Asrani, Sumeet K.

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.

Background and Aims: Portal hypertension is a serious complication of cirrhosis, which leads to life-threatening complications. HVPG, a surrogate of portal pressure, is the reference standard test to assess the severity of portal hypertension. However, since HVPG is limited by its invasiveness and availability, noninvasive liver disease assessments to assess portal pressure, especially clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), are needed. Approach and Results: We conducted a systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE(R) Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from each database’s inception to April 22, 2022. We included only studies in English that examined ≥50 patients in single liver disease etiologies, which compared noninvasive tests (blood and/or imaging) to HVPG for predicting clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; defined as HVPG ≥ 10 mm Hg) in patients with chronic liver disease. Outcomes included measures of diagnostic test accuracy. Additionally, a narrative review of studies not eligible for the systematic review is also provided. Nine studies with 2492 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was substantial heterogeneity with regard to liver disease studied and cutoff values used to detect CSPH. Blood-based tests, including aspartate-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) (56% sensitivity and 68% specificity) and FIB-4 (54% sensitivity and 73% specificity) had low accuracy measures. Imaging-based tests (transient elastography and shear wave elastography detection of liver stiffness measurement [LSM]) had better accuracy but also had substantial variation; at 15 kPa, TE sensitivity was 90%–96% and specificity was 48%–50%, while at 25 kPa, its sensitivity and specificity were 57%–85% and 82%–93%, respectively. The narrative review suggested that imaging-based tests are the best available noninvasive liver disease assessment to detect CSPH; CSPH is highly unlikely to be present at an LSM ≤15 kPa and likely to be present at an LSM ≥25 kPa. Conclusions: While imaging-based noninvasive liver disease assessment appeared to have higher accuracy than blood-based tests to detect CSPH, only 9 studies fit the a priori established inclusion criteria for the systematic review. In addition, there was substantial study heterogeneity and variation in cutoffs for LSM to detect CSPH, limiting the ability to establish definitive cutoffs to detect CSPH.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalized patients with cirrhosis can develop respiratory failure (RF), which is associated with a poor prognosis, but predisposing factors are unclear. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled a multicenter North American cirrhosis inpatient cohort and collected admission and in-hospital data (grading per European Association for the Study of Liver-Chronic Liver Failure scoring system, acute kidney injury [AKI], infections [admission/nosocomial], and albumin use) in an era when terlipressin was not available in North America. Multivariable regression to predict RF was performed using only admission day and in-hospital events occurring before RF. RESULTS: A total of 511 patients from 14 sites (median age 57 years, admission model for end-stage liver disease [MELD]-Na 23) were enrolled: RF developed in 15%; AKI occurred in 24%; and 11% developed nosocomial infections (NI). At admission, patients who developed RF had higher MELD-Na, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding/AKI-related admission, and prior infections/ascites. During hospitalization, RF developers had higher NI (especially respiratory), albumin use, and other organ failures. RF was higher in patients receiving albumin (83% vs 59%, P < 0.0001) with increasing doses (269.5 ± 210.5 vs 208.6 ± 186.1 g, P = 0.01) regardless of indication. Admission for AKI, GI bleeding, and high MELD-Na predicted RF. Using all variables, NI (odds ratio [OR] = 4.02, P = 0.0004), GI bleeding (OR = 3.1, P = 0.002), albumin use (OR = 2.93, P = 0.01), AKI (OR = 3.26, P = 0.008), and circulatory failure (OR = 3.73, P = 0.002) were associated with RF risk. DISCUSSION: In a multicenter inpatient cirrhosis study of patients not exposed to terlipressin, 15% of patients developed RF. RF risk was highest in those admitted with AKI, those who had GI bleeding on admission, and those who developed NI and other organ failures or received albumin during their hospital course. Careful volume monitoring and preventing nosocomial respiratory infections and renal or circulatory failures could reduce this risk.

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.

The burden of cirrhosis hospitalizations is increasing. The admission Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease–lactate (MELD‐lactate) was recently demonstrated to be a superior predictor of in‐hospital mortality compared with MELD in limited cohorts. We identified specific classes of hospitalizations where MELD‐lactate may be especially useful and evaluated the predictive role of lactate clearance. This was a retrospective cohort study of 1036 cirrhosis hospitalizations for gastrointestinal bleeding, infection, or other portal hypertension–related indications in the Veterans Health Administration where MELD‐lactate was measured on admission. Performance characteristics for in‐hospital mortality were compared between MELD‐lactate and MELD/MELD‐sodium (MELD‐Na), with stratified analyses of MELD categories (≤15, >15 to <25, ≥25) and reason for admission. We also incorporated day 3 lactate levels into modeling and tested for an interaction between day 1 MELD‐lactate and day 3 lactate clearance. MELD‐lactate had superior discrimination for in‐hospital mortality compared with MELD or MELD‐Na (area under the curve [AUC] 0.789 versus 0.776 versus 0.760, respectively; P < 0.001) and superior calibration. MELD‐lactate had higher discrimination among hospitalizations with MELD ≤15 (AUC 0.763 versus 0.608 for MELD, global P = 0.01) and hospitalizations for infection (AUC 0.791 versus 0.674 for MELD, global P < 0.001). We found a significant interaction between day 1 MELD‐lactate and day 3 lactate clearance; heat maps were created as clinical tools to risk‐stratify patients based on these clinical data. MELD‐lactate had significantly superior performance in predicting in‐hospital mortality among patients hospitalized for infection and/or with MELD ≤15 when compared with MELD or MELD‐Na. Incorporating day 3 lactate clearance may further improve prognostication.