Bataller, Ramon A

Abstract Background Outcomes in alcohol‐associated liver disease (ALD) are influenced by several race and ethnic factors, yet its natural history across the continuum of patients in different stages of the disease is unknown. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of U.S. adults from 2011 to 2018, using three nationally representative databases to examine potential disparities in relevant outcomes among racial and ethnic groups. Our analysis included logistic and linear regressions, along with competing risk analysis. Results Black individuals had the highest daily alcohol consumption (12.6 g/day) while Hispanic participants had the largest prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (33.5%). In a multivariable‐adjusted model, Hispanic and Asian participants were independently associated with a higher ALD prevalence compared to Non‐Hispanic White interviewees (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.8 and OR: 1.5 95% CI:1.1–2.0, respectively), while Blacks participants had a lower ALD prevalence (OR: .7 95% CI: .6–.9), and a lower risk of mortality during hospitalization due to ALD (OR: .83 95% CI: .73–.94). Finally, a multivariate competing‐risk analysis showed that Hispanic ethnicity had a decreased probability of liver transplantation if waitlisted for ALD (SHR: .7, 95% CI: .6–.8) along with female Asian population (HR: .40, 95% CI: .26–.62). Conclusions After accounting for key social and biological health determinants, the Hispanic population showed an increased risk of ALD prevalence, even with lower alcohol consumption. Additionally, Hispanic and Asian female patients had reduced access to liver transplantation compared to other enlisted patients.

Background:Alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH) is associated with significant mortality. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is used to predict short-term mortality and aid in treatment decisions. MELD is frequently updated in the course of AH. However, once the most updated MELD is known, it is uncertain if previous ones still have prognostic value, which might be relevant for transplant allocation and trial design. We aimed to investigate the predictive performance of updated MELDs in a prospectively collected cohort of patients with AH by the InTeam consortium.Methods:Three hundred seven patients (with 859 MELD values within 60 d of admission) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The main endpoint was time to death or transplant up to 90 days. We used a joint model approach to assess the predictive value of updated MELDs.Results:Updated MELD measurements had a strong prognostic value for death/transplant (HR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.14–1.27) (p< 0.0001). Previous MELD values did not add predictive value to the most current MELD. We also showed that MELD at day 28 (MELD28) had a significant predictive value for subsequent mortality/transplant in a landmark analysis (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.12–1.23). We show that the use of an ordinal scale including death, transplant, and MELD28 as a trial outcome could substantially reduce the sample size required to demonstrate short-term benefit of an intervention.Conclusion:We show that updated MELDs during the trajectory of AH predict subsequent mortality or the need for transplant. MELD28 inclusion in an ordinal outcome (together with death or transplant) could increase the efficiency of randomized controlled trials.

Background and Aims: In a recent trial, patients with severe alcohol-associated hepatitis treated with anakinra plus zinc (A+Z) had lower survival and higher acute kidney injury (AKI) rates versus prednisone (PRED). We characterize the clinical factors and potential mechanisms associated with AKI development in that trial. Approach and Results: Data from 147 participants in a multicenter randomized clinical trial (74 A+Z, 73 PRED) were analyzed. AKI, AKI phenotypes, and kidney injury biomarkers were compared between participants who did/did not develop AKI in the 2 treatment arms. Multivariable competing risk analyses were performed to identify baseline risk factors for incident AKI, with death treated as a competing event. Risk factors considered were age, sex, mean arterial pressure, white blood cell count, albumin, MELD, ascites, HE, and treatment arm. At baseline, no participants had AKI; 33% (n=49) developed AKI during follow-up. AKI incidence was higher in A+Z than in PRED (45% [n=33] versus 22% [n=16], p=0.001). AKI phenotypes were similar between the 2 treatment arms (p=0.361), but peak AKI severity was greater in A+Z than PRED (stage 3 n=21 [63.6%] vs. n=8 [50.0%], p=0.035). At baseline, urine-neutrophil-gelatinase–associated lipocalin levels were similar between participants who developed AKI in both treatment arms (p=0.319). However, day 7 and 14 urine-neutrophil-gelatinase–associated lipocalin levels were significantly elevated in participants treated with A+Z who developed AKI versus participants treated with PRED who developed AKI (p=0.002 and 0.032, respectively). On multivariable competing risk analysis, only A+Z was independently associated with incident AKI (subdistribution hazard ratio 2.35, p=0.005). Conclusions: AKI occurred more frequently and was more severe in participants treated with A+Z. A+Z–treated participants with AKI had higher urine-neutrophil-gelatinase–associated lipocalin, suggesting that A+Z maybe nephrotoxic in patients with severe alcohol-associated hepatitis.

Background and Aims: Alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH) poses significant short-term mortality. Existing prognostic models lack precision for 90-day mortality. Utilizing artificial intelligence in a global cohort, we sought to derive and validate an enhanced prognostic model. Approach and Results: The Global AlcHep initiative, a retrospective study across 23 centers in 12 countries, enrolled patients with AH per National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism criteria. Centers were partitioned into derivation (11 centers, 860 patients) and validation cohorts (12 centers, 859 patients). Focusing on 30 and 90-day postadmission mortality, 3 artificial intelligence algorithms (Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Machines, and eXtreme Gradient Boosting) informed an ensemble model, subsequently refined through Bayesian updating, integrating the derivation cohort’s average 90-day mortality with each center’s approximate mortality rate to produce posttest probabilities. The ALCoholic Hepatitis Artificial INtelligence Ensemble score integrated age, gender, cirrhosis, and 9 laboratory values, with center-specific mortality rates. Mortality was 18.7% (30 d) and 27.9% (90 d) in the derivation cohort versus 21.7% and 32.5% in the validation cohort. Validation cohort 30 and 90-day AUCs were 0.811 (0.779–0.844) and 0.799 (0.769–0.830), significantly surpassing legacy models like Maddrey’s Discriminant Function, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease variations, age-serum bilirubin-international normalized ratio-serum Creatinine score, Glasgow, and modified Glasgow Scores (p < 0.001). ALCoholic Hepatitis Artificial INtelligence Ensemble score also showcased superior calibration against MELD and its variants. Steroid use improved 30-day survival for those with an ALCoholic Hepatitis Artificial INtelligence Ensemble score > 0.20 in both derivation and validation cohorts. Conclusions: Harnessing artificial intelligence within a global consortium, we pioneered a scoring system excelling over traditional models for 30 and 90-day AH mortality predictions. Beneficial for clinical trials, steroid therapy, and transplant indications, it’s accessible at: https://aihepatology.shinyapps.io/ALCHAIN/.

Excessive alcohol consumption represents an important burden for health systems worldwide and is a major cause of liver- and cancer-related deaths. Alcohol consumption is mostly assessed by self-report that often underestimates the amount of drinking. While alcohol use disorders identification test - version C is the most widely used test for alcohol use screening, in patients with liver disease the use of alcohol biomarker could help an objective assessment. The amount of alcohol that leads to significant liver disease depends on gender, genetic background, and coexistence of comorbidities (i.e., metabolic syndrome factors). All patients with alcohol-associated liver disease are recommended to follow complete abstinence and they should be treated within multidisciplinary teams. Abstinence slows down and even reverses the progression of liver fibrosis and can help recompensate patients with complicated cirrhosis. Whether there is a safe amount of alcohol in the general population is a matter of intense debate. Large epidemiological studies showed that the safe amount of alcohol to avoid overall health-related risks is lower than expected even in the general population. Even one drink per day can increase cancer-related death. In patients with any kind of chronic liver disease, especially in those with metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, no alcohol intake is recommended. This review article discusses the current evidence supporting the deleterious effects of small-to-moderate amounts of alcohol in the general population and in patients with underlying chronic liver disease.

ABSTRACT Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is the most common cause of advanced hepatic disease and frequent indication for liver transplantation worldwide. With harmful alcohol use as the primary risk factor, increasing alcohol use over the past decade has resulted in rapid growth of the ALD-related healthcare burden. The spectrum of ALD ranges from early asymptomatic liver injury to advanced disease with decompensation and portal hypertension. Compared with those with other etiologies of liver disease, patients with ALD progress faster and more often present at an advanced stage. A unique phenotype of advanced disease is alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH) presenting with rapid onset or worsening of jaundice, and acute on chronic liver failure in severe forms conveying a 1-month mortality risk of 20%–50%. The model for end stage disease score is the most accurate score to stratify AH severity (>20 defined as severe disease). Corticosteroids are currently the only available therapeutic with proven efficacy for patients with severe AH, providing survival benefit at 1 month in 50%–60% of patients. Abstinence of alcohol use, a crucial determinant of long-term outcomes, is challenging to achieve in ALD patients with concurrent alcohol use disorder (AUD). As patients with ALD are rarely treated for AUD, strategies are needed to overcome barriers to AUD treatment in patients with ALD and to promote a multidisciplinary integrated care model with hepatology, addiction medicine providers, and social workers to comprehensively manage the dual pathologies of liver disease and of AUD. Liver transplantation, a definitive treatment option in patients with advanced cirrhosis, should be considered in selected patients with AH, who are unresponsive to medical therapy and have a low risk of relapse to posttransplant alcohol use. Level of evidence and strength of recommendations were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system. This guideline was developed under the American College of Gastroenterology Practice Parameters Committee.

Background and Aims: Fatty liver disease is a major public health threat due to its very high prevalence and related morbidity and mortality. Focused and dedicated interventions are urgently needed to target disease prevention, treatment, and care. Approach and Results: We developed an aligned, prioritized action agenda for the global fatty liver disease community of practice. Following a Delphi methodology over 2 rounds, a large panel (R1 n = 344, R2 n = 288) reviewed the action priorities using Qualtrics XM, indicating agreement using a 4-point Likert-scale and providing written feedback. Priorities were revised between rounds, and in R2, panelists also ranked the priorities within 6 domains: epidemiology, treatment and care, models of care, education and awareness, patient and community perspectives, and leadership and public health policy. The consensus fatty liver disease action agenda encompasses 29 priorities. In R2, the mean percentage of “agree” responses was 82.4%, with all individual priorities having at least a super-majority of agreement (> 66.7% “agree”). The highest-ranked action priorities included collaboration between liver specialists and primary care doctors on early diagnosis, action to address the needs of people living with multiple morbidities, and the incorporation of fatty liver disease into relevant non-communicable disease strategies and guidance. Conclusions: This consensus-driven multidisciplinary fatty liver disease action agenda developed by care providers, clinical researchers, and public health and policy experts provides a path to reduce the prevalence of fatty liver disease and improve health outcomes. To implement this agenda, concerted efforts will be needed at the global, regional, and national levels.

The principal limitations of the terms NAFLD and NASH are the reliance on exclusionary confounder terms and the use of potentially stigmatising language. This study set out to determine if content experts and patient advocates were in favor of a change in nomenclature and/or definition. A modified Delphi process was led by three large pan-national liver associations. The consensus was defined a priori as a supermajority (67%) vote. An independent committee of experts external to the nomenclature process made the final recommendation on the acronym and its diagnostic criteria. A total of 236 panelists from 56 countries participated in 4 online surveys and 2 hybrid meetings. Response rates across the 4 survey rounds were 87%, 83%, 83%, and 78%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of respondents felt that the current nomenclature was sufficiently flawed to consider a name change. The terms “nonalcoholic” and “fatty” were felt to be stigmatising by 61% and 66% of respondents, respectively. Steatotic liver disease was chosen as an overarching term to encompass the various aetiologies of steatosis. The term steatohepatitis was felt to be an important pathophysiological concept that should be retained. The name chosen to replace NAFLD was metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. There was consensus to change the definition to include the presence of at least 1 of 5 cardiometabolic risk factors. Those with no metabolic parameters and no known cause were deemed to have cryptogenic steatotic liver disease. A new category, outside pure metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, termed metabolic and alcohol related/associated liver disease (MetALD), was selected to describe those with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140–350 g/wk and 210–420 g/wk for females and males, respectively). The new nomenclature and diagnostic criteria are widely supported and nonstigmatising, and can improve awareness and patient identification.