Heller, Theo

Noncirrhotic portal hypertension has historically been described using heterogeneous and region-specific terminology—such as idiopathic portal hypertension (IPH), noncirrhotic portal fibrosis (NCPF), obliterative portal venopathy, and nodular regenerative hyperplasia—leading to substantial variability in diagnosis, reporting, and international research collaboration. Differences in guideline definitions from major societies (AASLD, EASL, and APASL), together with the presence of characteristic histologic lesions in patients without clinically overt portal hypertension, have further complicated disease classification. To address these challenges, a large, multisociety, international initiative was convened to harmonize nomenclature and diagnostic criteria. Representatives from liver, pathology, and pediatric hepatology societies across the Americas, Europe, and Asia participated in a structured consensus process that included specialized working groups and external Delphi validation. The initiative produced a globally harmonized and implementable diagnostic framework. Consensus was reached that the terms porto-sinusoidal vascular disorder (PSVD) and NCPF may be used interchangeably when identical diagnostic criteria are applied, and that they should be written as PSVD or NCPF . The diagnosis was defined as fundamentally clinicopathological, requiring integrated assessment. Core principles include the need for a high-quality liver biopsy (≥10 mm), mandatory exclusion of cirrhosis, and systematic exclusion of specific alternative conditions. Importantly, the consensus recognizes that PSVD or NCPF may be diagnosed even without clinical portal hypertension and may coexist with other liver diseases, provided cirrhosis is excluded. Standardized major and minor histologic criteria were developed collaboratively by expert pathologists and externally validated. Features of portal hypertension were harmonized into specific and nonspecific categories applicable to routine clinical practice. An integrated diagnostic scoring system incorporating histology, clinical features, associated conditions, and concommitant etiologies was developed and validated using the Delphi method. This consensus provides the first internationally endorsed, unified framework for the diagnosis of PSVD or NCPF. Its global implementation is expected to reduce diagnostic variability, improve comparability across regions, and facilitate the development of robust, internationally harmonized clinical and translational research cohorts.

ObjectiveTo describe a 41‐year‐old woman with a history of neonatal onset multisystem inflammatory disease, on treatment with daily subcutaneous injections of 600 mg of recombinant interleukin‐1 receptor antagonist (IL‐1Ra) protein, anakinra, since the age of 28, who presented with golf‐ball size nodules at the anakinra injection sites, early satiety, new onset nephrotic syndrome in the context of normal markers of systemic inflammation.MethodsClinical history and histologic evaluation of biopsies of skin, gastric mucosa, and kidney with Congo‐red staining and proteomic evaluation of microdissected Congo red–positive amyloid deposits by liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry.ResultsThe skin, stomach, and kidney biopsies all showed the presence of Congo red–positive amyloid deposits. Mass spectrometry‐based proteomics demonstrated that the amyloid deposits in all sites were of AIL1RAP (IL‐1Ra protein)‐type. These were characterized by high spectral counts of the amyloid signature proteins (apolipoprotein AIV, apolipoprotein E, and serum amyloid P‐component) and the amyloidogenic IL‐1Ra protein, which were present in Congo red–positive areas and absent in Congo red–negative areas. The amino acid sequence identified by mass spectrometry confirmed that the amyloid precursor protein was recombinant IL‐1Ra (anakinra) and not endogenous wild‐type IL‐1Ra.ConclusionThis is the first report of iatrogenic systemic amyloidosis due to an injectable protein drug, which was caused by recombinant IL1Ra (anakinra).

We conducted a web-based survey to characterize liver transplant (LT) evaluation and listing practices for patients being evaluated for combined heart-liver transplantation (CHLT), with a specific emphasis on patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), around transplant centers in North America. Very few protocols for liver evaluation and listing in patients undergoing combined heart-liver transplantation are published, and no guidelines currently exist on this topic. A subject of intense debate in the transplant community is the decision of which patients with CHD and liver disease benefit from CHLT compared with heart transplantation. A focus group from the American Society of Transplantation Liver-Intestine Community of Practice Education Subcommittee developed a web-based survey that included questions (1) respondee demographic information; (2) LT evaluation practices in CHLT; (3) liver organ listing practices in CHLT, and (4) 4 clinical vignettes with case-based scenarios in CHLT liver listings among CHD patients who underwent Fontan palliation. The survey was distributed to medical and surgical LT program directors of 47 centers that had completed at least 1 CHLT up to July 2021 in the US and the University of Toronto, Canada. The survey had an excellent 83% response rate (87% for centers that completed at least 1 CHLT in the past 5 y). Total 66.7% used transjugular liver biopsy with HVPG measurements, 30% used percutaneous liver biopsy with no consensus on the use of a fibrosis staging system, 95% mandated contrasted cross-sectional imaging, and 65% upper endoscopy. The following isolated findings evaluation mandated CHLT listing: isolated elevated HVPG (61.5%); the presence of portosystemic collaterals on imaging (67.5%); the endoscopic presence of esophageal or gastric varices (75%), and the presence of HCC (80%), whereas the majority of centers did not feel that the presence of isolated splenomegaly (100%), thrombocytopenia (81.6%), endoscopic findings of portal hypertensive gastropathy (66.7%), or highly sensitized patients (84.6%) justified CHLT. In our survey of North American centers that had performed at least 1 CHLT in the past 5 years, we observed heterogeneity in practices for both evaluation and listing protocols in these patients.