Tapper, Elliot B.

Importance Although isotretinoin may rarely be associated with laboratory abnormalities such as hypertriglyceridemia, the optimal approach to laboratory monitoring is uncertain, and there is wide variation in clinical practice. Objective To establish a consensus for isotretinoin laboratory monitoring among a diverse, international cohort of clinical and research experts in acne. Design, Setting, and Participants Using a modified electronic Delphi process, 4 rounds of anonymous electronic surveys were administered from 2021 to 2022. For laboratory tests reaching consensus (≥70% agreement) for inclusion, questions regarding more time-specific monitoring throughout isotretinoin therapy were asked in subsequent rounds. The participants were international board-certified dermatologist acne experts who were selected on a voluntary basis based on involvement in acne-related professional organizations and research. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measured was whether participants could reach consensus on key isotretinoin laboratory monitoring parameters. Results The 22 participants from 5 continents had a mean (SD) time in practice of 23.7 (11.6) years and represented a variety of practice settings. Throughout the 4-round study, participation rates ranged from 90% to 100%. Consensus was achieved for the following: check alanine aminotransferase within a month prior to initiation (89.5%) and at peak dose (89.5%) but not monthly (76.2%) or after treatment completion (73.7%); check triglycerides within a month prior to initiation (89.5%) and at peak dose (78.9%) but not monthly (84.2%) or after treatment completion (73.7%); do not check complete blood cell count or basic metabolic panel parameters at any point during isotretinoin treatment (all >70%); do not check gamma-glutamyl transferase (78.9%), bilirubin (81.0%), albumin (72.7%), total protein (72.7%), low-density lipoprotein (73.7%), high-density lipoprotein (73.7%), or C-reactive protein (77.3%). Conclusions and Relevance This Delphi study identified a core set of laboratory tests that should be evaluated prior to and during treatment with isotretinoin. These results provide valuable data to guide clinical practice and clinical guideline development to optimize laboratory monitoring in patients treated with isotretinoin.

Abstract The burden of HCC is substantial. To address gaps in HCC care, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) aimed to develop a standard set of process‐based measures and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) along the HCC care continuum. We identified candidate process and outcomes measures for HCC care based on structured literature review. A 13‐member panel with content expertise across the HCC care continuum evaluated candidate measures on importance and performance gap using a modified Delphi approach (two rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Candidate PROs based on a structured scoping review were ranked by 74 patients with HCC across 7 diverse institutions. Out of 135 measures, 29 measures made the final set. These covered surveillance (6 measures), diagnosis (6 measures), staging (2 measures), treatment (10 measures), and outcomes (5 measures). Examples included the use of ultrasound (± alpha‐fetoprotein [AFP]) every 6 months, need for surveillance in high‐risk populations, diagnostic testing for patients with a new AFP elevation, multidisciplinary liver tumor board (MLTB) review of Liver Imaging‐Reporting and Data System 4 lesions, standard evaluation at diagnosis, treatment recommendations based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, MLTB discussion of treatment options, appropriate referral for evaluation of liver transplantation candidacy, and role of palliative therapy. PROs include those related to pain, anxiety, fear of treatment, and uncertainty about the best individual treatment and the future. The AASLD PMC has developed a set of explicit quality measures in HCC care to help bridge the gap between guideline recommendations and measurable processes and outcomes. Measurement and subsequent implementation of these metrics could be a central step in the improvement of patient care and outcomes in this high‐risk population.

Background and Aims Electronic health record (EHR)‐based research allows the capture of large amounts of data, which is necessary in NAFLD, where the risk of clinical liver outcomes is generally low. The lack of consensus on which International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes should be used as exposures and outcomes limits comparability and generalizability of results across studies. We aimed to establish consensus among a panel of experts on ICD codes that could become the reference standard and provide guidance around common methodological issues. Approach and Results Researchers with an interest in EHR‐based NAFLD research were invited to collectively define which administrative codes are most appropriate for documenting exposures and outcomes. We used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on several commonly encountered methodological challenges in the field. After two rounds of revision, a high level of agreement (>67%) was reached on all items considered. Full consensus was achieved on a comprehensive list of administrative codes to be considered for inclusion and exclusion criteria in defining exposures and outcomes in EHR‐based NAFLD research. We also provide suggestions on how to approach commonly encountered methodological issues and identify areas for future research. Conclusions This expert panel consensus statement can help harmonize and improve generalizability of EHR‐based NAFLD research.

Background and Aims Compared to other chronic diseases, patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) have significantly higher inpatient mortality; accurate models to predict inpatient mortality are lacking. Serum lactate (LA) may be elevated in patients with CLD due to both tissue hypoperfusion as well as decreased LA clearance. We hypothesized that a parsimonious model consisting of Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and LA at admission may predict inpatient mortality in patients with CLD. Approach and Results We examined all patients with CLD in two large and diverse health care systems in Texas (North Texas [NTX] and Central Texas [CTX]) between 2010 and 2015. We developed (n = 3,588) and validated (n = 1,804) a model containing MELD and LA measured at the time of hospitalization. We further validated the model in a second cohort of 14 tertiary care hepatology centers that prospectively enrolled nonelective hospitalized patients with cirrhosis (n = 726). MELD‐LA was an excellent predictor of inpatient mortality in development (concordance statistic [C‐statistic] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79‐0.82) and both validation cohorts (CTX cohort, C‐statistic = 0.85, 95% CI 0.78‐0.87; multicenter cohort C‐statistic = 0.82, 95% CI 0.74‐0.88). MELD‐LA performed especially well in patients with specific cirrhosis diagnoses (C‐statistic = 0.84, 95% CI 0.81‐0.86) or sepsis (C‐statistic = 0.80, 95% CI 0.78‐0.82). For MELD score 25, inpatient mortality rates were 11.2% (LA = 1 mmol/L), 19.4% (LA = 3 mmol/L), 34.3% (LA = 5 mmol/L), and >50% (LA > 8 mmol/L). A linear increase (P < 0.01) was seen in MELD‐LA and increasing number of organ failures. Overall, use of MELD‐LA improved the risk prediction in 23.5% of patients compared to MELD alone. Conclusions MELD‐LA (bswh.md/meldla) is an early and objective predictor of inpatient mortality and may serve as a model for risk assessment and guide therapeutic options.

Loss of muscle mass and function, or sarcopenia, is a common feature of cirrhosis and contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality in this population. Sarcopenia is a main indicator of adverse outcomes in this population, including poor quality of life, hepatic decompensation, mortality in patients with cirrhosis evaluated for liver transplantation (LT), longer hospital and intensive care unit stay, higher incidence of infection following LT, and higher overall health care cost. Although it is clear that muscle mass is an important predictor of LT outcomes, many questions remain, including the best modality for assessing muscle mass, the optimal cut‐off values for sarcopenia, the ideal timing and frequency of muscle mass assessment, and how to best incorporate the concept of sarcopenia into clinical decision making. For these reasons, we assembled a group of experts to form the North American Working Group on Sarcopenia in Liver Transplantation to use evidence from the medical literature to address these outstanding questions regarding sarcopenia in LT. We believe sarcopenia assessment should be considered in all patients with cirrhosis evaluated for liver transplantation. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) assessed by computed tomography constitutes the best‐studied technique for assessing sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis. Cut‐off values for sarcopenia, defined as SMI < 50 cm 2 /m 2 in male and < 39 cm 2 /m 2 in female patients, constitute the validated definition for sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis. Conclusion: The management of sarcopenia requires a multipronged approach including nutrition, exercise, and additional pharmacological therapy as deemed necessary. Future studies should evaluate whether recovery of sarcopenia with nutritional management in combination with an exercise program is sustainable as well as how improvement in muscle mass might be associated with improvement in clinical outcomes.

Health care delivery is increasingly evaluated according to quality measures, yet such measures are underdeveloped for cirrhosis. The Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases was charged with developing explicit process‐based and outcome‐based measures for adults with cirrhosis. We identified candidate measures from comprehensive reviews of the literature and input from expert clinicians and patient focus groups. We conducted an 11‐member expert clinician panel and used a modified Delphi method to systematically identify a set of quality measures in cirrhosis. Among 119 candidate measures, 46 were identified as important measures to define the quality of cirrhosis care, including 26 process measures, 7 clinical outcome measures, and 13 patient‐reported outcome measures. The final process measures captured care processes for ascites (n = 5), varices/bleeding (n = 7), hepatic encephalopathy (n = 4), hepatocellular cancer (HCC) screening (n = 1), liver transplantation evaluation (n = 2), and other care (n = 7). Clinical outcome measures included survival, variceal bleeding and rebleeding, early‐stage HCC, liver‐related hospitalization, and rehospitalization within 7 and 30 days. Patient‐reported outcome measures covered physical symptoms, physical function, mental health, general function, cognition, social life, and satisfaction with care. The final list of patient‐reported outcomes was validated in 79 patients with cirrhosis from nine institutions in the United States. Conclusion: We developed an explicit set of evidence‐based quality measures for adult patients with cirrhosis. These measures are a tool for providers and institutions to evaluate their care quality, drive quality improvement, and deliver high‐value cirrhosis care. The quality measures are intended to be applicable in any clinical care setting in which care for patients with cirrhosis is provided.

Introduction: The population of patients with cirrhosis is growing and shifting toward a more elderly demographic and thus are at risk of developing orthopedic complications. There is lack of data on safety of orthopedic procedures in this population. Methods: We performed an analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2011 for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, and spinal laminectomy/fusion, stratified by presence of cirrhosis. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality and secondary endpoints included length of stay (LOS) and costs. Results: There were 693,610 inpatient stays for orthopedic procedures conducted during the study period, with 3014 (0.43%) patients coded as having cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhosis had a lower median age (62 vs. 66 y; P<0.001) and were more likely to be male (52.3% vs. 41.1%; P<0.001). The inpatient mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with cirrhosis (2.4% vs. 0.4%; P<0.001) as was median LOS (4 vs. 3 d; P<0.001) and mean costs ($19,321 vs. $18,833; P<0.001). Patients with decompensated cirrhosis (vs. compensated cirrhosis) had significantly higher inpatient mortality rates (5.8% vs. 1.1%; P<0.001) with higher LOS and costs (P<0.001). On multivariable analysis, cirrhosis was associated with an increased risk of mortality (odds ratio, 4.22; 95% confidence interval, 2.92-6.10). Hospital cirrhosis volume was inversely associated with mortality, while hospital orthopedic procedure volumes had an inconsistent impact on outcomes. Conclusions: Inpatient orthopedic procedures in patients with cirrhosis result in high postoperative mortality, LOS, and costs. Careful patient selection is warranted to optimize cirrhosis patient postoperative outcomes.