liver failure (ALF), and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). The etiology of CLD shows wide geographical variation, with viral hepatitis being the major etiology in the east and alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) in the west. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is on an increasing trend and is expected to be the most common etiology on a global scale. Since the first successful LT, there have been radical changes in the indications for LT. In many circumstances, not just the liver disease itself but factors such as extra-hepatic organ dysfunction or failures necessitate LT. ACLF is a dynamic syndrome that has extremely high short-term mortality. Currently, there is no single approved therapy for ACLF, and LT seems to be the only feasible therapeutic option for selected patients at high risk of mortality. Early identification of ACLF, stratification of patients according to disease severity, aggressive organ support, and etiology-specific treatment approaches have a significant impact on post-transplant outcomes. This review briefly describes the indications, timing, and referral practices for LT in patients with CLD and ACLF.

Are MELD and MELDNa Still Reliable Tools to Predict Mortality on the Liver Transplant Waiting List?

Liver transplantation is the only curative treatment for end-stage liver disease. Unfortunately, the scarcity of donor organs and the increasing pool of potential recipients limit access to this life-saving procedure. Allocation should account for medical and ethical factors, ensuring equal access to transplantation regardless of recipient's gender, race, religion, or income. Based on their short-term prognosis prediction, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and MELD sodium (MELDNa) have been widely used to prioritize patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation resulting in a significant decrease in waiting list mortality/removal. Recent concern has been raised regarding the prognostic accuracy of MELD and MELDNa due, in part, to changes in recipients' profile such as body mass index, comorbidities, and general condition, including nutritional status and cause of liver disease, among others. This review aims to provide a comprehensive view of the current state of MELD and MELDNa advantages and limitations and promising alternatives. Finally, it will explore future options to increase the donor pool and improve donor-recipient matching.

Morbid obesity increases death and dropout from the liver transplantation waiting list: A prospective cohort study

Liver transplant (LT) candidates with a body mass index (BMI) over 40 kg/m² have lower access to a liver graft without clear explanation. Thus, we studied the impact of obesity on the waiting list (WL) and aimed to explore graft proposals and refusal.

METHOD

Data between January 2007 and December 2017 were extracted from the French prospective national database: CRISTAL. Competing risk analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of receiving LT. Competitive events were (1) death/WL removal for disease aggravation or (2) improvement. The link between grade obesity, grafts propositions, and reason for refusal was studied.

RESULTS

15,184 patients were analysed: 10,813 transplant, 2847 death/dropout for aggravation, 748 redirected for improvement, and 776 censored. Mortality/dropout were higher in BMI over 35 (18% vs. 14% 1 year after listing) than in other candidates. In multivariate analysis, BMI>35, age, hepatic encephalopathy, and ascites were independent predictors of death/dropout. Candidates with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² had reduced access to LT, without differences in graft proposals. However, grafts refusal was more frequent especially for 'morphological incompatibility' (14.9% vs. 12.7% p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

BMI over 35 kg/m² reduces access to LT with increased risk of dropout and mortality. Increased mortality and dropout could be due to a lower access to liver graft secondary to increased graft refusal for morphological incompatibility.

Budget impact of optimizing rifaximin-α use for the prevention of recurrent hepatic encephalopathy in The Netherlands

AIMS

Rifaximin-α as an adjunct to lactulose is reimbursed in the Netherlands for prevention of the third and subsequent episodes of overt Hepatic Encephalopathy (HE) in cirrhotic patients. However, use of rifaximin-α remains limited. This study evaluates the clinical and economic impact of treating all patients eligible under Dutch reimbursement conditions with rifaximin-α as an adjunct to lactulose for the prevention of overt HE in the Netherlands from a hospital and healthcare payer's perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A budget impact analysis was performed following national and international guidelines. Resource use was based on Dutch real-world data. HE-related cost inputs were based on the declaration codes, Dutch cost manual, and actual drug list prices. Several sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess model robustness.

RESULTS

Treating eligible HE patients with rifaximin-α in addition to lactulose saves €4,487 and costs €249 per patient over a 5-year period compared with lactulose monotherapy from hospital and healthcare payer's perspectives, respectively. In the Netherlands, an estimated 38% of the 2,567 eligible patients are currently being treated with rifaximin-α. Optimizing rifaximin-α use by treating all eligible patients with the rifaximin-α + lactulose could save more than 3,000 hospital admissions, almost 15,000 hospital bed days, and 300 deaths over a 5-year period. Despite increased drug costs, treatment is estimated to result in potential cost savings over a 5-year period of 7.2 million euros from a Dutch hospital perspective. The budget impact is 397,770 euros from a healthcare payer's perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Next to a clinical perspective, also from an economic perspective, wider prescription of rifaximin-α adhering to guidelines could be beneficial to reduce costs from a hospital perspective. From a healthcare payer's perspective, costs increase with addition of rifaximin-α due to relative better survival causing relatively higher drug and liver transplantation-related costs.

Prevention of hepatic encephalopathy by administration of rifaximin and lactulose in patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS): a multicentre randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial (PEARL trial)

INTRODUCTION

Cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension can suffer from variceal bleeding or refractory ascites and can benefit from a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a common (20%-54%) and often severe complication. A prophylactic strategy is lacking.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Prevention of hepatic Encephalopathy by Administration of Rifaximin and Lactulose in patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing placement of a TIPS (PEARL) trial, is a multicentre randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Patients undergoing covered TIPS placement are prescribed either rifaximin 550 mg two times per day and lactulose 25 mL two times per day (starting dose) or placebo 550 mg two times per day and lactulose 25 mL two times per day from 72 hours before and until 3 months after TIPS placement. Primary endpoint is the development of overt HE (OHE) within 3 months (according to West Haven criteria). Secondary endpoints include 90-day mortality; development of a second episode of OHE; time to development of episode(s) of OHE; development of minimal HE; molecular changes in peripheral and portal blood samples; quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The total sample size is 238 patients and recruitment period is 3 years in six hospitals in the Netherlands and one in Belgium.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study protocol was approved in the Netherlands by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam (2018-332), in Belgium by the Ethics Committee Research UZ/KU Leuven (S62577) and competent authorities. This study will be conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Study results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04073290) and EudraCT database (2018-004323-37).