Vargas, Hugo E

We hypothesize that the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among patients with cirrhosis has increased due to the increased prevalence of CKD‐associated comorbidities, such as diabetes. We aimed to assess the characteristics of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis with CKD and its impact on renal and patient outcomes. The North American Consortium for the Study of End‐Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD) prospectively enrolled nonelectively admitted patients with cirrhosis and collected data on demographics, laboratory results, in‐hospital clinical course, and postdischarge 3‐month outcomes. CKD positive (CKD+) patients, defined as having an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease–4 variable formula) of ≤60 mL/minute for >3 months, were compared with chronic kidney disease negative (CKD–) patients for development of organ failures, hospital course, and survival. There were 1099 CKD+ patients (46.8% of 2346 enrolled patients) who had significantly higher serum creatinine (2.21 ± 1.33 versus 0.83 ± 0.21 mg/dL in the CKD– group) on admission, higher prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis cirrhosis etiology, diabetes, refractory ascites, and hospital admissions in the previous 6 months compared with the CKD– group (all P < 0.001). Propensity matching (n = 922 in each group) by Child‐Pugh scores (9.78 ± 2.05 versus 9.74 ± 2.04, P = 0.70) showed that CKD+ patients had significantly higher rates of superimposed acute kidney injury (AKI; 68% versus 21%; P < 0.001) and eventual need for dialysis (11% versus 2%; P < 0.001) than CKD– patients. CKD+ patients also had more cases of acute‐on‐chronic liver failure as defined by the NACSELD group, which was associated with reduced 30‐ and 90‐day overall survival ( P < 0.001 for both). A 10 mL/minute drop in eGFR was associated with a 13.1% increase in the risk of 30‐day mortality. In conclusion, patients with CKD should be treated as a high‐risk group among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis due to their poor survival, and they should be monitored carefully for the development of superimposed AKI.

The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib improves hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) in an experimental model. However, the efficacy and adverse effect profile in patients with HPS are unknown. We aimed to determine the effect of sorafenib on the alveolar‐arterial oxygen gradient (AaPO2) at 3 months in patients with HPS. We performed a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled parallel trial of sorafenib in patients with HPS at 7 centers. A total of 28 patients with HPS were randomized to sorafenib 400 mg by mouth daily or a matching placebo in a 1:1 ratio. We found no statistically significant difference in the median change in AaPO2 from baseline to 12 weeks between the patients allocated to sorafenib (4.5 mm Hg; IQR, –3.8 to 7.0 mm Hg) and those allocated to placebo (–2.4 mm Hg; IQR, –4.8 to 8.2 mm Hg; P = 0.70). There was also no difference between the groups in terms of degree of intrapulmonary shunting by contrast echocardiography. Sorafenib significantly reduced circulating levels of angiogenic markers, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (P < 0.01) and TIE2‐expressing M2 monocytes (P = 0.03), but it reduced the mental component scores of the Short Form 36 (P = 0.04), indicating a worse quality of life. In conclusion, sorafenib did not change the AaPO2 or other disease markers at 3 months in patients with HPS. Alternative antiangiogenic therapies or treatments targeting other pathways should be investigated.

Acute‐on‐chronic liver failure (ACLF) characterized with ≥2 extrahepatic organ failures in cirrhosis carries a high mortality. Outcomes of patients listed for liver transplantation (LT) after ACLF and after LT are largely unknown. The North American Consortium for the Study of End‐Stage Liver Disease prospectively enrolled 2793 nonelectively hospitalized patients with cirrhosis; 768 were listed for LT. Within 3 months, 265 (35%) received a LT, 395 remained alive without LT, and 108 died/delisted. Compared with nonlisted patients, those listed were younger and more often had ACLF, acute kidney injury, and a higher admission Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. ACLF was most common in patients who died/delisted, followed by those alive with and without LT respectively, (30%, 22%, and 7%, respectively; P < 0.001). At LT, median MELD was 27.9% and 70% were inpatients; median time from hospitalization to LT was 26 days. Post‐LT survival at 6 months was unchanged between those with and without ACLF (93% each at 6 months). There was no difference in 3‐ and 6‐month mean post‐LT creatinine in those with and without ACLF, despite those with ACLF having a higher mean pre‐LT creatinine and a higher rate of perioperative dialysis (61%). In conclusion, patients with and without ACLF had similar survival after transplant with excellent renal recovery in both groups.

OBJECTIVES: Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for prevention of the first episode of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP; primary prophylaxis 1°) and subsequent episodes (secondary prophylaxis 2°). We aimed to compare outcomes in cirrhotic inpatients on 1° vs 2° SBP prophylaxis. METHODS: Data from North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease were evaluated for cirrhosis details, reasons for admission/medications, inpatient course recorded, and outcomes over 90 days. Outcomes (intensive care units, acute kidney injury, inpatient/90-day mortality) were compared between the 2 groups after propensity-matching on admission model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and serum albumin. RESULTS: Among the 2,731 patients enrolled, 305 were on 1° and 187 on 2° SBP prophylaxis. After propensity-matching, 154 patients remained in each group. Patients on 1° prophylaxis were more likely to have admission systemic inflammatory response syndrome ( P = 0.02), with higher intensive care unit admissions (31% vs 21%; P = 0.05) and inpatient mortality (19% vs 9%; P = 0.01) than the 2° prophylaxis group. Patients on 2° prophylaxis had higher total (22% vs 10%; P = 0004), readmission (16% vs 9%; P = 0.03), and nosocomial (6% vs 0.5%; P = 0.01) SBP rates with predominant Gram-negative organisms compared to 1° prophylaxis patients. At 90 days, 1° prophylaxis patients had a higher mortality (35% vs 22%; P = 0.02) and acute kidney injury incidence (48% vs 30%; P = 0.04) compared to 2° prophylaxis patients. DISCUSSION: In this inpatient cirrhosis study, despite prophylaxis, a high proportion of patients developed SBP, which was associated with mortality. Cirrhotic inpatients on 1° prophylaxis had worse outcomes than those on 2° prophylaxis when propensity-matched for the MELD score and serum albumin during the index admission and 90-day follow-up.

Abstract: Historically, hepatitis C virus infection has posed a barrier to cancer therapies and enrollment in clinical trials for oncology patients. Oral direct acting antivirals now allow most patients, previously considered difficult to treat to be effectively (>95% sustained virologic response) and safely cured.

Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) is the culmination of chronic liver disease and extrahepatic organ failures, which is associated with a high short‐term mortality and immense health care expenditure. There are varying definitions for organ failures and ACLF in Europe, North America, and Asia. These differing definitions need to be reconciled to enhance progress in the field. The pathogenesis of ACLF is multifactorial and related to interactions between the immunoinflammatory system, microbiota, and the various precipitating factors. Individual organ failures related to the kidney, brain, lungs, and circulation have cumulative adverse effects on mortality and are often complicated or precipitated by infections. Strategies to prevent and rapidly treat these organ failures are paramount in improving survival. With the aging population and paucity of organs for liver transplant, the prognosis of ACLF patients is poor, highlighting the need for novel therapeutic strategies. The role of liver transplant in ACLF is evolving and needs further investigation across large consortia. A role for early palliative care and management of frailty as approaches to alleviate disease burden and improve patient‐reported outcomes is being increasingly recognized. Conclusion: ACLF is a clinically relevant syndrome that is epidemic worldwide and requires a dedicated multinational approach focused on prognostication and management; investigations are underway worldwide to prepare ACLF for prime time. (Hepatology 2018; 00:000‐000)

The North American Consortium for the Study of End‐Stage Liver Disease's definition of acute‐on‐chronic liver failure (NACSELD‐ACLF) as two or more extrahepatic organ failures has been proposed as a simple bedside tool to assess the risk of mortality in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. We validated the NACSELD‐ACLF's ability to predict 30‐day survival (defined as in‐hospital death or hospice discharge) in a separate multicenter prospectively enrolled cohort of both infected and uninfected hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. We used the NACSELD database of 14 tertiary care hepatology centers that prospectively enrolled nonelective hospitalized patients with cirrhosis (n = 2,675). The cohort was randomly split 60%/40% into training (n = 1,605) and testing (n = 1,070) groups. Organ failures assessed were (1) shock, (2) hepatic encephalopathy (grade III/IV), (3) renal (need for dialysis), and (4) respiratory (mechanical ventilation). Patients were most commonly Caucasian (79%) men (62%) with a mean age of 57 years and a diagnosis of alcohol‐induced cirrhosis (45%), and 1,079 patients had an infection during hospitalization. The mean Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score was 19, and the median Child score was 10. No demographic differences were present between the two split groups. Multivariable modeling revealed that the NACSELD‐ACLF score, as determined by number of organ failures, was the strongest predictor of decreased survival after controlling for admission age, white blood cell count, serum albumin, Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score, and presence of infection. The c‐statistics were 0.8073 for the training set and 0.8532 for the validation set. Conclusion: Although infection status remains an important predictor of death, NACSELD‐ACLF was independently validated in a separate large multinational prospective cohort as a simple, reliable bedside tool to predict 30‐day survival in both infected and uninfected patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of cirrhosis. (H epatology 2018;67:2367‐2374).

SummaryBackgroundThe goal of hepatorenal syndrome type 1 (HRS‐1) treatment is to improve renal function. Terlipressin, a synthetic vasopressin analogue, is a systemic vasoconstrictor used for the treatment of HRS‐1, where it is available.AimTo compare the efficacy of terlipressin plus albumin vs. placebo plus albumin in patients with HRS‐1.MethodsPooled patient‐level data from two large phase 3, randomised, placebo‐controlled studies were analysed for HRS reversal [serum creatinine (SCr) value ≤133 μmol/L], 90‐day survival, need for renal replacement therapy and predictors of HRS reversal. Patients received intravenous terlipressin 1–2 mg every 6 hours plus albumin or placebo plus albumin up to 14 days.ResultsThe pooled analysis comprised 308 patients (terlipressin: n = 153; placebo: n = 155). HRS reversal was significantly more frequent with terlipressin vs. placebo (27% vs. 14%; P = 0.004). Terlipressin was associated with a more significant improvement in renal function from baseline until end of treatment, with a mean between‐group difference in SCr concentration of −53.0 μmol/L (P < 0.0001). Lower SCr, lower mean arterial pressure and lower total bilirubin and absence of known precipitating factors for HRS were independent predictors of HRS reversal and longer survival in terlipressin‐treated patients.ConclusionsTerlipressin plus albumin resulted in a significantly higher rate of HRS reversal vs. albumin alone in patients with HRS‐1. Terlipressin treatment is associated with improved renal function. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: OT‐0401, NCT00089570; REVERSE, NCT01143246).