Goldberg, David

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a progressive cholestatic liver disease with a high risk of malignancy and limited therapeutic options. Both the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) recommend structured baseline evaluation, fibrosis staging and longitudinal surveillance. However, real‐world adherence to these practices in North America remains unclear. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1300 patients with PSC enrolled in the Consortium for Autoimmune Liver Diseases (CALiD) registry between 2018 and 2024 across 19 centres in North America. Guideline adherence was assessed for diagnostic measures at baseline (colonoscopy to establish IBD status and noninvasive fibrosis staging) and longitudinal surveillance (colonoscopy in PSC‐IBD, abdominal imaging for hepatobiliary cancer surveillance and CA 19‐9 testing). Prescribing patterns for ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) were also characterised. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate demographic, clinical and socioeconomic predictors of adherence. Results At diagnosis, 78.8% of eligible patients with available data underwent colonoscopy to establish IBD status, and 45% underwent noninvasive fibrosis staging. During follow‐up, only 30%–35% of patients with PSC‐IBD underwent colonoscopy annually, while abdominal imaging for hepatobiliary cancer surveillance declined from 74% at Year 1 to 51% by Year 4. CA 19‐9 testing was documented in 47% over 5‐year period. UDCA was prescribed in 51% at baseline, with median dose of 12.5 mg/kg/day. Socioeconomic factors, including lower education and household income, were associated with reduced adherence, while cirrhosis strongly predicted completion of surveillance imaging. Conclusions Adherence to guideline‐based care in PSC remains suboptimal in North America Suboptimal adherence was observed for strongly recommended practices with longstanding guideline support (colonoscopy to establish IBD status; annual CRC surveillance in PSC‐IBD) as well as practices where guideline consensus has evolved more recently or where societies differ (baseline fibrosis assessment; hepatobiliary cancer imaging). Efforts to standardise care and address socioeconomic barriers are urgently needed to improve outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: One of the primary goals of the Liver Cirrhosis Network (LCN) is to develop a cohort study to better understand and predict the risk of hepatic decompensation and other clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with Child A cirrhosis. METHODS: The LCN consists of a Scientific Data Coordinating Center and 10 clinical centers whose investigators populate multiple committees. The LCN Definitions and Measurements Committee developed preliminary definitions of cirrhosis and its complications by literature review, expert opinion, and reviewing definition documents developed by other organizations. The Cohort Committee developed the study protocol with the input of the steering committee. RESULTS: The LCN developed a prospective cohort study to describe and predict the rates of incident clinical events pertaining to first decompensation and patient-reported outcomes. The LCN developed a pragmatic definition of compensated cirrhosis incorporating clinical, laboratory, imaging, and histological criteria. Definitions of incident and recompensated ascites, overt hepatic encephalopathy, variceal hemorrhage, bleeding because of portal gastropathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma were also codified. DISCUSSION: The LCN Cohort Study design will inform the natural history of cirrhosis in contemporary patients with compensated cirrhosis. The LCN Definitions and Measures Committee developed criteria for the definition of cirrhosis to standardize entry into this multicenter cohort study and standardized criteria for liver-related outcome measures. This effort has produced definitions intended to be both sensitive and specific as well as easily operationalized by study staff such that outcomes critical to the LCN cohort are identified and reported in an accurate and generalizable fashion. REGISTRATION: NCT05740358.

Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities exist in the prevalence and natural history of chronic liver disease, access to care, and clinical outcomes. Solutions to improve health equity range widely, from digital health tools to policy changes. The current review outlines the disparities along the chronic liver disease health care continuum from screening and diagnosis to the management of cirrhosis and considerations of pre-liver and post-liver transplantation. Using a health equity research and implementation science framework, we offer pragmatic strategies to address barriers to implementing high-quality equitable care for patients with chronic liver disease.

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.