Reddy, K. Rajender

Because Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores at the time of liver transplantation (LT) increase nationwide, patients are at an increased risk for delisting by becoming too sick or dying while awaiting transplantation. We quantified the risk and defined the predictors of delisting or death in patients with cirrhosis hospitalized with an infection. North American Consortium for the Study of End‐Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD) is a 15‐center consortium of tertiary‐care hepatology centers that prospectively enroll and collect data on infected patients with cirrhosis. Of the 413 patients evaluated, 136 were listed for LT. The listed patients' median age was 55.18 years, 58% were male, and 47% were hepatitis C virus infected, with a mean MELD score of 2303. At 6‐month follow‐up, 42% (57/136) of patients were delisted/died, 35% (47/136) underwent transplantation, and 24% (32/136) remained listed for transplant. The frequency and types of infection were similar among all 3 groups. MELD scores were highest in those who were delisted/died and were lowest in those remaining listed (25.07, 24.26, 17.59, respectively; P < 0.001). Those who were delisted or died, rather than those who underwent transplantation or were awaiting transplantation, had the highest proportion of 3 or 4 organ failures at hospitalization versus those transplanted or those continuing to await LT (38%, 11%, and 3%, respectively; P = 0.004). For those who were delisted or died, underwent transplantation, or were awaiting transplantation, organ failures were dominated by respiratory (41%, 17%, and 3%, respectively; P < 0.001) and circulatory failures (42%, 16%, and 3%, respectively; P < 0.001). LT‐listed patients with end‐stage liver disease and infection have a 42% risk of delisting/death within a 6‐month period following an admission. The number of organ failures was highly predictive of the risk for delisting/death. Strategies focusing on prevention of infections and extrahepatic organ failure in listed patients with cirrhosis are required. Liver Transpl 21:881‐888, 2015. © 2015 AASLD.

AbstractBackground & AimsBecause of the lack of objective tests to diagnose drug‐induced liver injury (DILI), causality assessment is a matter of debate. Expert opinion is often used in research and industry, but its test–retest reliability is unknown. To determine the test–retest reliability of the expert opinion process used by the Drug‐Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN).MethodsThree DILIN hepatologists adjudicate suspected hepatotoxicity cases to one of five categories representing levels of likelihood of DILI. Adjudication is based on retrospective assessment of gathered case data that include prospective follow‐up information. One hundred randomly selected DILIN cases were re‐assessed using the same processes for initial assessment but by three different reviewers in 92% of cases.ResultsThe median time between assessments was 938 days (range 140–2352). Thirty‐one cases involved >1 agent. Weighted kappa statistics for overall case and individual agent category agreement were 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50–0.71) and 0.60 (0.52–0.68) respectively. Overall case adjudications were within one category of each other 93% of the time, while 5% differed by two categories and 2% differed by three categories. Fourteen per cent crossed the 50% threshold of likelihood owing to competing diagnoses or atypical timing between drug exposure and injury.ConclusionsThe DILIN expert opinion causality assessment method has moderate interobserver reliability but very good agreement within one category. A small but important proportion of cases could not be reliably diagnosed as ≥50% likely to be DILI.