Im, Gene

Background: Hepatorenal syndrome–acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) is associated with high mortality in cirrhosis. Recent FDA approval of terlipressin and updated clinical guidance have expanded management options, but real-world practice patterns remain unknown. Methods: We conducted a nationwide survey of U.S. hepatology providers regarding HRS-AKI management practices. The 33-question survey assessed provider demographics, vasoconstrictor selection, treatment timing, and adherence to guideline recommendations. Results: Among 162 respondents, most were hepatologists (94%) at academic centers (83%). Only 11% obtained a nephrology consultation at AKI detection, with 44% waiting until worsening renal function. Terlipressin was available at 80% of institutions but more commonly at academic centers (84% vs. 53%, p =0.003). Consistent with guideline recommendations, 77% of providers initiate vasoconstrictors only after completing a trial of volume expansion (if no renal improvement), particularly in academic centers (80% vs. 60% non-academic, p =0.03). Terlipressin (49%) and midodrine/octreotide (44%) were preferred first-line treatments, with providers at academic centers more likely to use midodrine/octreotide (46% vs. 30%, p =0.008). Mean arterial pressure was used by 62% of providers to guide vasoconstrictor dosing. Most providers (73%) discontinued vasoconstrictor treatment after 4 days if no improvement. Conclusions: Significant variations exist between guideline recommendations and real-world HRS-AKI management, especially first-line treatment choice, treatment monitoring, and nephrology consultation. These findings highlight opportunities to improve guideline implementation and identify areas where practice patterns might inform provider education and future guidance updates.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) has been associated with excellent post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes at 1 year; however, the impact of alcohol as ACLF precipitant, specifically alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), and as etiology of chronic liver disease remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess the effect of alcohol as ACLF precipitant and chronic liver disease etiology (alcohol-associated liver disease vs. non–alcohol-associated liver disease) on posttransplant outcomes. We performed a retrospective study using the Multi-Organ Dysfunction and Evaluation for LT Consortium database and included 640 patients with ACLF who underwent LT across 15 transplant centers in North America. The primary outcome was 1-year posttransplant survival. We used logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards to compare posttransplant survival, mortality risk, and health care utilization, adjusting for age, ACLF grade, comorbid diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and HCC. The median follow-up from LT was 2.8 years (P25–P75, 2.2–5.5 y) for patients with AH-ACLF (n=42) and 3.1 years (P25–P75, 1.6–4.9 y) for patients without AH (n=598). No significant difference was observed in 1-year survival after LT in patients with AH-ACLF versus those without AH ( p =0.36). Patients with AH had significantly higher health care utilization evidenced by greater length of stay (28.5 vs. 19.0 d, p =0.004; adjusted linear estimate 16.89, 95% CI: 7.66–26.11, p <0.001), higher rates of rehabilitation placement (71.4% vs. 41.8%, p =0.002; adjusted odds ratio: 4.13, 95% CI: 2.04–8.89, p <0.001), and non-ambulatory status (39.0% vs. 21.0%, p =0.005; adjusted odds ratio: 4.54, 95% CI: 1.90–10.79, p <0.001). Compared with other etiologies, alcohol-associated liver disease was not associated with differences in 1-year mortality, mortality risk over time, or health care utilization, after excluding patients with AH as ACLF precipitant. While there were no differences in 1-year survival, AH-ACLF was associated with higher health care resource utilization compared with other ACLF precipitants. LT centers should ensure adequate resources are allocated for the management of these patients.

Goals: Our aim was to perform a national survey of provider attitudes, practices, and knowledge regarding weight loss and MASLD medications in patients with MASLD. Background: While weight loss is a cornerstone in the management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), FDA-approved medications for weight loss remain underutilized. Results: We conducted a survey before resmetirom approval of hepatology and gastroenterology providers practicing in 44 states. Surveys were sent to 747 providers with 304 complete responses (41%), of whom 260 (86%) work at a liver transplant center. While nearly all respondents (96%) believed that weight loss medications could benefit patients with MASLD, 77% have never/rarely prescribed them due to low comfort (81%). Among weight loss medication prescribers, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists were preferred (66%). In contrast, 63% had prescribed off-label medications for MASLD in the past 12 months, most commonly vitamin E (30%) and GLP-1 receptor agonists (25%). The top reported barriers to prescribing weight loss medications were lack of training/unfamiliarity, cost/insurance coverage, and side-effects, which may be explained by low formal obesity education and lack of knowledge (only 33% of FDA-approved medications for weight loss were correctly identified by >50% of providers). Overall, there was reasonable provider-reported adherence to the 2023 AASLD practice guidance for MASLD. Conclusions: This nationwide survey of hepatology and gastroenterology providers before resmetirom demonstrates that while off-label prescribing for MASLD was common, weight loss medication prescription rates remain very low due to low comfort possibly from insufficient education despite strong beliefs that they can benefit patients with MASLD.

Hazardous alcohol use remains a major contributor to acute and chronic liver disease, while alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a leading indication for liver transplantation. In recent years, embedded, interprofessional ALD clinics have improved access to alcohol use disorder care within hepatology and liver transplantation, but more work is needed to meet this challenge. The literature is lacking regarding scaling procedures to provide services for increasingly large ill patient populations. This article begins to fill this gap by describing “expanded ALD care”: broad, innovative, longitudinal, interprofessional care delivery strategies surpassing standalone clinics. Drawing from analogous patient populations served by collaborative models in primary care and comprehensive eating disorder treatment, the expanded ALD care framework proposes practical strategies toward specific innovations: equipoise between biomedical and psychosocial care elements, increased clinician number and reach, long-term patient relationships, harm reduction and palliative care, outreach to external agencies and clinicians, and enhanced support for patients and families. The article also defines attributes of innovative healthcare systems that support expanded ALD care.

The liver transplantation (LT) evaluation and waitlisting process is subject to variations in care that can impede quality. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) developed quality measures and patient-reported experience measures along the continuum of pre-LT care to reduce care variation and guide patient-centered care. Following a systematic literature review, candidate pre-LT measures were grouped into 4 phases of care: referral, evaluation and waitlisting, waitlist management, and organ acceptance. A modified Delphi panel with content expertise in hepatology, transplant surgery, psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, palliative care, and social work selected the final set. Candidate patient-reported experience measures spanned domains of cognitive health, emotional health, social well-being, and understanding the LT process. Of the 71 candidate measures, 41 were selected: 9 for referral; 20 for evaluation and waitlisting; 7 for waitlist management; and 5 for organ acceptance. A total of 14 were related to structure, 17 were process measures, and 10 were outcome measures that focused on elements not typically measured in routine care. Among the patient-reported experience measures, candidates of LT rated items from understanding the LT process domain as the most important. The proposed pre-LT measures provide a framework for quality improvement and care standardization among candidates of LT. Select measures apply to various stakeholders such as referring practitioners in the community and LT centers. Clinically meaningful measures that are distinct from those used for regulatory transplant reporting may facilitate local quality improvement initiatives to improve access and quality of care.

Liver transplantation (LT) for alcohol associated hepatitis (AH) remains controversial. We convened a consensus conference to examine various aspects of LT for AH. The goal was not to unequivocally endorse LT for AH; instead, it was to propose recommendations for programs that perform or plan to perform LT for AH. Criteria were established to determine candidacy for LT in the setting of AH and included the following: (1) AH patients presenting for the first time with decompensated liver disease that are nonresponders to medical therapy without severe medical or psychiatric comorbidities; (2) a fixed period of abstinence prior to transplantation is not required; and (3) assessment with a multidisciplinary psychosocial team, including a social worker and an addiction specialist/mental health professional with addiction and transplantation expertise. Supporting factors included lack of repeated unsuccessful attempts at addiction rehabilitation, lack of other substance use/dependency, acceptance of diagnosis/insight with a commitment of the patient/family to sobriety, and formalized agreement to adhere to total alcohol abstinence and counseling. LT should be avoided in AH patients who are likely to spontaneously recover. Short‐term and longterm survival comparable to other indications for LT must be achieved. There should not be further disparity in LT either by indication, geography, or other sociodemographic factors. Treatment of alcohol‐use disorders should be incorporated into pre‐ and post‐LT care. The restrictive and focused evaluation process described in the initial LT experience for AH worldwide may not endure as this indication gains wider acceptance at more LT programs. Transparency in the selection process is crucial and requires the collection of objective data to assess outcomes and minimize center variation in listing. Oversight of program adherence is important to harmonize listing practices and outcomes.