Asrani, Sumeet K

Background and Aims: Severe alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH) is rising in incidence with a high mortality burden. While corticosteroids are recommended for eligible patients with severe AH, no guidance exists for the timing of steroid initiation, tapering regimens, and surveillance of adverse events. We aim to systematically review these variables and provide evidence-based recommendations for the inpatient and outpatient management of severe AH. Approach and Results: We performed a literature search from inception to May 30, 2024, to include clinical trials published in full form and assessed the quality of evidence using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data were collected on the timing of initiation, rate, and complications following steroid therapy, and taper regimens in the setting of severe AH. Of 28 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria, the median time from admission to steroid initiation was 6.5 days. The most common steroid dosing regimen was prednisolone 40 mg daily for 28 days. Twenty-five studies containing 3196 subjects reported adverse events, with exactly 50% in the steroid arm and the other half in the comparison arm. Infections, gastrointestinal bleeds, and renal impairment were the most frequently reported adverse events. Most infections occurred within the first month of the study. A 2-week steroid taper was the most frequently reported regimen. Conclusions: We recommend taking up to a week to systematically and thoroughly evaluate patients before initiating steroids, and vigilant monitoring in the first month of treatment. We also recommend the lowest possible steroid exposure with a 2-week steroid taper and close outpatient follow-up.

Summary Background & Aims The development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in the setting of alcohol‐associated hepatitis (AH) portends a poor prognosis. Whether the presence of AH itself drives worse outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and AKI is unknown. Methods Retrospective cohort study of 11 hospital networks of consecutive adult patients admitted in 2019 with cirrhosis and AKI. AKI phenotypes, clinical course, and outcomes were compared between AH and non‐AH groups. Results A total of 2062 patients were included, of which 303 (15%) had AH, as defined by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) criteria. Patients with AH, compared to those without, were younger and had higher Model for End‐stage Liver Disease‐Sodium (MELD‐Na) scores on admission. AKI phenotypes significantly differed between groups ( p < 0.001) with acute tubular necrosis occurring more frequently in patients with AH. Patients with AH reached more severe peak AKI stage, required more renal replacement therapy, and had higher 90‐day cumulative incidence of death (45% [95% CI: 39%–51%] vs. 38% [95% CI: 35%–40%], p = 0.026). Using no AH as reference, the unadjusted sHR for 90‐day mortality was higher for AH (sHR: 1.24 [95% CI: 1.03–1.50], p = 0.024), but was not significant when adjusting for MELD‐Na, age and sex. However, in patients with hepatorenal syndrome, AH was an independent predictor of 90‐day mortality (sHR: 1.82 [95% CI: 1.16–2.86], p = 0.009). Conclusions Hospitalised patients with cirrhosis and AKI presenting with AH had higher 90‐day mortality than those without AH, but this may have been driven by higher MELD‐Na rather than AH itself. However, in patients with hepatorenal syndrome, AH was an independent predictor of mortality.

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.

Background and Aims: Blood-based biomarkers have been proposed as an alternative to liver biopsy for noninvasive liver disease assessment in chronic liver disease. Our aims for this systematic review were to evaluate the diagnostic utility of selected blood-based tests either alone, or in combination, for identifying significant fibrosis (F2-4), advanced fibrosis (F3-4), and cirrhosis (F4), as compared to biopsy in chronic liver disease. Approach and Results: We included a comprehensive search of databases including Ovid MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and Scopus through to April 2022. Two independent reviewers selected 286 studies with 103,162 patients. The most frequently identified studies included the simple aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index and fibrosis (FIB)-4 markers (with low-to-moderate risk of bias) in HBV and HCV, HIV-HCV/HBV coinfection, and NAFLD. Positive (LR+) and negative (LR−) likelihood ratios across direct and indirect biomarker tests for HCV and HBV for F2-4, F3-4, or F4 were 1.66–6.25 and 0.23–0.80, 1.89–5.24 and 0.12–0.64, and 1.32–7.15 and 0.15–0.86, respectively; LR+ and LR− for NAFLD F2-4, F3-4, and F4 were 2.65–3.37 and 0.37–0.39, 2.25–6.76 and 0.07–0.87, and 3.90 and 0.15, respectively. Overall, the proportional odds ratio indicated FIB-4 <1.45 was better than aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index <0.5 for F2-4. FIB-4 >3.25 was also better than aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index >1.5 for F3-4 and F4. There was limited data for combined tests. Conclusions: Blood-based biomarkers are associated with small-to-moderate change in pretest probability for diagnosing F2-4, F3-4, and F4 in viral hepatitis, HIV-HCV coinfection, and NAFLD, with limited comparative or combination studies for other chronic liver diseases.

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.