Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection currently remains the leading indication for liver transplant in the United States. However, recurrent HCV infection after transplant is universal in those who enter transplant with viremia resulting in reduced posttransplant graft and patient survival rates, caused in large part by progressive recurrent HCV disease. Therefore, successful treatment of HCV in the peri-transplant period, either before or after transplant, is paramount in ensuring improved posttransplant outcomes. This article reviews the experience to date treating HCV in wait-listed patients and liver transplant recipients and the unique challenges encountered when treating this population.

In February 2002, the United Network for Organ Sharing implemented a system for prioritizing candidates for liver transplantation that was based on the risk of 90-day mortality as determined by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. As the MELD score is driven in part by serum creatinine as a marker of kidney function, the prevalence of kidney dysfunction and failure in patients with end-stage liver disease at the time of listing and at transplantation has steadily risen. In this review, we discuss current practices in liver transplantation in patients with kidney dysfunction focusing briefly on the decision to perform simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation. We then discuss pitfalls to the current practices of liver transplantation in patients with kidney dysfunction. We conclude by discussing potential improvements to current practices including the use of the MELD-Na score, alternatives to creatinine and creatinine-based equation for estimating kidney function, and the use of intraoperative kidney replacement therapy during liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with pre-transplant metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) are at high risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) after liver transplant. While many patients are co-managed by a transplant team, most preventative screening and MetS management may occur in the primary care setting. We aimed to evaluate primary care utilization by MASH liver transplant recipients as well as MetS screening and control. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review that included adults who underwent liver transplant for MASH or cryptogenic cirrhosis at a single institution from January 2010 to December 2016, had available primary care data, and at least 36-months of follow-up post-transplant. Measures included primary care utilization, adherence to screening guidelines, and control of MetS. We used Fischers exact test to explore the association of primary care utilization with screening and control. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients met inclusion criteria with 366 visits reviewed. The median time to first visit was 68 days post-transplant and patients had a median of 9 total visits. Few patients met screening guidelines for diabetes (8.1%) or hyperlipidemia (10.8%). The percentage of patients with control of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia decreased over the 36-month follow-up period. Primary care utilization was not associated with adherence to screening recommendations for diabetes (P = .141) or hyperlipidemia (P = .103). Higher primary care utilization was not associated with control of hypertension (P = .107), diabetes (P = .871), or hyperlipidemia (P = .999). CONCLUSION: More research is needed to investigate barriers to screening and management of MetS conditions in this high-risk patient population in the primary care setting as well as to optimize post-transplant care coordination.

With the decrease in transmission via transfusions and injection drug use, acute symptomatic hepatitis C is infrequently seen in developed countries. We report a case of a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adult who presented with abdominal pain. His alanine aminotransferase was greater than sixty times the upper limit of normal without any evidence on examination of fulminant hepatic failure. His workup revealed an elevated hepatitis C viral level with a negative hepatitis C antibody. He was discharged once his liver function tests improved. As an outpatient, he had a recurrent bout of symptoms with an elevation of his alanine aminotransferase and hepatitis C viral levels that promoted anti-hepatitis C virus treatment. This case illustrates the importance of considering acute hepatitis C as a cause of acute hepatitis in HIV-infected men who have sex with men. While patients with acute symptomatic hepatitis C generally have a higher rate of spontaneous viral clearance compared to those with an insidious acute infection, most still progress to chronic hepatitis C infection, and patients with HIV coinfection carry a higher risk of progression to chronic disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States (U.S.).1 The purpose of this review is to highlight published models that predict development of HCC and estimate risk of HCC recurrence after treatments. RECENT FINDINGS: There have been several models created for both de novo HCC and HCC recurrence, with the more recent models using a combination of age, sex, decompensation, and laboratory values (platelet count, albumin, bilirubin), and liver disease etiology to predict both 5 and 10-year HCC incidence. For chronic hepatitis C, sustained virologic response has been a useful component of understanding HCC risk reduction. BMI and diabetes have been utilized in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) models to predict HCC risk. For HCC recurrence after treatment (for both surgical resection and liver transplant), tumor size and number, vascular invasion, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) are all components of HCC recurrence risk models. Although numerous HCC risk prediction models have been established over the last several years, challenges remain including how to best incorporate these models into clinical practice, improve surveillance for NAFLD-HCC development, and determine timing and duration of post-resection recurrence surveillance.

Background and aim

The American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) recommends screening for esophageal varices (EV) by esophagoduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with cirrhosis to guide decisions regarding primary prophylaxis for EV hemorrhage. We aimed to identify patient and facility factors associated with EV screening in veterans with hepatitis C (HCV)-associated cirrhosis.

Methods

This was a population-based cohort study. Veterans with HCV and newly diagnosed cirrhosis between 1/1/2004 and 12/31/2005 and followed until 12/31/2011 were included. The primary outcome was receipt of EGD within 1 year of cirrhosis diagnosis. Patient- and facility-level factors associated with EV screening were determined.

Results

A total of 4230 patients with HCV cirrhosis were identified. During median follow-up of 6.1 years (IQR: 4.0-8.0), 21.5 % developed a decompensating event, and 38.3 % died. Fifty-four percent received an EGD, and 33.8 % had an EGD within guidelines. Median time from cirrhosis diagnosis to EGD was 72 days (IQR: 12-176). Factors independently associated with receipt of EV screening were a decompensation event (OR 1.16, CI 1.01-1.32) and gastroenterology/hepatology clinic access (OR 2.1, CI 1.73-2.46), whereas cardiovascular (OR 0.81, CI 0.69-0.95), mental health (OR 0.79, CI 0.68-0.91), and respiratory (OR 0.85, CI 0.72-0.99) comorbidities were associated with reduced likelihood of EV screening.

Conclusion

EV screening per AASLD guidelines occurs in only one-third of patients. This missed opportunity was strongly associated with access to gastroenterology/hepatology specialty care. Additionally, providers may be relying on clinical cues (i.e., decompensation) to prompt referral for endoscopy suggesting education to improve compliance with guidelines is needed.

Background

Data are limited on marijuana use and its impact on liver transplant (LT) waitlist outcomes. We aimed to assess the risk of waitlist mortality/delisting and likelihood of LT among prior marijuana users and to determine the prevalence and factors associated with marijuana use.

Methods

Retrospective cohort of adults evaluated for LT over 2 years at a large LT center. Marijuana use was defined by self-report in psychosocial assessment and/or positive urine toxicology. Ongoing marijuana use was not permitted for LT listing during study period.

Results

Eight hundred eighty-four adults were evaluated, and 585 (66%) were listed for LT (median follow-up, 1.4 years; interquartile range, 0.5-2.0). Prevalence of marijuana use was 48%, with 7% being recent users and 41% prior users. Marijuana use had statistically significant association with alcoholic cirrhosis (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.9) and hepatitis C (IRR, 2.1) versus hepatitis B, tobacco use (prior IRR, 1.4; recent IRR, 1.3 vs never), alcohol use (never IRR 0.1; heavy use/abuse IRR 1.2 vs social), and illicit drug use (prior IRR, 2.3; recent, 1.9 vs never). In adjusted competing risk regression, marijuana use was not associated with the probability of LT (prior hazard ratio [HR], 0.9; recent HR, 0.9 vs never) or waitlist mortality/delisting (prior HR, 1.0; recent HR, 1.0 vs never). However, recent illicit drug use was associated with higher risk of death or delisting (HR, 1.8; P = 0.004 vs never).

Conclusions

Unlike illicit drug use, marijuana use was not associated with worse outcomes on the LT waitlist. Prospective studies are needed to assess ongoing marijuana use on the LT waitlist and post-LT outcomes.

Unlabelled

Risks and benefits of simeprevir plus sofosbuvir (SIM+SOF) in patients with advanced cirrhosis are unknown. We assessed the safety and sustained virological responses (SVR) of SIM+SOF with and without ribavirin (RBV) in patients with Child-Pugh (CP)-B/C versus CP-A cirrhosis and compared to matched untreated controls. This study was of a multicenter cohort of adults with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 and cirrhosis treated with SIM+SOF with/without RBV for 12 weeks. Controls were matched on treatment center, age, CP class, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Of 160 patients treated with SIM+SOF with/without RBV, 35% had CP-B/C and 64% had CP-A, with median baseline MELD 9 (interquartile range, 8-11). Sustained virological response at week 12 (SVR12) was achieved by 73% of CP-B/C versus 91% of CP-A (P < 0.01). CP-B/C versus CP-A had more early treatment discontinuations (11% vs. 1%), adverse events (AEs) requiring hospitalization (22% vs. 2%), infections requiring antibiotics (20% vs. 1%), and hepatic decompensating events (20% vs. 3%; all P < 0.01). There were 2 deaths: 1 CP-B/C (liver related) and 1 CP-A (not liver related). In multivariate analysis, CP-B/C independently predicted lack of SVR12 (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval: 0.08-0.92). In comparing SIM+SOF-treated patients versus matched untreated controls, AEs requiring hospitalization (9% vs. 13%; P = 0.55), infections (8% vs. 6%; P = 0.47), and events of decompensation (9% vs. 10%; P = 0.78) occurred at similar frequency.

Conclusions

SIM+SOF with/without RBV has lower efficacy and higher rates of AEs in patients with CP-B/C cirrhosis, compared to CP-A. Frequency of adverse safety outcomes were similar to matched untreated controls, suggesting that safety events reflect the natural history of cirrhosis and are not related to treatment.

Background

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)(+) donors represent an effective strategy to increase liver donor availability to HCV-infected recipients. However, many HCV(+) transplant candidates are now receiving treatment with direct-acting anti-viral (DAA) agents that lower the risk of posttransplant HCV recurrence but could make the patient ineligible for HCV(+) livers.

Methods

We compared pretransplant DAA treatment versus deferred DAA treatment using a cost-effectiveness decision analysis model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per quality-adjusted life year gained) from the societal perspective across a range of HCV(+) liver availability rates. For practical considerations, the population modeled was restricted to well-compensated HCV(+) cirrhotics listed for liver transplantation with hepatocellular carcinoma MELD exception points.

Results

Under base case conditions, the deferred DAA treatment strategy was found to be the "dominant" strategy. That is, it provided superior health outcomes at cost savings compared to the pretransplant DAA treatment strategy. The pretransplant DAA treatment strategy trended towards cost-effectiveness as HCV(+) donor liver availability declined. However, only in 1 scenario that was highly optimized for favorable outcomes in the pretransplant DAA treatment arm (low availability of HCV(+) organs, low cost of DAA treatment, high cost of HCV recurrence) was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with HCV DAA treatment before transplant less than US $150 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Conclusions

Deferring HCV treatment until after liver transplant and maintaining access to the expanded pool of HCV(+) donors appears to be the most cost-effective strategy for well-compensated HCV-infected cirrhotics listed for liver transplantation with hepatocellular carcinoma, even in geographic areas of relatively low HCV(+) donor availability.

In patients with HCC awaiting liver transplantation (LT), there is a need to identify biomarkers that are superior to AFP in predicting prognosis. AFP-L3 and des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin (DCP) play a role in HCC detection, but their ability to predict waitlist dropout is unknown. In this prospective single-center study commenced in July 2017, 267 HCC patients had all 3 biomarkers obtained at LT listing. Among them, 96.2% received local-regional therapy, and 18.8% had an initial tumor stage beyond Milan criteria requiring tumor downstaging. At listing, median AFP was 7.0 ng/mL (IQR 3.4-21.5), median AFP-L3 was 7.1% (IQR 0.5-12.5), and median DCP was 1.0 ng/mL (IQR 0.2-3.8). After a median follow-up of 19.3 months, 63 (23.6%) experienced waitlist dropout, while 145 (54.3%) received LT, and 59 (22.1%) were still awaiting LT. Using Cox proportional hazards analysis, AFP-L3≥35% and DCP≥7.5 ng/mL were associated with increased waitlist dropout, whereas AFP at all tested cutoffs, including ≥20,≥ 100, and≥250 ng/mL was not. In a multivariable model, AFP-L3≥35% (HR 2.25, p =0.04) and DCP≥7.5 ng/mL (HR 2.20, p =0.02) remained associated with waitlist dropout as did time from HCC diagnosis to listing ≥ 1 year and increasing MELD-Na score. Kaplan-Meier probability of waitlist dropout within 2 years was 21.8% in those with AFP-L3<35% and DCP<7.5 ng/mL, 59.9% with either AFP-L3 or DCP elevated, and 100% for those with both elevated ( p <0.001). In this prospective study, listing AFP-L3% and DCP were superior to AFP in predicting waitlist dropout with the combination of AFP-L3≥35% and DCP≥7.5 ng/mL associated with a 100% risk of waitlist dropout, thus clearly adding prognostic value to AFP alone.