Hepatology

The risks of all-cause and liver-related mortality increase substantially based on fibrosis stage in biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In particular, patients with NAFLD and advanced fibrosis have a threefold higher risk of all-cause mortality and 10-fold higher risk of liver-related mortality, as compared with patients with NAFLD but not advanced fibrosis, Cheng Han Ng, with the National University of Singapore, and colleagues wrote.

“These data provide high-level evidence that provides prognostication for each stage of fibrosis to inform care providers and patients,” they wrote. “In addition, these findings have important implications for clinical trial design and highlight the importance of developing therapeutics.”

Although previous studies have found higher risks of all-cause and liver-related mortality in patients with NAFLD with increasing fibrosis stages, they examined the risk of mortality in reference to stage 0 fibrosis and didn’t include comparisons across different stages of fibrosis. In addition, the studies typically used pooled risk ratios, didn’t account for time-to-event analysis, or incorporate the most recent data.

The study investigators conducted an updated time-to-event meta-analysis to understand the impact of fibrosis stage on all-cause and liver-related mortality in biopsy-confirmed NAFLD. In addition, they pooled the survival estimates of individual fibrosis stages based on reconstructed individual patient data and compared mortality between fibrosis stages.

In 14 included studies, 17,301 patients had biopsy-proven NAFLD, including 6,069 assessed for overall mortality and 3,421 for liver-related mortality. The studies were conducted in the United States, Canada, Sweden, Israel, Japan, and Hong Kong, with four multicenter studies across multiple regions. The median follow-up duration was 7.7 years, and the average age of patients was 50.5.

For nonadvanced fibrosis (F0-F2), the 1-, 3-, 5-, 8-, and 10-year all-cause mortality were 0.1%, 1.9%, 3.3%, 6%, and 7.7%, respectively. For clinically significant fibrosis (F2-F4), the rates were 0.3%, 8.4%, 14%, 23.7%, and 29.3%, respectively. For advanced fibrosis (F3-F4), the rates were 0.3%, 8.8%, 14.9%, 25.5%, and 32.2%, respectively. For cirrhosis (F4), the rates were 0.3%, 13%, 20.6%, 33.3%, and 41.5%, respectively.

Compared with F0 as a reference, there were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality for F1. However, the risk significantly increased for F2 (HR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.98; P 1⁄4 .01), F3 (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.41-2.72; P < .01), and F4 (HR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.65-5.05; P < .01). In addition, early fibrosis (F1-F2) resulted in a statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality, as did the presence of clinically significant fibrosis or advanced fibrosis.

Compared with non–clinically significant fibrosis (F0-F1), clinically significant fibrosis (F2-F4) resulted in a statistically significant increase in mortality (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.52-2.81; P < .01).

Compared with nonadvanced fibrosis (F0-F2), advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) resulted in a significantly increased risk of mortality (HR, 3.32; 95% CI, 2.38-4.65; P < .01).

In a comparison between F3 and F4, F4 resulted in a statistically significant increase in mortality (HR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.47-4.83; P < .01). In a sensitivity analysis with three studies including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, patients with NASH had a significantly increased risk of mortality in F4 (HR, 5.08; 95% CI, 2.70-9.55; P < .01).

For liver-related mortality, F1 didn’t result in a statistically significant increase, as compared with F0. However, increased risks were found for F2 (HR, 4.07; 95% CI, 1.44-11.5; P < .01), F3 (HR, 7.59; 95% CI, 2.80-20.5; P < .01), and F4 (HR, 15.1; 95% CI, 5.27-43.4; P < .01). In addition, any fibrosis (F1-F4) resulted in an increased risk of mortality, early fibrosis resulted in a borderline nonsignificant increase, and clinically significant or advanced fibrosis led to an increased risk.

Compared with non–clinically significant fibrosis (F0-F1), clinically significant fibrosis (F2-F4) resulted in an increase in liver-related mortality (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 3.30-12.8; P < .01).

Compared with nonadvanced fibrosis (F0-F2), advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) resulted in a statistically significant increase in liver-related mortality (HR, 10.4; 95% CI, 6.18-17.5; P < .01).

In a comparison between F3 and F4, F4 resulted in a significant increase in liver-related mortality (HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.22-5.42; P < .01).

Although the presence of F4 leads to the greatest risk of mortality, selection criteria in NASH clinical trials have predominately targeted patients with F0-F3, the authors wrote.

“NASH is currently the fastest growing cause for liver transplant and [transplant] remains the only known curative treatment for cirrhosis,” they wrote. “However, with the global shortage of suitable grafts for transplant and lack of viable treatment, our results highlight that there is an urgent need for an efficacious treatment for patients with NASH and F4.”

The researchers outlined several limitations of their study. The development of hepatocellular carcinoma and its effects on survival were outside the scope of the study, they wrote. Analysis of liver-related mortality by proportion was not conducted because of insufficient studies. Data were insufficient to perform subgroup analyses by gender, age, study design, medication use, and diagnostic modality for fibrosis stage.

The authors reported funding support from several national U.S. grants and disclosed consultant and advisory rules for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The risks of all-cause and liver-related mortality increase substantially based on fibrosis stage in biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In particular, patients with NAFLD and advanced fibrosis have a threefold higher risk of all-cause mortality and 10-fold higher risk of liver-related mortality, as compared with patients with NAFLD but not advanced fibrosis, Cheng Han Ng, with the National University of Singapore, and colleagues wrote.

“These data provide high-level evidence that provides prognostication for each stage of fibrosis to inform care providers and patients,” they wrote. “In addition, these findings have important implications for clinical trial design and highlight the importance of developing therapeutics.”

Although previous studies have found higher risks of all-cause and liver-related mortality in patients with NAFLD with increasing fibrosis stages, they examined the risk of mortality in reference to stage 0 fibrosis and didn’t include comparisons across different stages of fibrosis. In addition, the studies typically used pooled risk ratios, didn’t account for time-to-event analysis, or incorporate the most recent data.

The study investigators conducted an updated time-to-event meta-analysis to understand the impact of fibrosis stage on all-cause and liver-related mortality in biopsy-confirmed NAFLD. In addition, they pooled the survival estimates of individual fibrosis stages based on reconstructed individual patient data and compared mortality between fibrosis stages.

In 14 included studies, 17,301 patients had biopsy-proven NAFLD, including 6,069 assessed for overall mortality and 3,421 for liver-related mortality. The studies were conducted in the United States, Canada, Sweden, Israel, Japan, and Hong Kong, with four multicenter studies across multiple regions. The median follow-up duration was 7.7 years, and the average age of patients was 50.5.

For nonadvanced fibrosis (F0-F2), the 1-, 3-, 5-, 8-, and 10-year all-cause mortality were 0.1%, 1.9%, 3.3%, 6%, and 7.7%, respectively. For clinically significant fibrosis (F2-F4), the rates were 0.3%, 8.4%, 14%, 23.7%, and 29.3%, respectively. For advanced fibrosis (F3-F4), the rates were 0.3%, 8.8%, 14.9%, 25.5%, and 32.2%, respectively. For cirrhosis (F4), the rates were 0.3%, 13%, 20.6%, 33.3%, and 41.5%, respectively.

Compared with F0 as a reference, there were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality for F1. However, the risk significantly increased for F2 (HR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.98; P 1⁄4 .01), F3 (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.41-2.72; P < .01), and F4 (HR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.65-5.05; P < .01). In addition, early fibrosis (F1-F2) resulted in a statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality, as did the presence of clinically significant fibrosis or advanced fibrosis.

Compared with non–clinically significant fibrosis (F0-F1), clinically significant fibrosis (F2-F4) resulted in a statistically significant increase in mortality (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.52-2.81; P < .01).

Compared with nonadvanced fibrosis (F0-F2), advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) resulted in a significantly increased risk of mortality (HR, 3.32; 95% CI, 2.38-4.65; P < .01).

In a comparison between F3 and F4, F4 resulted in a statistically significant increase in mortality (HR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.47-4.83; P < .01). In a sensitivity analysis with three studies including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, patients with NASH had a significantly increased risk of mortality in F4 (HR, 5.08; 95% CI, 2.70-9.55; P < .01).

For liver-related mortality, F1 didn’t result in a statistically significant increase, as compared with F0. However, increased risks were found for F2 (HR, 4.07; 95% CI, 1.44-11.5; P < .01), F3 (HR, 7.59; 95% CI, 2.80-20.5; P < .01), and F4 (HR, 15.1; 95% CI, 5.27-43.4; P < .01). In addition, any fibrosis (F1-F4) resulted in an increased risk of mortality, early fibrosis resulted in a borderline nonsignificant increase, and clinically significant or advanced fibrosis led to an increased risk.

Compared with non–clinically significant fibrosis (F0-F1), clinically significant fibrosis (F2-F4) resulted in an increase in liver-related mortality (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 3.30-12.8; P < .01).

Compared with nonadvanced fibrosis (F0-F2), advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) resulted in a statistically significant increase in liver-related mortality (HR, 10.4; 95% CI, 6.18-17.5; P < .01).

In a comparison between F3 and F4, F4 resulted in a significant increase in liver-related mortality (HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.22-5.42; P < .01).

Although the presence of F4 leads to the greatest risk of mortality, selection criteria in NASH clinical trials have predominately targeted patients with F0-F3, the authors wrote.

“NASH is currently the fastest growing cause for liver transplant and [transplant] remains the only known curative treatment for cirrhosis,” they wrote. “However, with the global shortage of suitable grafts for transplant and lack of viable treatment, our results highlight that there is an urgent need for an efficacious treatment for patients with NASH and F4.”

The researchers outlined several limitations of their study. The development of hepatocellular carcinoma and its effects on survival were outside the scope of the study, they wrote. Analysis of liver-related mortality by proportion was not conducted because of insufficient studies. Data were insufficient to perform subgroup analyses by gender, age, study design, medication use, and diagnostic modality for fibrosis stage.

The authors reported funding support from several national U.S. grants and disclosed consultant and advisory rules for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The risks of all-cause and liver-related mortality increase substantially based on fibrosis stage in biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In particular, patients with NAFLD and advanced fibrosis have a threefold higher risk of all-cause mortality and 10-fold higher risk of liver-related mortality, as compared with patients with NAFLD but not advanced fibrosis, Cheng Han Ng, with the National University of Singapore, and colleagues wrote.

“These data provide high-level evidence that provides prognostication for each stage of fibrosis to inform care providers and patients,” they wrote. “In addition, these findings have important implications for clinical trial design and highlight the importance of developing therapeutics.”

Although previous studies have found higher risks of all-cause and liver-related mortality in patients with NAFLD with increasing fibrosis stages, they examined the risk of mortality in reference to stage 0 fibrosis and didn’t include comparisons across different stages of fibrosis. In addition, the studies typically used pooled risk ratios, didn’t account for time-to-event analysis, or incorporate the most recent data.

The study investigators conducted an updated time-to-event meta-analysis to understand the impact of fibrosis stage on all-cause and liver-related mortality in biopsy-confirmed NAFLD. In addition, they pooled the survival estimates of individual fibrosis stages based on reconstructed individual patient data and compared mortality between fibrosis stages.

In 14 included studies, 17,301 patients had biopsy-proven NAFLD, including 6,069 assessed for overall mortality and 3,421 for liver-related mortality. The studies were conducted in the United States, Canada, Sweden, Israel, Japan, and Hong Kong, with four multicenter studies across multiple regions. The median follow-up duration was 7.7 years, and the average age of patients was 50.5.

For nonadvanced fibrosis (F0-F2), the 1-, 3-, 5-, 8-, and 10-year all-cause mortality were 0.1%, 1.9%, 3.3%, 6%, and 7.7%, respectively. For clinically significant fibrosis (F2-F4), the rates were 0.3%, 8.4%, 14%, 23.7%, and 29.3%, respectively. For advanced fibrosis (F3-F4), the rates were 0.3%, 8.8%, 14.9%, 25.5%, and 32.2%, respectively. For cirrhosis (F4), the rates were 0.3%, 13%, 20.6%, 33.3%, and 41.5%, respectively.

Compared with F0 as a reference, there were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality for F1. However, the risk significantly increased for F2 (HR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.98; P 1⁄4 .01), F3 (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.41-2.72; P < .01), and F4 (HR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.65-5.05; P < .01). In addition, early fibrosis (F1-F2) resulted in a statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality, as did the presence of clinically significant fibrosis or advanced fibrosis.

Compared with non–clinically significant fibrosis (F0-F1), clinically significant fibrosis (F2-F4) resulted in a statistically significant increase in mortality (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.52-2.81; P < .01).

Compared with nonadvanced fibrosis (F0-F2), advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) resulted in a significantly increased risk of mortality (HR, 3.32; 95% CI, 2.38-4.65; P < .01).

In a comparison between F3 and F4, F4 resulted in a statistically significant increase in mortality (HR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.47-4.83; P < .01). In a sensitivity analysis with three studies including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, patients with NASH had a significantly increased risk of mortality in F4 (HR, 5.08; 95% CI, 2.70-9.55; P < .01).

For liver-related mortality, F1 didn’t result in a statistically significant increase, as compared with F0. However, increased risks were found for F2 (HR, 4.07; 95% CI, 1.44-11.5; P < .01), F3 (HR, 7.59; 95% CI, 2.80-20.5; P < .01), and F4 (HR, 15.1; 95% CI, 5.27-43.4; P < .01). In addition, any fibrosis (F1-F4) resulted in an increased risk of mortality, early fibrosis resulted in a borderline nonsignificant increase, and clinically significant or advanced fibrosis led to an increased risk.

Compared with non–clinically significant fibrosis (F0-F1), clinically significant fibrosis (F2-F4) resulted in an increase in liver-related mortality (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 3.30-12.8; P < .01).

Compared with nonadvanced fibrosis (F0-F2), advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) resulted in a statistically significant increase in liver-related mortality (HR, 10.4; 95% CI, 6.18-17.5; P < .01).

In a comparison between F3 and F4, F4 resulted in a significant increase in liver-related mortality (HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.22-5.42; P < .01).

Although the presence of F4 leads to the greatest risk of mortality, selection criteria in NASH clinical trials have predominately targeted patients with F0-F3, the authors wrote.

“NASH is currently the fastest growing cause for liver transplant and [transplant] remains the only known curative treatment for cirrhosis,” they wrote. “However, with the global shortage of suitable grafts for transplant and lack of viable treatment, our results highlight that there is an urgent need for an efficacious treatment for patients with NASH and F4.”

The researchers outlined several limitations of their study. The development of hepatocellular carcinoma and its effects on survival were outside the scope of the study, they wrote. Analysis of liver-related mortality by proportion was not conducted because of insufficient studies. Data were insufficient to perform subgroup analyses by gender, age, study design, medication use, and diagnostic modality for fibrosis stage.

The authors reported funding support from several national U.S. grants and disclosed consultant and advisory rules for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Exercise training is 3.5 times more likely to result in a clinically meaningful response in liver fat, compared with standard clinical care, for patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

An exercise dose of 750 metabolic equivalents of task (MET)–minutes per week – or 150 minutes per week of brisk walking – was required to achieve a treatment response, independently of weight loss.

“In the absence of a regulatory agency–approved drug treatment or a cure, lifestyle modification with dietary change and increased exercise is recommended for all patients with NAFLD,” first author Jonathan Stine, MD, an associate professor of medicine and public health sciences and director of the fatty liver program at the Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, said in an interview.

“With that said, there are many key unanswered questions about how to best prescribe exercise as medicine to our patients with NAFLD, including whether the liver-specific benefit of exercise can be seen without any body weight loss,” Dr. Stine said. “And if found, what dose of exercise is required in order to achieve clinically meaningful benefit?” He noted that this analysis is a step toward helping to answer these questions.

The study by Dr. Stine and colleagues was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing studies

Exercise training, which includes planned and structured physical activity intended to improve physical fitness, has been shown to provide multiple benefits for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. The gains include improvements in liver fat, physical fitness, body composition, vascular biology, and health-related quality of life.

However, it has been unclear whether exercise training achieves a 30% or more relative reduction in liver fat, which is considered the minimal clinically important difference and is a surrogate for histologic response or improvement in liver fibrosis.

In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Dr. Stine and colleagues analyzed the evidence for MRI-measured liver reduction in response to exercise training across different doses, with a 30% or more relative reduction serving as the primary outcome. They included randomized controlled trials in adults with NAFLD who participated in exercise training programs.

The 14 studies included a total of 551 participants. The average age of the participants was 53 years, and the average body mass index was 31 kg/mg². The duration of the interventions ranged from 4 to 52 weeks and included different types of exercise, such as aerobic, high-intensity interval, resistance, and aerobic plus resistance training.

No study yielded the clinically significant weight loss required for histologic response (7%-10%). The average weight loss was about 2.8% among those who participated in exercise training.

Overall, seven studies with 152 participants had data for the 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat. The pooled rate was 34% for exercise training and 13% for the control condition.

In general, those who participated in exercise training were 3.5 times more likely to achieve a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat than those in the control condition.

Among all participants, the mean change in absolute liver fat was –6.7% for the 338 participants enrolled in exercise training, compared with –0.8% for the 213 participants under the control condition. The pooled mean difference in absolute change in MRI-measured liver fat for exercise training versus the control was –5.8%.

For relative change in MRI-measured liver fat, researchers analyzed nine studies with 195 participants – 118 participants in exercise training, and 77 control participants. The mean relative change was –24.1% among the exercise training group and 7.3% among the control group. The pooled mean difference in relative change for exercise training versus the control was –26.4%.

For all 14 studies, an exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week resulted in a significant treatment response. This equates to 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity exercise, such as jogging or cycling.

Among participants who had 750 MET-minutes per week, there was a –8% absolute and –28.9% relative mean difference in MRI-measured liver fat, compared with –4.1% and –22.8%, respectively, among those who had fewer than 750 MET-minutes per week.

An exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week led to a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat in 39.3% of participants, compared with 25.7% who had fewer than that threshold.

The treatment response was independent of clinically significant body weight loss of more than 5%.

“Prior to our study, it was felt that body weight loss of at least 5% was required in order to significantly improve liver histology,” Dr. Stine said. “Our findings challenge this thought in that exercise training achieved rates of clinically significant liver fat reduction.”
 

Ongoing research

Dr. Stine and colleagues are continuing their research and are directly comparing exercise doses of 750 MET-minutes per week and 1,000 MET-minutes per week to standard clinical care in adults with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or the progressive type of NAFLD.

“Importantly, this new study we’re undertaking is designed to mimic a real-world setting in which people’s daily schedules are highly variable,” he said. “Our experienced team of exercise professionals may vary frequency and time of exercise in a week so long as our study participant achieves the prescribed dose of exercise.”

Currently, leading professional societies have not reached consensus regarding the optimal physical activity program for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. However, most clinical guidelines support at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity.

Although more head-to-head clinical trials are needed, exercise training appears to reduce liver fat and provides other benefits, such as cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition changes, and improvements in vascular biology, they wrote.

“The important piece here is that this review shows that there does not have to be weight loss for improvements in fatty liver,” Jill Kanaley, PhD, a professor of nutrition and exercise physiology at University of Missouri–Columbia, said in an interview.

Dr. Kanaley, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched exercise training among patients with NAFLD. She and her colleagues have found that moderate-and high-intensity exercise can decrease intrahepatic lipid content and NAFLD risk factors, independently of abdominal fat or body mass reductions.

“So often, people get frustrated with exercise if they do not see weight loss,” she said. “But in this case, there seems to be benefits of the exercise, even without weight loss.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have received research funding and have had consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kanaley reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Exercise training is 3.5 times more likely to result in a clinically meaningful response in liver fat, compared with standard clinical care, for patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

An exercise dose of 750 metabolic equivalents of task (MET)–minutes per week – or 150 minutes per week of brisk walking – was required to achieve a treatment response, independently of weight loss.

“In the absence of a regulatory agency–approved drug treatment or a cure, lifestyle modification with dietary change and increased exercise is recommended for all patients with NAFLD,” first author Jonathan Stine, MD, an associate professor of medicine and public health sciences and director of the fatty liver program at the Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, said in an interview.

“With that said, there are many key unanswered questions about how to best prescribe exercise as medicine to our patients with NAFLD, including whether the liver-specific benefit of exercise can be seen without any body weight loss,” Dr. Stine said. “And if found, what dose of exercise is required in order to achieve clinically meaningful benefit?” He noted that this analysis is a step toward helping to answer these questions.

The study by Dr. Stine and colleagues was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing studies

Exercise training, which includes planned and structured physical activity intended to improve physical fitness, has been shown to provide multiple benefits for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. The gains include improvements in liver fat, physical fitness, body composition, vascular biology, and health-related quality of life.

However, it has been unclear whether exercise training achieves a 30% or more relative reduction in liver fat, which is considered the minimal clinically important difference and is a surrogate for histologic response or improvement in liver fibrosis.

In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Dr. Stine and colleagues analyzed the evidence for MRI-measured liver reduction in response to exercise training across different doses, with a 30% or more relative reduction serving as the primary outcome. They included randomized controlled trials in adults with NAFLD who participated in exercise training programs.

The 14 studies included a total of 551 participants. The average age of the participants was 53 years, and the average body mass index was 31 kg/mg². The duration of the interventions ranged from 4 to 52 weeks and included different types of exercise, such as aerobic, high-intensity interval, resistance, and aerobic plus resistance training.

No study yielded the clinically significant weight loss required for histologic response (7%-10%). The average weight loss was about 2.8% among those who participated in exercise training.

Overall, seven studies with 152 participants had data for the 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat. The pooled rate was 34% for exercise training and 13% for the control condition.

In general, those who participated in exercise training were 3.5 times more likely to achieve a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat than those in the control condition.

Among all participants, the mean change in absolute liver fat was –6.7% for the 338 participants enrolled in exercise training, compared with –0.8% for the 213 participants under the control condition. The pooled mean difference in absolute change in MRI-measured liver fat for exercise training versus the control was –5.8%.

For relative change in MRI-measured liver fat, researchers analyzed nine studies with 195 participants – 118 participants in exercise training, and 77 control participants. The mean relative change was –24.1% among the exercise training group and 7.3% among the control group. The pooled mean difference in relative change for exercise training versus the control was –26.4%.

For all 14 studies, an exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week resulted in a significant treatment response. This equates to 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity exercise, such as jogging or cycling.

Among participants who had 750 MET-minutes per week, there was a –8% absolute and –28.9% relative mean difference in MRI-measured liver fat, compared with –4.1% and –22.8%, respectively, among those who had fewer than 750 MET-minutes per week.

An exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week led to a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat in 39.3% of participants, compared with 25.7% who had fewer than that threshold.

The treatment response was independent of clinically significant body weight loss of more than 5%.

“Prior to our study, it was felt that body weight loss of at least 5% was required in order to significantly improve liver histology,” Dr. Stine said. “Our findings challenge this thought in that exercise training achieved rates of clinically significant liver fat reduction.”
 

Ongoing research

Dr. Stine and colleagues are continuing their research and are directly comparing exercise doses of 750 MET-minutes per week and 1,000 MET-minutes per week to standard clinical care in adults with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or the progressive type of NAFLD.

“Importantly, this new study we’re undertaking is designed to mimic a real-world setting in which people’s daily schedules are highly variable,” he said. “Our experienced team of exercise professionals may vary frequency and time of exercise in a week so long as our study participant achieves the prescribed dose of exercise.”

Currently, leading professional societies have not reached consensus regarding the optimal physical activity program for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. However, most clinical guidelines support at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity.

Although more head-to-head clinical trials are needed, exercise training appears to reduce liver fat and provides other benefits, such as cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition changes, and improvements in vascular biology, they wrote.

“The important piece here is that this review shows that there does not have to be weight loss for improvements in fatty liver,” Jill Kanaley, PhD, a professor of nutrition and exercise physiology at University of Missouri–Columbia, said in an interview.

Dr. Kanaley, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched exercise training among patients with NAFLD. She and her colleagues have found that moderate-and high-intensity exercise can decrease intrahepatic lipid content and NAFLD risk factors, independently of abdominal fat or body mass reductions.

“So often, people get frustrated with exercise if they do not see weight loss,” she said. “But in this case, there seems to be benefits of the exercise, even without weight loss.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have received research funding and have had consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kanaley reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Exercise training is 3.5 times more likely to result in a clinically meaningful response in liver fat, compared with standard clinical care, for patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

An exercise dose of 750 metabolic equivalents of task (MET)–minutes per week – or 150 minutes per week of brisk walking – was required to achieve a treatment response, independently of weight loss.

“In the absence of a regulatory agency–approved drug treatment or a cure, lifestyle modification with dietary change and increased exercise is recommended for all patients with NAFLD,” first author Jonathan Stine, MD, an associate professor of medicine and public health sciences and director of the fatty liver program at the Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, said in an interview.

“With that said, there are many key unanswered questions about how to best prescribe exercise as medicine to our patients with NAFLD, including whether the liver-specific benefit of exercise can be seen without any body weight loss,” Dr. Stine said. “And if found, what dose of exercise is required in order to achieve clinically meaningful benefit?” He noted that this analysis is a step toward helping to answer these questions.

The study by Dr. Stine and colleagues was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing studies

Exercise training, which includes planned and structured physical activity intended to improve physical fitness, has been shown to provide multiple benefits for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. The gains include improvements in liver fat, physical fitness, body composition, vascular biology, and health-related quality of life.

However, it has been unclear whether exercise training achieves a 30% or more relative reduction in liver fat, which is considered the minimal clinically important difference and is a surrogate for histologic response or improvement in liver fibrosis.

In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Dr. Stine and colleagues analyzed the evidence for MRI-measured liver reduction in response to exercise training across different doses, with a 30% or more relative reduction serving as the primary outcome. They included randomized controlled trials in adults with NAFLD who participated in exercise training programs.

The 14 studies included a total of 551 participants. The average age of the participants was 53 years, and the average body mass index was 31 kg/mg². The duration of the interventions ranged from 4 to 52 weeks and included different types of exercise, such as aerobic, high-intensity interval, resistance, and aerobic plus resistance training.

No study yielded the clinically significant weight loss required for histologic response (7%-10%). The average weight loss was about 2.8% among those who participated in exercise training.

Overall, seven studies with 152 participants had data for the 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat. The pooled rate was 34% for exercise training and 13% for the control condition.

In general, those who participated in exercise training were 3.5 times more likely to achieve a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat than those in the control condition.

Among all participants, the mean change in absolute liver fat was –6.7% for the 338 participants enrolled in exercise training, compared with –0.8% for the 213 participants under the control condition. The pooled mean difference in absolute change in MRI-measured liver fat for exercise training versus the control was –5.8%.

For relative change in MRI-measured liver fat, researchers analyzed nine studies with 195 participants – 118 participants in exercise training, and 77 control participants. The mean relative change was –24.1% among the exercise training group and 7.3% among the control group. The pooled mean difference in relative change for exercise training versus the control was –26.4%.

For all 14 studies, an exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week resulted in a significant treatment response. This equates to 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity exercise, such as jogging or cycling.

Among participants who had 750 MET-minutes per week, there was a –8% absolute and –28.9% relative mean difference in MRI-measured liver fat, compared with –4.1% and –22.8%, respectively, among those who had fewer than 750 MET-minutes per week.

An exercise dose of 750 or more MET-minutes per week led to a 30% or more relative reduction in MRI-measured liver fat in 39.3% of participants, compared with 25.7% who had fewer than that threshold.

The treatment response was independent of clinically significant body weight loss of more than 5%.

“Prior to our study, it was felt that body weight loss of at least 5% was required in order to significantly improve liver histology,” Dr. Stine said. “Our findings challenge this thought in that exercise training achieved rates of clinically significant liver fat reduction.”
 

Ongoing research

Dr. Stine and colleagues are continuing their research and are directly comparing exercise doses of 750 MET-minutes per week and 1,000 MET-minutes per week to standard clinical care in adults with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or the progressive type of NAFLD.

“Importantly, this new study we’re undertaking is designed to mimic a real-world setting in which people’s daily schedules are highly variable,” he said. “Our experienced team of exercise professionals may vary frequency and time of exercise in a week so long as our study participant achieves the prescribed dose of exercise.”

Currently, leading professional societies have not reached consensus regarding the optimal physical activity program for patients with NAFLD, the study authors wrote. However, most clinical guidelines support at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity.

Although more head-to-head clinical trials are needed, exercise training appears to reduce liver fat and provides other benefits, such as cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition changes, and improvements in vascular biology, they wrote.

“The important piece here is that this review shows that there does not have to be weight loss for improvements in fatty liver,” Jill Kanaley, PhD, a professor of nutrition and exercise physiology at University of Missouri–Columbia, said in an interview.

Dr. Kanaley, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched exercise training among patients with NAFLD. She and her colleagues have found that moderate-and high-intensity exercise can decrease intrahepatic lipid content and NAFLD risk factors, independently of abdominal fat or body mass reductions.

“So often, people get frustrated with exercise if they do not see weight loss,” she said. “But in this case, there seems to be benefits of the exercise, even without weight loss.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have received research funding and have had consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kanaley reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Infants born to women infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) faced twice the risk of stays in the neonatal ICU (NICU) and 2.7 times the risk of low birth weight, a new analysis finds, even when researchers adjusted their data to control for injectable drug use and maternal medical comorbidity.

Clinicians should be “aware that the infants of pregnant people with HCV may have a high rate of need for higher-level pediatric care,” said Brenna L. Hughes, MD, MSc, chief of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. She spoke in an interview about the findings, which were presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

As Dr. Hughes noted, “HCV remains a serious problem in pregnancy because it often goes undiagnosed and/or untreated prior to pregnancy. It can be passed to infants, and this can cause significant health-related outcomes for children as they age.”

For the multicenter U.S. study, researchers identified 249 pregnant mothers with HCV from a 2012-2018 cohort and matched them by gestational age to controls (n = 486). The average age was 28; 71.1% of the cases were non-Hispanic White versus 41.6% of the controls; 8.4% of cases were non-Hispanic Black versus 32.1% of controls (P < .001 for race/ethnicity analysis); and 73% of cases were smokers versus 18% of controls (P < .001). More than 19% of cases reported injectable drug use during pregnancy versus 0.2% of controls (P < .001).

The researchers adjusted their findings for maternal age, body mass index, injectable drug use, and maternal comorbidity.

An earlier analysis of the study data found that 6% of pregnant women with HCV passed it on to their infants, especially those with high levels of virus in their systems. For the new study, researchers focused on various outcomes to test the assumption that “adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with HCV are related to prematurity or to ongoing use of injection drugs,” Dr. Hughes said.

There was no increase in rates of preterm birth or adverse maternal outcomes in the HCV cases. However, infants born to women with HCV were more likely than the controls to require a stay in the NICU (45% vs. 19%; adjusted relative risk, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.58). They were also more likely to have lower birth weights (small for gestational age < 5th percentile) (10.6% vs. 3.1%; ARR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.38-5.34).

No difference in outcomes was seen when HCV cases with viremia (33%) were excluded.

“The most surprising finding was that the need for higher-level pediatric care was so high even though there wasn’t an increased risk of prematurity,” Dr. Hughes said.

She added it’s not clear why NICU stays and low birth weights were more common in infants of women with HCV. “It is possible that the higher risk of need for higher-level pediatric care was related to a need for observation or treatment due to use of opioid replacement therapies with opioid agonists.” As for lower birth weight, “there may be other unmeasured risk factors.”

Tatyana Kushner, MD, MSCE, of the division of liver diseases at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview that the study adds to limited data about HCV in pregnancy. “These findings have been demonstrated in prior studies, and it would be important to tease apart whether [low birth weight] is related to the virus itself or more related to other confounding associated factors such as maternal substance use as well as other associated social determinants of health among women with HCV.”

As for the study’s message, Dr. Kushner said it makes it clear that “hepatitis C adversely impacts outcomes of pregnancy and it is important to identify women of childbearing age for treatment early, ideally prior to pregnancy, in order to improve their pregnancy outcomes. In addition, treatment of hepatitis C during pregnancy should be explored further to determine if treatment during pregnancy can improve outcomes.”

At the moment, she said, “there are ongoing studies to delineate the safety and efficacy of hepatitis C treatment during pregnancy. Given that we are screening for hepatitis C during pregnancy, we need clear recommendations on the use of direct-acting antivirals in people who screen positive.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Kushner disclosed research support (Gilead) and advisory board service (Gilead, AbbVie, Bausch, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eiger).

Infants born to women infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) faced twice the risk of stays in the neonatal ICU (NICU) and 2.7 times the risk of low birth weight, a new analysis finds, even when researchers adjusted their data to control for injectable drug use and maternal medical comorbidity.

Clinicians should be “aware that the infants of pregnant people with HCV may have a high rate of need for higher-level pediatric care,” said Brenna L. Hughes, MD, MSc, chief of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. She spoke in an interview about the findings, which were presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

As Dr. Hughes noted, “HCV remains a serious problem in pregnancy because it often goes undiagnosed and/or untreated prior to pregnancy. It can be passed to infants, and this can cause significant health-related outcomes for children as they age.”

For the multicenter U.S. study, researchers identified 249 pregnant mothers with HCV from a 2012-2018 cohort and matched them by gestational age to controls (n = 486). The average age was 28; 71.1% of the cases were non-Hispanic White versus 41.6% of the controls; 8.4% of cases were non-Hispanic Black versus 32.1% of controls (P < .001 for race/ethnicity analysis); and 73% of cases were smokers versus 18% of controls (P < .001). More than 19% of cases reported injectable drug use during pregnancy versus 0.2% of controls (P < .001).

The researchers adjusted their findings for maternal age, body mass index, injectable drug use, and maternal comorbidity.

An earlier analysis of the study data found that 6% of pregnant women with HCV passed it on to their infants, especially those with high levels of virus in their systems. For the new study, researchers focused on various outcomes to test the assumption that “adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with HCV are related to prematurity or to ongoing use of injection drugs,” Dr. Hughes said.

There was no increase in rates of preterm birth or adverse maternal outcomes in the HCV cases. However, infants born to women with HCV were more likely than the controls to require a stay in the NICU (45% vs. 19%; adjusted relative risk, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.58). They were also more likely to have lower birth weights (small for gestational age < 5th percentile) (10.6% vs. 3.1%; ARR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.38-5.34).

No difference in outcomes was seen when HCV cases with viremia (33%) were excluded.

“The most surprising finding was that the need for higher-level pediatric care was so high even though there wasn’t an increased risk of prematurity,” Dr. Hughes said.

She added it’s not clear why NICU stays and low birth weights were more common in infants of women with HCV. “It is possible that the higher risk of need for higher-level pediatric care was related to a need for observation or treatment due to use of opioid replacement therapies with opioid agonists.” As for lower birth weight, “there may be other unmeasured risk factors.”

Tatyana Kushner, MD, MSCE, of the division of liver diseases at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview that the study adds to limited data about HCV in pregnancy. “These findings have been demonstrated in prior studies, and it would be important to tease apart whether [low birth weight] is related to the virus itself or more related to other confounding associated factors such as maternal substance use as well as other associated social determinants of health among women with HCV.”

As for the study’s message, Dr. Kushner said it makes it clear that “hepatitis C adversely impacts outcomes of pregnancy and it is important to identify women of childbearing age for treatment early, ideally prior to pregnancy, in order to improve their pregnancy outcomes. In addition, treatment of hepatitis C during pregnancy should be explored further to determine if treatment during pregnancy can improve outcomes.”

At the moment, she said, “there are ongoing studies to delineate the safety and efficacy of hepatitis C treatment during pregnancy. Given that we are screening for hepatitis C during pregnancy, we need clear recommendations on the use of direct-acting antivirals in people who screen positive.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Kushner disclosed research support (Gilead) and advisory board service (Gilead, AbbVie, Bausch, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eiger).

Infants born to women infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) faced twice the risk of stays in the neonatal ICU (NICU) and 2.7 times the risk of low birth weight, a new analysis finds, even when researchers adjusted their data to control for injectable drug use and maternal medical comorbidity.

Clinicians should be “aware that the infants of pregnant people with HCV may have a high rate of need for higher-level pediatric care,” said Brenna L. Hughes, MD, MSc, chief of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. She spoke in an interview about the findings, which were presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

As Dr. Hughes noted, “HCV remains a serious problem in pregnancy because it often goes undiagnosed and/or untreated prior to pregnancy. It can be passed to infants, and this can cause significant health-related outcomes for children as they age.”

For the multicenter U.S. study, researchers identified 249 pregnant mothers with HCV from a 2012-2018 cohort and matched them by gestational age to controls (n = 486). The average age was 28; 71.1% of the cases were non-Hispanic White versus 41.6% of the controls; 8.4% of cases were non-Hispanic Black versus 32.1% of controls (P < .001 for race/ethnicity analysis); and 73% of cases were smokers versus 18% of controls (P < .001). More than 19% of cases reported injectable drug use during pregnancy versus 0.2% of controls (P < .001).

The researchers adjusted their findings for maternal age, body mass index, injectable drug use, and maternal comorbidity.

An earlier analysis of the study data found that 6% of pregnant women with HCV passed it on to their infants, especially those with high levels of virus in their systems. For the new study, researchers focused on various outcomes to test the assumption that “adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with HCV are related to prematurity or to ongoing use of injection drugs,” Dr. Hughes said.

There was no increase in rates of preterm birth or adverse maternal outcomes in the HCV cases. However, infants born to women with HCV were more likely than the controls to require a stay in the NICU (45% vs. 19%; adjusted relative risk, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.58). They were also more likely to have lower birth weights (small for gestational age < 5th percentile) (10.6% vs. 3.1%; ARR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.38-5.34).

No difference in outcomes was seen when HCV cases with viremia (33%) were excluded.

“The most surprising finding was that the need for higher-level pediatric care was so high even though there wasn’t an increased risk of prematurity,” Dr. Hughes said.

She added it’s not clear why NICU stays and low birth weights were more common in infants of women with HCV. “It is possible that the higher risk of need for higher-level pediatric care was related to a need for observation or treatment due to use of opioid replacement therapies with opioid agonists.” As for lower birth weight, “there may be other unmeasured risk factors.”

Tatyana Kushner, MD, MSCE, of the division of liver diseases at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview that the study adds to limited data about HCV in pregnancy. “These findings have been demonstrated in prior studies, and it would be important to tease apart whether [low birth weight] is related to the virus itself or more related to other confounding associated factors such as maternal substance use as well as other associated social determinants of health among women with HCV.”

As for the study’s message, Dr. Kushner said it makes it clear that “hepatitis C adversely impacts outcomes of pregnancy and it is important to identify women of childbearing age for treatment early, ideally prior to pregnancy, in order to improve their pregnancy outcomes. In addition, treatment of hepatitis C during pregnancy should be explored further to determine if treatment during pregnancy can improve outcomes.”

At the moment, she said, “there are ongoing studies to delineate the safety and efficacy of hepatitis C treatment during pregnancy. Given that we are screening for hepatitis C during pregnancy, we need clear recommendations on the use of direct-acting antivirals in people who screen positive.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Kushner disclosed research support (Gilead) and advisory board service (Gilead, AbbVie, Bausch, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eiger).

A 12-month program of moderate to vigorous exercise reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by approximately 50% in adults with obesity over 10 years, according to a new analysis of a study.

“Physical exercise combined with diet restriction has been proven to be effective in prevention of diabetes. However, the long-term effect of exercise on prevention of diabetes, and the difference of exercise intensity in prevention of diabetes have not been well studied,” said corresponding author Xiaoying Li, MD, of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, in an interview.

In the research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed the results of a study of 220 adults with central obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, but no incident diabetes, randomized to a 12-month program of vigorous exercise (73 patients), moderate aerobic exercise (73 patients) or no exercise (74 patients).

A total of 208 participants completed the 1-year intervention; of these, 195 and 178 remained to provide data at 2 years and 10 years, respectively. The mean age of the participants was 53.9 years, 32.3% were male, and the mean waist circumference was 96.1 cm at baseline.

The cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes in the vigorous exercise, moderate exercise, and nonexercise groups was 2.1 per 100 person-years 1.9 per 100 person-years, and 4.1 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 10-year follow-up period. This translated to a reduction in type 2 diabetes risk of 49% in the vigorous exercise group and 53% in the moderate exercise group compared with the nonexercise group.

In addition, individuals in the vigorous and moderate exercise groups significantly reduced their HbA1c and waist circumference compared with the nonexercisers. Levels of plasma fasting glucose and weight regain were lower in both exercise groups compared with nonexercisers, but these differences were not significant.

The exercise intervention was described in a 2016 study, which was also published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That study’s purpose was to compare the effects of exercise on patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Participants were coached and supervised for their exercise programs. The program for the vigorous group involved jogging for 150 minutes per week at 65%-80% of maximum heart rate for 6 months and brisk walking 150 minutes per week at 45%-55% of maximum heart rate for another 6 months. The program for the moderate exercise group involved brisk walking 150 minutes per week for 12 months.

Both exercise groups showed a trend towards higher levels of leisure time physical activity after 10 years compared with the nonexercise groups, although the difference was not significant.

The main limitation of the study was that incident prediabetes was not prespecified, which may have led to some confounding, the researchers noted. In addition, the participants were highly supervised for a 12-month program only. However, the results support the long-term value of physical exercise as a method of obesity management and to delay progression to type 2 diabetes in obese individuals, they said. Vigorous and moderate aerobic exercise programs could be implemented for this patient population, they concluded.

“Surprisingly, our findings demonstrated that a 12-month vigorous aerobic exercise or moderate aerobic exercise could significantly reduce the risk of incident diabetes by 50% over the 10-year follow-up,” Dr. Li said in an interview. The results suggest that physical exercise for some period of time can produce a long-term beneficial effect in prevention of type 2 diabetes, he said.

Potential barriers to the routine use of an exercise intervention in patients with obesity include the unwillingness of this population to engage in vigorous exercise, and the potential for musculoskeletal injury, said Dr. Li. In these cases, obese patients should be encouraged to pursue moderate exercise, Dr. Li said.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to examine the potential mechanism behind the effect of exercise on diabetes prevention, said Dr. Li.

Findings fill gap in long-term outcome data

The current study is important because of the long-term follow-up data, said Jill Kanaley, PhD, professor and interim chair of nutrition and exercise physiology at the University of Missouri, in an interview. “We seldom follow up on our training studies, thus it is important to see if there is any long-term impact of these interventions,” she said.

Dr. Kanaley said she was surprised to see the residual benefits of the exercise intervention 10 years later.

“We often wonder how long the impact of the exercise training will stay with someone so that they continue to exercise and watch their weight; this study seems to indicate that there is an educational component that stays with them,” she said.

The main clinical takeaway from the current study was the minimal weight gain over time, Dr. Kanaley said.

Although time may be a barrier to the routine use of an exercise intervention, patients have to realize that they can usually find the time, especially given the multiple benefits, said Dr. Kanaley. “The exercise interventions provide more benefits than just weight control and glucose levels,” she said.

“The 30-60 minutes of exercise does not have to come all at the same time,” Dr. Kanaley noted. “It could be three 15-minute bouts of exercise/physical activity to get their 45 minutes in,” she noted. Exercise does not have to be heavy vigorous exercise, even walking is beneficial, she said. For people who complain of boredom with an exercise routine, Dr. Kanaley encourages mixing it up, with activities such as different exercise classes, running, or walking on a different day of any given week.

Although the current study was conducted in China, the findings may translate to a U.S. population, Dr. Kanaley said in an interview. However, “frequently our Western diet is less healthy than the traditional Chinese diet. This may have provided an immeasurable benefit to these subjects,” although study participants did not make specific adjustments to their diets, she said.  

Additional research is needed to confirm the findings, said Dr. Kanaley. “Ideally, the study should be repeated in a population with a Western diet,” she noted.

Next steps for research include maintenance of activity

Evidence on the long-term benefits of exercise programs is limited, said Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in an interview.

“Chronic diseases such as diabetes can take years to develop, so understanding these important health outcomes requires years of follow-up. This study followed their study participants for 10 years, which gives us a nice glimpse of the long-term benefits of exercise training on diabetes prevention,” she said.

Data from previous observational studies of individuals’ current activity levels (without an intervention) suggest that adults who are more physically active have a lower risk of diabetes over time, said Dr. Paluch. However, the current study is one of the few with rigorous exercise interventions with extensive follow-up on diabetes risk, and it provides important evidence that a 12-month structured exercise program in inactive adults with obesity can result in meaningful long-term health benefits by lowering the risk of diabetes, she said.

“The individuals in the current study participated in a structured exercise program where their exercise sessions were supervised and coached,” Dr. Paluch noted. “Having a personalized coach may not be within the budget or time constraints for many people,” she said. Her message to clinicians for their patients: “When looking to start an exercise routine, identify an activity you enjoy and find feasible to fit into your existing life and schedule,” she said.

“Although this study was conducted in China, the results are meaningful for the U.S. population, as we would expect the physiological benefit of exercise to be consistent across various populations,” Dr. Paluch said. “However, there are certainly differences across countries at the individual level to the larger community-wide level that may influence a person’s ability to maintain physical activity and prevent diabetes, so replicating similar studies in other countries, including the U.S., would be of value.” 

“Additionally, we need more research on how to encourage maintenance of physical activity in the long-term, after the initial exercise program is over,” she said.

“From this current study, we cannot tease out whether diabetes risk is reduced because of the 12-month exercise intervention or the benefit is from maintaining physical activity regularly over the 10 years of follow-up, or a combination of the two,” said Dr. Paluch. Future studies should consider teasing out participants who were only active during the exercise intervention, then ceased being active vs. participants who continued with vigorous activity long-term, she said.

The study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project. The researchers, Dr. Kanaley, and Dr. Paluch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 12-month program of moderate to vigorous exercise reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by approximately 50% in adults with obesity over 10 years, according to a new analysis of a study.

“Physical exercise combined with diet restriction has been proven to be effective in prevention of diabetes. However, the long-term effect of exercise on prevention of diabetes, and the difference of exercise intensity in prevention of diabetes have not been well studied,” said corresponding author Xiaoying Li, MD, of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, in an interview.

In the research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed the results of a study of 220 adults with central obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, but no incident diabetes, randomized to a 12-month program of vigorous exercise (73 patients), moderate aerobic exercise (73 patients) or no exercise (74 patients).

A total of 208 participants completed the 1-year intervention; of these, 195 and 178 remained to provide data at 2 years and 10 years, respectively. The mean age of the participants was 53.9 years, 32.3% were male, and the mean waist circumference was 96.1 cm at baseline.

The cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes in the vigorous exercise, moderate exercise, and nonexercise groups was 2.1 per 100 person-years 1.9 per 100 person-years, and 4.1 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 10-year follow-up period. This translated to a reduction in type 2 diabetes risk of 49% in the vigorous exercise group and 53% in the moderate exercise group compared with the nonexercise group.

In addition, individuals in the vigorous and moderate exercise groups significantly reduced their HbA1c and waist circumference compared with the nonexercisers. Levels of plasma fasting glucose and weight regain were lower in both exercise groups compared with nonexercisers, but these differences were not significant.

The exercise intervention was described in a 2016 study, which was also published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That study’s purpose was to compare the effects of exercise on patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Participants were coached and supervised for their exercise programs. The program for the vigorous group involved jogging for 150 minutes per week at 65%-80% of maximum heart rate for 6 months and brisk walking 150 minutes per week at 45%-55% of maximum heart rate for another 6 months. The program for the moderate exercise group involved brisk walking 150 minutes per week for 12 months.

Both exercise groups showed a trend towards higher levels of leisure time physical activity after 10 years compared with the nonexercise groups, although the difference was not significant.

The main limitation of the study was that incident prediabetes was not prespecified, which may have led to some confounding, the researchers noted. In addition, the participants were highly supervised for a 12-month program only. However, the results support the long-term value of physical exercise as a method of obesity management and to delay progression to type 2 diabetes in obese individuals, they said. Vigorous and moderate aerobic exercise programs could be implemented for this patient population, they concluded.

“Surprisingly, our findings demonstrated that a 12-month vigorous aerobic exercise or moderate aerobic exercise could significantly reduce the risk of incident diabetes by 50% over the 10-year follow-up,” Dr. Li said in an interview. The results suggest that physical exercise for some period of time can produce a long-term beneficial effect in prevention of type 2 diabetes, he said.

Potential barriers to the routine use of an exercise intervention in patients with obesity include the unwillingness of this population to engage in vigorous exercise, and the potential for musculoskeletal injury, said Dr. Li. In these cases, obese patients should be encouraged to pursue moderate exercise, Dr. Li said.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to examine the potential mechanism behind the effect of exercise on diabetes prevention, said Dr. Li.

Findings fill gap in long-term outcome data

The current study is important because of the long-term follow-up data, said Jill Kanaley, PhD, professor and interim chair of nutrition and exercise physiology at the University of Missouri, in an interview. “We seldom follow up on our training studies, thus it is important to see if there is any long-term impact of these interventions,” she said.

Dr. Kanaley said she was surprised to see the residual benefits of the exercise intervention 10 years later.

“We often wonder how long the impact of the exercise training will stay with someone so that they continue to exercise and watch their weight; this study seems to indicate that there is an educational component that stays with them,” she said.

The main clinical takeaway from the current study was the minimal weight gain over time, Dr. Kanaley said.

Although time may be a barrier to the routine use of an exercise intervention, patients have to realize that they can usually find the time, especially given the multiple benefits, said Dr. Kanaley. “The exercise interventions provide more benefits than just weight control and glucose levels,” she said.

“The 30-60 minutes of exercise does not have to come all at the same time,” Dr. Kanaley noted. “It could be three 15-minute bouts of exercise/physical activity to get their 45 minutes in,” she noted. Exercise does not have to be heavy vigorous exercise, even walking is beneficial, she said. For people who complain of boredom with an exercise routine, Dr. Kanaley encourages mixing it up, with activities such as different exercise classes, running, or walking on a different day of any given week.

Although the current study was conducted in China, the findings may translate to a U.S. population, Dr. Kanaley said in an interview. However, “frequently our Western diet is less healthy than the traditional Chinese diet. This may have provided an immeasurable benefit to these subjects,” although study participants did not make specific adjustments to their diets, she said.  

Additional research is needed to confirm the findings, said Dr. Kanaley. “Ideally, the study should be repeated in a population with a Western diet,” she noted.

Next steps for research include maintenance of activity

Evidence on the long-term benefits of exercise programs is limited, said Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in an interview.

“Chronic diseases such as diabetes can take years to develop, so understanding these important health outcomes requires years of follow-up. This study followed their study participants for 10 years, which gives us a nice glimpse of the long-term benefits of exercise training on diabetes prevention,” she said.

Data from previous observational studies of individuals’ current activity levels (without an intervention) suggest that adults who are more physically active have a lower risk of diabetes over time, said Dr. Paluch. However, the current study is one of the few with rigorous exercise interventions with extensive follow-up on diabetes risk, and it provides important evidence that a 12-month structured exercise program in inactive adults with obesity can result in meaningful long-term health benefits by lowering the risk of diabetes, she said.

“The individuals in the current study participated in a structured exercise program where their exercise sessions were supervised and coached,” Dr. Paluch noted. “Having a personalized coach may not be within the budget or time constraints for many people,” she said. Her message to clinicians for their patients: “When looking to start an exercise routine, identify an activity you enjoy and find feasible to fit into your existing life and schedule,” she said.

“Although this study was conducted in China, the results are meaningful for the U.S. population, as we would expect the physiological benefit of exercise to be consistent across various populations,” Dr. Paluch said. “However, there are certainly differences across countries at the individual level to the larger community-wide level that may influence a person’s ability to maintain physical activity and prevent diabetes, so replicating similar studies in other countries, including the U.S., would be of value.” 

“Additionally, we need more research on how to encourage maintenance of physical activity in the long-term, after the initial exercise program is over,” she said.

“From this current study, we cannot tease out whether diabetes risk is reduced because of the 12-month exercise intervention or the benefit is from maintaining physical activity regularly over the 10 years of follow-up, or a combination of the two,” said Dr. Paluch. Future studies should consider teasing out participants who were only active during the exercise intervention, then ceased being active vs. participants who continued with vigorous activity long-term, she said.

The study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project. The researchers, Dr. Kanaley, and Dr. Paluch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 12-month program of moderate to vigorous exercise reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by approximately 50% in adults with obesity over 10 years, according to a new analysis of a study.

“Physical exercise combined with diet restriction has been proven to be effective in prevention of diabetes. However, the long-term effect of exercise on prevention of diabetes, and the difference of exercise intensity in prevention of diabetes have not been well studied,” said corresponding author Xiaoying Li, MD, of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, in an interview.

In the research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed the results of a study of 220 adults with central obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, but no incident diabetes, randomized to a 12-month program of vigorous exercise (73 patients), moderate aerobic exercise (73 patients) or no exercise (74 patients).

A total of 208 participants completed the 1-year intervention; of these, 195 and 178 remained to provide data at 2 years and 10 years, respectively. The mean age of the participants was 53.9 years, 32.3% were male, and the mean waist circumference was 96.1 cm at baseline.

The cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes in the vigorous exercise, moderate exercise, and nonexercise groups was 2.1 per 100 person-years 1.9 per 100 person-years, and 4.1 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 10-year follow-up period. This translated to a reduction in type 2 diabetes risk of 49% in the vigorous exercise group and 53% in the moderate exercise group compared with the nonexercise group.

In addition, individuals in the vigorous and moderate exercise groups significantly reduced their HbA1c and waist circumference compared with the nonexercisers. Levels of plasma fasting glucose and weight regain were lower in both exercise groups compared with nonexercisers, but these differences were not significant.

The exercise intervention was described in a 2016 study, which was also published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That study’s purpose was to compare the effects of exercise on patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Participants were coached and supervised for their exercise programs. The program for the vigorous group involved jogging for 150 minutes per week at 65%-80% of maximum heart rate for 6 months and brisk walking 150 minutes per week at 45%-55% of maximum heart rate for another 6 months. The program for the moderate exercise group involved brisk walking 150 minutes per week for 12 months.

Both exercise groups showed a trend towards higher levels of leisure time physical activity after 10 years compared with the nonexercise groups, although the difference was not significant.

The main limitation of the study was that incident prediabetes was not prespecified, which may have led to some confounding, the researchers noted. In addition, the participants were highly supervised for a 12-month program only. However, the results support the long-term value of physical exercise as a method of obesity management and to delay progression to type 2 diabetes in obese individuals, they said. Vigorous and moderate aerobic exercise programs could be implemented for this patient population, they concluded.

“Surprisingly, our findings demonstrated that a 12-month vigorous aerobic exercise or moderate aerobic exercise could significantly reduce the risk of incident diabetes by 50% over the 10-year follow-up,” Dr. Li said in an interview. The results suggest that physical exercise for some period of time can produce a long-term beneficial effect in prevention of type 2 diabetes, he said.

Potential barriers to the routine use of an exercise intervention in patients with obesity include the unwillingness of this population to engage in vigorous exercise, and the potential for musculoskeletal injury, said Dr. Li. In these cases, obese patients should be encouraged to pursue moderate exercise, Dr. Li said.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to examine the potential mechanism behind the effect of exercise on diabetes prevention, said Dr. Li.

Findings fill gap in long-term outcome data

The current study is important because of the long-term follow-up data, said Jill Kanaley, PhD, professor and interim chair of nutrition and exercise physiology at the University of Missouri, in an interview. “We seldom follow up on our training studies, thus it is important to see if there is any long-term impact of these interventions,” she said.

Dr. Kanaley said she was surprised to see the residual benefits of the exercise intervention 10 years later.

“We often wonder how long the impact of the exercise training will stay with someone so that they continue to exercise and watch their weight; this study seems to indicate that there is an educational component that stays with them,” she said.

The main clinical takeaway from the current study was the minimal weight gain over time, Dr. Kanaley said.

Although time may be a barrier to the routine use of an exercise intervention, patients have to realize that they can usually find the time, especially given the multiple benefits, said Dr. Kanaley. “The exercise interventions provide more benefits than just weight control and glucose levels,” she said.

“The 30-60 minutes of exercise does not have to come all at the same time,” Dr. Kanaley noted. “It could be three 15-minute bouts of exercise/physical activity to get their 45 minutes in,” she noted. Exercise does not have to be heavy vigorous exercise, even walking is beneficial, she said. For people who complain of boredom with an exercise routine, Dr. Kanaley encourages mixing it up, with activities such as different exercise classes, running, or walking on a different day of any given week.

Although the current study was conducted in China, the findings may translate to a U.S. population, Dr. Kanaley said in an interview. However, “frequently our Western diet is less healthy than the traditional Chinese diet. This may have provided an immeasurable benefit to these subjects,” although study participants did not make specific adjustments to their diets, she said.  

Additional research is needed to confirm the findings, said Dr. Kanaley. “Ideally, the study should be repeated in a population with a Western diet,” she noted.

Next steps for research include maintenance of activity

Evidence on the long-term benefits of exercise programs is limited, said Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in an interview.

“Chronic diseases such as diabetes can take years to develop, so understanding these important health outcomes requires years of follow-up. This study followed their study participants for 10 years, which gives us a nice glimpse of the long-term benefits of exercise training on diabetes prevention,” she said.

Data from previous observational studies of individuals’ current activity levels (without an intervention) suggest that adults who are more physically active have a lower risk of diabetes over time, said Dr. Paluch. However, the current study is one of the few with rigorous exercise interventions with extensive follow-up on diabetes risk, and it provides important evidence that a 12-month structured exercise program in inactive adults with obesity can result in meaningful long-term health benefits by lowering the risk of diabetes, she said.

“The individuals in the current study participated in a structured exercise program where their exercise sessions were supervised and coached,” Dr. Paluch noted. “Having a personalized coach may not be within the budget or time constraints for many people,” she said. Her message to clinicians for their patients: “When looking to start an exercise routine, identify an activity you enjoy and find feasible to fit into your existing life and schedule,” she said.

“Although this study was conducted in China, the results are meaningful for the U.S. population, as we would expect the physiological benefit of exercise to be consistent across various populations,” Dr. Paluch said. “However, there are certainly differences across countries at the individual level to the larger community-wide level that may influence a person’s ability to maintain physical activity and prevent diabetes, so replicating similar studies in other countries, including the U.S., would be of value.” 

“Additionally, we need more research on how to encourage maintenance of physical activity in the long-term, after the initial exercise program is over,” she said.

“From this current study, we cannot tease out whether diabetes risk is reduced because of the 12-month exercise intervention or the benefit is from maintaining physical activity regularly over the 10 years of follow-up, or a combination of the two,” said Dr. Paluch. Future studies should consider teasing out participants who were only active during the exercise intervention, then ceased being active vs. participants who continued with vigorous activity long-term, she said.

The study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project. The researchers, Dr. Kanaley, and Dr. Paluch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For a patient who needs a liver, living donation offers an alternative to staying on a list of more than 10,000 people waiting for a transplant. But what happens when your donor is not a match? To expand the number of living liver donations in the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has launched the first national paired liver donation pilot program.

“It’s an exciting time to be caring for patients who need liver transplants,” Benjamin Samstein, MD, chief of liver transplantation at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He is the principal investigator for the UNOS pilot program. “I do believe it is within our grasp to make sure that nobody dies while waiting for an organ,” he said.

The initiative involves 15 U.S. transplant centers. So far, one recipient-donor pair has enrolled in the program. The pilot program has three main goals: Increase access to living donor transplants; increase access to transplants earlier, when recipients are in better health; and work out how to create and sustain a national program.
 

What is paired donation?

In 2020, 1,095 people died while waiting for a liver transplant, according to a report from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) – a public-private partnership that includes more than 250 transplant centers and 50 organ procurement organizations across the country.

Most liver transplants involve deceased donors. One way to improve access to lifesaving transplants is through living donation, by which a healthy individual donates part of his or her liver. Someone can participate in nondirected or “altruistic” donation, in which someone donates a liver to someone they don’t know, or they can donate to a specific individual (usually a blood relative or a spouse).

With living liver donation, someone may receive a liver earlier, before getting sick enough to be given priority on the wait-list for deceased donation. Because the recipients are in better health, they may have an easier time recovering from the surgery, Ruthanne Leishman, who manages paired donation programs at UNOS, said in an interview.

In some cases, an individual will want to donate an organ to a specific person, but testing reveals that the two would not be a good match. Paired donation allows incompatible donors and recipients to find matches with other incompatible pairs. Each donor matches with the other pairs’ recipient, so the organs are essentially swapped or exchanged between the two pairs.

“People who want to donate get excited about the fact that they are not just helping their loved one but they’re also helping somebody else,” Ms. Leishman said.

Paired kidney donation programs have been running since 2002, but paired liver donation is relatively new. Since the first U.S. living-donor liver transplant in 1989, the procedure has become safer and is a viable alternative to deceased liver donation. A growing number of living donor programs are popping up at transplant centers across the country.

Still, living-donor liver donation makes up a small percentage of the liver transplants that are performed every year. In 2022, 603 living-donor liver transplants were performed in the United States, compared to 8,925 liver transplants from deceased donors, according to OPTN data. Dr. Samstein estimates a couple dozen paired liver exchanges may have been performed in the United States over the past few years within individual hospital systems. A goal of this pilot program, along with increasing access to liver transplants, is to see whether paired liver donation works on a national level, Ms. Leishman said.
 

Challenges to building a national program

There are several notable differences between living donor kidney transplants and living donor liver transplants. For example, living donor liver transplant is a more complicated surgery and poses greater risk to the donor. According to the OPTN 2020 Annual Report, from 2015 to 2019, the rehospitalization rate for living liver donors was twice that of living kidney donors up to 6 weeks after transplant (4.7% vs. 2.4%). One year post transplant, the cumulative rehospitalization rate was 11.0% for living liver donors and 4.8% for living kidney donors.

The risk of dying because of living donation is also higher for liver donors compared to kidney donors. The National Kidney Association states that the odds of dying during kidney donation are about 3 in 100,000, while estimates for risk of death for living liver donors range from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000. But some of these estimates are from 10 or more years ago, and outcomes have likely improved, said Whitney Jackson, MD, medical director of living donor liver transplant at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora. Her program is participating in the UNOS pilot.

More recent data from OPTN provides some idea of risk: Of 3,967 liver donors who donated between March 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2022, three deaths were reported within 30 days of transplant. However, the causes of death were not specified and therefore may be unrelated to the surgery. By comparison, of 74,555 kidney donors during that date range, 10 deaths were reported at 30 days post surgery.

In addition to a more complex surgery, surgeons also have a smaller time window in which to transplant a liver than than they do to transplant a kidney. A kidney can remain viable in cold storage for 24-36 hours, and it can be transported via commercial airlines cross country. Livers have to be transplanted within 8-12 hours, according to the OPTN website. For living donation, the graft needs to be transplanted within about 4 hours, Dr. Samstein noted; this poses a logistical challenge for a national organ paired donation program.

“We worked around that with the idea that we would move the donor rather than the organ,” he said. The program will require a donor (and a support person) to travel to the recipient’s transplant center where the surgery will be performed. While 3 of the 15 pilot paired donation transplant centers are in New York City, the other programs are scattered across the country, meaning a donor may have to fly to a different city to undergo surgery.

Including the preoperative evaluation, meeting the surgical team, the surgery itself, and follow-up, the donor could stay for about a month. The program offers up to $10,000 of financial assistance for travel expenses (for both the donor and support person), as well as lost wages and dependent care (for the donor only). Health insurance coverage will also be provided by the pilot program, in partnership with the American Foundation for Donation and Transplant.

The program requires that transplant candidates (the recipients) be at least 12 years old, be on the waiting list for deceased liver donation at one of the pilot’s transplant centers, and have a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 25 or less. All potential donors must be 18 years or older and must undergo a medical and psychosocial evaluation. Nondirected donors can register with the program, and they will be paired with a candidate on the liver transplant waiting list at the same transplant center.

The 1-year pilot program is set to begin when the program conducts its first match run – an algorithm will help match pairs who are enrolled in the program. About five to seven enrolled pairs would be ideal for the first match run, a UNOS spokesperson said. It is possible that the 1-year pilot program could run without performing any paired transplants, but that’s unlikely if multiple pairs are enrolled in the system, the spokesperson said. At the time of this story’s publication, the one enrolled pair are a mother and daughter who are registered at the UCHealth Transplant Center in Colorado.
 

Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?

While the UNOS pilot program offers financial assistance for expenses related to liver donation, some transplant surgeons are skeptical about the potential travel component of the pilot program.

The pilot program requires that the donor bring one support person if there is a need to travel for the surgery, but undergoing major abdominal surgery from a transplant team they are not familiar with may be stressful, said Peter Abt, MD, a transplant surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “That’s a big ask,” he said, “and I’m not sure many potential donors would be up to that.”

John Roberts, MD, a transplant surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the travel component may put additional stress on the donor, but “if it’s the only way for the recipient to get a transplant, then the donor might be motivated,” he added.

Dr. Jackson remains optimistic. “Our experience so far has been that, yes, some people have been hesitant for things like traveling, but a lot of people who seem to be genuinely dedicated to the idea of living donation have been very enthusiastic,” she noted.

Dr. Leishman agreed that the travel aspect appears to one of the greatest barriers to participants entering the program but noted that a goal of the pilot program is to understand better what works - and what doesn’t – when considering a liver paired donation program on a national scale. “[Our] steering committee has put together a really nice framework that they think will work, but they know it’s not perfect. We’re going to have to tweak it along the way,” she said.

More information on the paired liver donation pilot program can be found on the UNOS website.

The sources interviewed for this article reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 2/15/23.

For a patient who needs a liver, living donation offers an alternative to staying on a list of more than 10,000 people waiting for a transplant. But what happens when your donor is not a match? To expand the number of living liver donations in the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has launched the first national paired liver donation pilot program.

“It’s an exciting time to be caring for patients who need liver transplants,” Benjamin Samstein, MD, chief of liver transplantation at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He is the principal investigator for the UNOS pilot program. “I do believe it is within our grasp to make sure that nobody dies while waiting for an organ,” he said.

The initiative involves 15 U.S. transplant centers. So far, one recipient-donor pair has enrolled in the program. The pilot program has three main goals: Increase access to living donor transplants; increase access to transplants earlier, when recipients are in better health; and work out how to create and sustain a national program.
 

What is paired donation?

In 2020, 1,095 people died while waiting for a liver transplant, according to a report from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) – a public-private partnership that includes more than 250 transplant centers and 50 organ procurement organizations across the country.

Most liver transplants involve deceased donors. One way to improve access to lifesaving transplants is through living donation, by which a healthy individual donates part of his or her liver. Someone can participate in nondirected or “altruistic” donation, in which someone donates a liver to someone they don’t know, or they can donate to a specific individual (usually a blood relative or a spouse).

With living liver donation, someone may receive a liver earlier, before getting sick enough to be given priority on the wait-list for deceased donation. Because the recipients are in better health, they may have an easier time recovering from the surgery, Ruthanne Leishman, who manages paired donation programs at UNOS, said in an interview.

In some cases, an individual will want to donate an organ to a specific person, but testing reveals that the two would not be a good match. Paired donation allows incompatible donors and recipients to find matches with other incompatible pairs. Each donor matches with the other pairs’ recipient, so the organs are essentially swapped or exchanged between the two pairs.

“People who want to donate get excited about the fact that they are not just helping their loved one but they’re also helping somebody else,” Ms. Leishman said.

Paired kidney donation programs have been running since 2002, but paired liver donation is relatively new. Since the first U.S. living-donor liver transplant in 1989, the procedure has become safer and is a viable alternative to deceased liver donation. A growing number of living donor programs are popping up at transplant centers across the country.

Still, living-donor liver donation makes up a small percentage of the liver transplants that are performed every year. In 2022, 603 living-donor liver transplants were performed in the United States, compared to 8,925 liver transplants from deceased donors, according to OPTN data. Dr. Samstein estimates a couple dozen paired liver exchanges may have been performed in the United States over the past few years within individual hospital systems. A goal of this pilot program, along with increasing access to liver transplants, is to see whether paired liver donation works on a national level, Ms. Leishman said.
 

Challenges to building a national program

There are several notable differences between living donor kidney transplants and living donor liver transplants. For example, living donor liver transplant is a more complicated surgery and poses greater risk to the donor. According to the OPTN 2020 Annual Report, from 2015 to 2019, the rehospitalization rate for living liver donors was twice that of living kidney donors up to 6 weeks after transplant (4.7% vs. 2.4%). One year post transplant, the cumulative rehospitalization rate was 11.0% for living liver donors and 4.8% for living kidney donors.

The risk of dying because of living donation is also higher for liver donors compared to kidney donors. The National Kidney Association states that the odds of dying during kidney donation are about 3 in 100,000, while estimates for risk of death for living liver donors range from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000. But some of these estimates are from 10 or more years ago, and outcomes have likely improved, said Whitney Jackson, MD, medical director of living donor liver transplant at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora. Her program is participating in the UNOS pilot.

More recent data from OPTN provides some idea of risk: Of 3,967 liver donors who donated between March 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2022, three deaths were reported within 30 days of transplant. However, the causes of death were not specified and therefore may be unrelated to the surgery. By comparison, of 74,555 kidney donors during that date range, 10 deaths were reported at 30 days post surgery.

In addition to a more complex surgery, surgeons also have a smaller time window in which to transplant a liver than than they do to transplant a kidney. A kidney can remain viable in cold storage for 24-36 hours, and it can be transported via commercial airlines cross country. Livers have to be transplanted within 8-12 hours, according to the OPTN website. For living donation, the graft needs to be transplanted within about 4 hours, Dr. Samstein noted; this poses a logistical challenge for a national organ paired donation program.

“We worked around that with the idea that we would move the donor rather than the organ,” he said. The program will require a donor (and a support person) to travel to the recipient’s transplant center where the surgery will be performed. While 3 of the 15 pilot paired donation transplant centers are in New York City, the other programs are scattered across the country, meaning a donor may have to fly to a different city to undergo surgery.

Including the preoperative evaluation, meeting the surgical team, the surgery itself, and follow-up, the donor could stay for about a month. The program offers up to $10,000 of financial assistance for travel expenses (for both the donor and support person), as well as lost wages and dependent care (for the donor only). Health insurance coverage will also be provided by the pilot program, in partnership with the American Foundation for Donation and Transplant.

The program requires that transplant candidates (the recipients) be at least 12 years old, be on the waiting list for deceased liver donation at one of the pilot’s transplant centers, and have a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 25 or less. All potential donors must be 18 years or older and must undergo a medical and psychosocial evaluation. Nondirected donors can register with the program, and they will be paired with a candidate on the liver transplant waiting list at the same transplant center.

The 1-year pilot program is set to begin when the program conducts its first match run – an algorithm will help match pairs who are enrolled in the program. About five to seven enrolled pairs would be ideal for the first match run, a UNOS spokesperson said. It is possible that the 1-year pilot program could run without performing any paired transplants, but that’s unlikely if multiple pairs are enrolled in the system, the spokesperson said. At the time of this story’s publication, the one enrolled pair are a mother and daughter who are registered at the UCHealth Transplant Center in Colorado.
 

Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?

While the UNOS pilot program offers financial assistance for expenses related to liver donation, some transplant surgeons are skeptical about the potential travel component of the pilot program.

The pilot program requires that the donor bring one support person if there is a need to travel for the surgery, but undergoing major abdominal surgery from a transplant team they are not familiar with may be stressful, said Peter Abt, MD, a transplant surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “That’s a big ask,” he said, “and I’m not sure many potential donors would be up to that.”

John Roberts, MD, a transplant surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the travel component may put additional stress on the donor, but “if it’s the only way for the recipient to get a transplant, then the donor might be motivated,” he added.

Dr. Jackson remains optimistic. “Our experience so far has been that, yes, some people have been hesitant for things like traveling, but a lot of people who seem to be genuinely dedicated to the idea of living donation have been very enthusiastic,” she noted.

Dr. Leishman agreed that the travel aspect appears to one of the greatest barriers to participants entering the program but noted that a goal of the pilot program is to understand better what works - and what doesn’t – when considering a liver paired donation program on a national scale. “[Our] steering committee has put together a really nice framework that they think will work, but they know it’s not perfect. We’re going to have to tweak it along the way,” she said.

More information on the paired liver donation pilot program can be found on the UNOS website.

The sources interviewed for this article reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 2/15/23.

For a patient who needs a liver, living donation offers an alternative to staying on a list of more than 10,000 people waiting for a transplant. But what happens when your donor is not a match? To expand the number of living liver donations in the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has launched the first national paired liver donation pilot program.

“It’s an exciting time to be caring for patients who need liver transplants,” Benjamin Samstein, MD, chief of liver transplantation at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He is the principal investigator for the UNOS pilot program. “I do believe it is within our grasp to make sure that nobody dies while waiting for an organ,” he said.

The initiative involves 15 U.S. transplant centers. So far, one recipient-donor pair has enrolled in the program. The pilot program has three main goals: Increase access to living donor transplants; increase access to transplants earlier, when recipients are in better health; and work out how to create and sustain a national program.
 

What is paired donation?

In 2020, 1,095 people died while waiting for a liver transplant, according to a report from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) – a public-private partnership that includes more than 250 transplant centers and 50 organ procurement organizations across the country.

Most liver transplants involve deceased donors. One way to improve access to lifesaving transplants is through living donation, by which a healthy individual donates part of his or her liver. Someone can participate in nondirected or “altruistic” donation, in which someone donates a liver to someone they don’t know, or they can donate to a specific individual (usually a blood relative or a spouse).

With living liver donation, someone may receive a liver earlier, before getting sick enough to be given priority on the wait-list for deceased donation. Because the recipients are in better health, they may have an easier time recovering from the surgery, Ruthanne Leishman, who manages paired donation programs at UNOS, said in an interview.

In some cases, an individual will want to donate an organ to a specific person, but testing reveals that the two would not be a good match. Paired donation allows incompatible donors and recipients to find matches with other incompatible pairs. Each donor matches with the other pairs’ recipient, so the organs are essentially swapped or exchanged between the two pairs.

“People who want to donate get excited about the fact that they are not just helping their loved one but they’re also helping somebody else,” Ms. Leishman said.

Paired kidney donation programs have been running since 2002, but paired liver donation is relatively new. Since the first U.S. living-donor liver transplant in 1989, the procedure has become safer and is a viable alternative to deceased liver donation. A growing number of living donor programs are popping up at transplant centers across the country.

Still, living-donor liver donation makes up a small percentage of the liver transplants that are performed every year. In 2022, 603 living-donor liver transplants were performed in the United States, compared to 8,925 liver transplants from deceased donors, according to OPTN data. Dr. Samstein estimates a couple dozen paired liver exchanges may have been performed in the United States over the past few years within individual hospital systems. A goal of this pilot program, along with increasing access to liver transplants, is to see whether paired liver donation works on a national level, Ms. Leishman said.
 

Challenges to building a national program

There are several notable differences between living donor kidney transplants and living donor liver transplants. For example, living donor liver transplant is a more complicated surgery and poses greater risk to the donor. According to the OPTN 2020 Annual Report, from 2015 to 2019, the rehospitalization rate for living liver donors was twice that of living kidney donors up to 6 weeks after transplant (4.7% vs. 2.4%). One year post transplant, the cumulative rehospitalization rate was 11.0% for living liver donors and 4.8% for living kidney donors.

The risk of dying because of living donation is also higher for liver donors compared to kidney donors. The National Kidney Association states that the odds of dying during kidney donation are about 3 in 100,000, while estimates for risk of death for living liver donors range from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000. But some of these estimates are from 10 or more years ago, and outcomes have likely improved, said Whitney Jackson, MD, medical director of living donor liver transplant at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora. Her program is participating in the UNOS pilot.

More recent data from OPTN provides some idea of risk: Of 3,967 liver donors who donated between March 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2022, three deaths were reported within 30 days of transplant. However, the causes of death were not specified and therefore may be unrelated to the surgery. By comparison, of 74,555 kidney donors during that date range, 10 deaths were reported at 30 days post surgery.

In addition to a more complex surgery, surgeons also have a smaller time window in which to transplant a liver than than they do to transplant a kidney. A kidney can remain viable in cold storage for 24-36 hours, and it can be transported via commercial airlines cross country. Livers have to be transplanted within 8-12 hours, according to the OPTN website. For living donation, the graft needs to be transplanted within about 4 hours, Dr. Samstein noted; this poses a logistical challenge for a national organ paired donation program.

“We worked around that with the idea that we would move the donor rather than the organ,” he said. The program will require a donor (and a support person) to travel to the recipient’s transplant center where the surgery will be performed. While 3 of the 15 pilot paired donation transplant centers are in New York City, the other programs are scattered across the country, meaning a donor may have to fly to a different city to undergo surgery.

Including the preoperative evaluation, meeting the surgical team, the surgery itself, and follow-up, the donor could stay for about a month. The program offers up to $10,000 of financial assistance for travel expenses (for both the donor and support person), as well as lost wages and dependent care (for the donor only). Health insurance coverage will also be provided by the pilot program, in partnership with the American Foundation for Donation and Transplant.

The program requires that transplant candidates (the recipients) be at least 12 years old, be on the waiting list for deceased liver donation at one of the pilot’s transplant centers, and have a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 25 or less. All potential donors must be 18 years or older and must undergo a medical and psychosocial evaluation. Nondirected donors can register with the program, and they will be paired with a candidate on the liver transplant waiting list at the same transplant center.

The 1-year pilot program is set to begin when the program conducts its first match run – an algorithm will help match pairs who are enrolled in the program. About five to seven enrolled pairs would be ideal for the first match run, a UNOS spokesperson said. It is possible that the 1-year pilot program could run without performing any paired transplants, but that’s unlikely if multiple pairs are enrolled in the system, the spokesperson said. At the time of this story’s publication, the one enrolled pair are a mother and daughter who are registered at the UCHealth Transplant Center in Colorado.
 

Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?

While the UNOS pilot program offers financial assistance for expenses related to liver donation, some transplant surgeons are skeptical about the potential travel component of the pilot program.

The pilot program requires that the donor bring one support person if there is a need to travel for the surgery, but undergoing major abdominal surgery from a transplant team they are not familiar with may be stressful, said Peter Abt, MD, a transplant surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “That’s a big ask,” he said, “and I’m not sure many potential donors would be up to that.”

John Roberts, MD, a transplant surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the travel component may put additional stress on the donor, but “if it’s the only way for the recipient to get a transplant, then the donor might be motivated,” he added.

Dr. Jackson remains optimistic. “Our experience so far has been that, yes, some people have been hesitant for things like traveling, but a lot of people who seem to be genuinely dedicated to the idea of living donation have been very enthusiastic,” she noted.

Dr. Leishman agreed that the travel aspect appears to one of the greatest barriers to participants entering the program but noted that a goal of the pilot program is to understand better what works - and what doesn’t – when considering a liver paired donation program on a national scale. “[Our] steering committee has put together a really nice framework that they think will work, but they know it’s not perfect. We’re going to have to tweak it along the way,” she said.

More information on the paired liver donation pilot program can be found on the UNOS website.

The sources interviewed for this article reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 2/15/23.

The FibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase (FAST) score shows high sensitivity and specificity for noninvasive identification of patients with fibrotic nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The FAST score had an overall sensitivity of 89% and an overall specificity of 89% with a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher, respectively, Federico Ravaioli, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Modena & Reggio Emilia in Italy, and colleagues, wrote in Gut.

“These results could be used in clinical screening studies to efficiently identify patients at risk of progressive NASH, who should be referred for a conclusive liver biopsy, and who might benefit from treatment with emerging pharmacotherapies,” the authors wrote.

The research team analyzed 12 observational studies with 5,835 participants with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) between February 2020 and April 2022. They included articles that reported data for the calculation of sensitivity and specificity of the FAST score for identifying adult patients with fibrotic NASH based on a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher. Fibrotic NASH was defined as patients with NASH plus a NAFLD activity score of 4 or greater and fibrosis stage 2 or higher.

The pooled prevalence of fibrotic NASH was 28%. The mean age of participants ranged from 40 to 60, and the proportion of men ranged from 23% to 91%. The mean body mass index ranged from 23 kg/m² to 41 kg/m², with a prevalence of obesity ranging from 23% to 100% and preexisting type 2 diabetes ranging from 18% to 60%. Nine studies included patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from tertiary care liver centers, and three studies included patients from bariatric clinics or bariatric surgery centers with available liver biopsy data.

Fibrotic NASH was ruled out in 2,723 patients (45.5%) by a FAST score of .35 or lower and ruled in 1,287 patients (21.5%) by a FAST score of .67 or higher. In addition, 1,979 patients (33%) had a FAST score in the so-called “grey” intermediate zone.

Overall, the FAST score pooled sensitivity was 89%, and the pooled specificity was 89%. By the rule-out cutoff of .35, the sensitivity was 89% and the specificity was 56%. By the rule-in cutoff of .67, the sensitivity was 46% and the specificity was 89%.

At an expected prevalence of fibrotic NASH of 30%, the negative predictive value of the .35 cutoff was 92%, and the positive predictive value of the .67 cutoff was 65%. Across the included studies, the negative predictive value ranged from 77% to 98%, and the positive predictive value ranged from 32% to 87%.

For the rule-in cutoff of .67, at a pretest probability of 10%, 20%, 26.3%, and 30%, there was an increasing likelihood of detecting fibrotic NASH by FAST score at 32%, 52%, 60%, and 65%, respectively. For the rule-out cutoff of .35, at the same pretest probability levels, the likelihood of someone not having fibrotic NASH and not being detected by FAST score was 2%, 5%, 7%, and 8%, respectively.

In subgroup analyses, the sensitivity of the rule-out cutoff was significantly affected by the study design. In addition, age and BMI above the median both affected pooled sensitivity but not pooled specificity. On the other hand, the rule-in cutoff was significantly affected by study design, BMI above the median, and presence of preexisting type 2 diabetes above the median.

“Today, we stand on the cusp of a revolutionary time to treat NASH. This is due in part to the fact that many exciting, novel precision metabolic treatments are in the pipeline to combat this disease,” said Brian DeBosch, MD, PhD, associate professor of cell biology and physiology at the Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with this study.

The FibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase (FAST) score shows high sensitivity and specificity for noninvasive identification of patients with fibrotic nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The FAST score had an overall sensitivity of 89% and an overall specificity of 89% with a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher, respectively, Federico Ravaioli, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Modena & Reggio Emilia in Italy, and colleagues, wrote in Gut.

“These results could be used in clinical screening studies to efficiently identify patients at risk of progressive NASH, who should be referred for a conclusive liver biopsy, and who might benefit from treatment with emerging pharmacotherapies,” the authors wrote.

The research team analyzed 12 observational studies with 5,835 participants with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) between February 2020 and April 2022. They included articles that reported data for the calculation of sensitivity and specificity of the FAST score for identifying adult patients with fibrotic NASH based on a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher. Fibrotic NASH was defined as patients with NASH plus a NAFLD activity score of 4 or greater and fibrosis stage 2 or higher.

The pooled prevalence of fibrotic NASH was 28%. The mean age of participants ranged from 40 to 60, and the proportion of men ranged from 23% to 91%. The mean body mass index ranged from 23 kg/m² to 41 kg/m², with a prevalence of obesity ranging from 23% to 100% and preexisting type 2 diabetes ranging from 18% to 60%. Nine studies included patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from tertiary care liver centers, and three studies included patients from bariatric clinics or bariatric surgery centers with available liver biopsy data.

Fibrotic NASH was ruled out in 2,723 patients (45.5%) by a FAST score of .35 or lower and ruled in 1,287 patients (21.5%) by a FAST score of .67 or higher. In addition, 1,979 patients (33%) had a FAST score in the so-called “grey” intermediate zone.

Overall, the FAST score pooled sensitivity was 89%, and the pooled specificity was 89%. By the rule-out cutoff of .35, the sensitivity was 89% and the specificity was 56%. By the rule-in cutoff of .67, the sensitivity was 46% and the specificity was 89%.

At an expected prevalence of fibrotic NASH of 30%, the negative predictive value of the .35 cutoff was 92%, and the positive predictive value of the .67 cutoff was 65%. Across the included studies, the negative predictive value ranged from 77% to 98%, and the positive predictive value ranged from 32% to 87%.

For the rule-in cutoff of .67, at a pretest probability of 10%, 20%, 26.3%, and 30%, there was an increasing likelihood of detecting fibrotic NASH by FAST score at 32%, 52%, 60%, and 65%, respectively. For the rule-out cutoff of .35, at the same pretest probability levels, the likelihood of someone not having fibrotic NASH and not being detected by FAST score was 2%, 5%, 7%, and 8%, respectively.

In subgroup analyses, the sensitivity of the rule-out cutoff was significantly affected by the study design. In addition, age and BMI above the median both affected pooled sensitivity but not pooled specificity. On the other hand, the rule-in cutoff was significantly affected by study design, BMI above the median, and presence of preexisting type 2 diabetes above the median.

“Today, we stand on the cusp of a revolutionary time to treat NASH. This is due in part to the fact that many exciting, novel precision metabolic treatments are in the pipeline to combat this disease,” said Brian DeBosch, MD, PhD, associate professor of cell biology and physiology at the Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with this study.

The FibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase (FAST) score shows high sensitivity and specificity for noninvasive identification of patients with fibrotic nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The FAST score had an overall sensitivity of 89% and an overall specificity of 89% with a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher, respectively, Federico Ravaioli, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Modena & Reggio Emilia in Italy, and colleagues, wrote in Gut.

“These results could be used in clinical screening studies to efficiently identify patients at risk of progressive NASH, who should be referred for a conclusive liver biopsy, and who might benefit from treatment with emerging pharmacotherapies,” the authors wrote.

The research team analyzed 12 observational studies with 5,835 participants with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) between February 2020 and April 2022. They included articles that reported data for the calculation of sensitivity and specificity of the FAST score for identifying adult patients with fibrotic NASH based on a defined rule-out cutoff of .35 or lower and rule-in cutoff of .67 or higher. Fibrotic NASH was defined as patients with NASH plus a NAFLD activity score of 4 or greater and fibrosis stage 2 or higher.

The pooled prevalence of fibrotic NASH was 28%. The mean age of participants ranged from 40 to 60, and the proportion of men ranged from 23% to 91%. The mean body mass index ranged from 23 kg/m² to 41 kg/m², with a prevalence of obesity ranging from 23% to 100% and preexisting type 2 diabetes ranging from 18% to 60%. Nine studies included patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from tertiary care liver centers, and three studies included patients from bariatric clinics or bariatric surgery centers with available liver biopsy data.

Fibrotic NASH was ruled out in 2,723 patients (45.5%) by a FAST score of .35 or lower and ruled in 1,287 patients (21.5%) by a FAST score of .67 or higher. In addition, 1,979 patients (33%) had a FAST score in the so-called “grey” intermediate zone.

Overall, the FAST score pooled sensitivity was 89%, and the pooled specificity was 89%. By the rule-out cutoff of .35, the sensitivity was 89% and the specificity was 56%. By the rule-in cutoff of .67, the sensitivity was 46% and the specificity was 89%.

At an expected prevalence of fibrotic NASH of 30%, the negative predictive value of the .35 cutoff was 92%, and the positive predictive value of the .67 cutoff was 65%. Across the included studies, the negative predictive value ranged from 77% to 98%, and the positive predictive value ranged from 32% to 87%.

For the rule-in cutoff of .67, at a pretest probability of 10%, 20%, 26.3%, and 30%, there was an increasing likelihood of detecting fibrotic NASH by FAST score at 32%, 52%, 60%, and 65%, respectively. For the rule-out cutoff of .35, at the same pretest probability levels, the likelihood of someone not having fibrotic NASH and not being detected by FAST score was 2%, 5%, 7%, and 8%, respectively.

In subgroup analyses, the sensitivity of the rule-out cutoff was significantly affected by the study design. In addition, age and BMI above the median both affected pooled sensitivity but not pooled specificity. On the other hand, the rule-in cutoff was significantly affected by study design, BMI above the median, and presence of preexisting type 2 diabetes above the median.

“Today, we stand on the cusp of a revolutionary time to treat NASH. This is due in part to the fact that many exciting, novel precision metabolic treatments are in the pipeline to combat this disease,” said Brian DeBosch, MD, PhD, associate professor of cell biology and physiology at the Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with this study.

New research suggests that coffee’s benefits for reducing severity of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) stem from more than just caffeine.

Increased intake of both regular and decaffeinated coffee was significantly associated with a reduced severity of NAFLD in the study, published in Nutrients. The study participants included 156 overweight adults, most of whom had type 2 diabetes.

A confluence of factors including diet and lifestyle changes and increased obesity have contributed to a rise in type 2 diabetes and of NAFLD, Margarida Coelho, of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal), and colleagues wrote.

Previous studies support an association between coffee and protection against NAFLD, but the roles of the caffeine and noncaffeine components of coffee have not been examined, corresponding author John Griffith Jones, PhD, also of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra, said in an interview.

“There have been previous studies indicating a link between coffee intake and NAFLD amelioration, but these were entirely based on self-reporting questionnaire data, but the main limitation of this approach is that it does not provide any information on which components of coffee confer the beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “The development of new analytical techniques allowing reliable profiling of coffee metabolites in urine allowed this limitation to be addressed.”

Dr. Jones and associates examined the relationship between consumption of regular and decaffeinated coffee on the fatty liver index (FLI), a validated predictor of NAFLD. They measured coffee intake of 156 overweight adults, 135 of whom had type 2 diabetes. The study population included 76 women and 80 men with a mean age of 59 years and a mean body mass index of 29 kg/m².

The participants reported coffee intake via questionnaires, and 98 participants (all with type 2 diabetes) also provided urine samples for measurement of caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites (the products of the body breaking down coffee). NAFLD was assessed using the FLI and a scanning measure of fibrosis.

Overall, no associations appeared between self-reported coffee intake and NAFLD measures. However, urine caffeine metabolite levels were significantly higher among individuals with no liver fibrosis, compared with those with fibrosis, and noncaffeine metabolites showed a significant negative association with FLI measures.

In a multiple regression analysis of 89 individuals with type 2 diabetes, both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites were negatively associated with FLI, which suggests less severe NAFLD, the researchers noted.

Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the findings suggest that other noncaffeine coffee components such as polyphenols may reduce the risk of fibrosis by reducing oxidative stress on the liver, they said.
 

Benefits beyond caffeine

“The main surprise of the study was that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites had beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “We had anticipated caffeine, based on its well-known effects on inhibiting liver fibrosis, but the effects of other components were less well described.”

Clinicians can encourage their patients with type 2 diabetes who drink coffee to continue to do so within a normal range (up to three to four cups per day) including decaffeinated coffee; however, “they should be strongly encouraged to drink coffee without added fats and sugars, otherwise the protective benefits [against more severe NAFLD] will not be realized,” Dr. Jones said.

Additional research is needed to extend the analysis to include more coffee compounds, especially those truly unique to coffee, since caffeine can be found in many other foods and beverages, Dr. Jones added.
 

Limitations include 24-hour time frame

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 24-hour urine sample, which may not represent an individual’s habitual coffee consumption, the researchers noted. The urine metabolites measured also may be derived from foods and beverages other than coffee. In addition, the assessment of NAFLD was based on serum markers and ultrasound/elastography, which are less precise than liver biopsy and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

However, the study is the first known to use urine data to examine coffee’s protective effect against NAFLD and suggests that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites are associated with less severe disease, they concluded.
 

Findings intriguing but not ready for prime time

“The bottom line is that we have a major epidemic of NAFLD in the United States,” Victor L. Roberts, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. NAFLD has become the most common cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, and will become one of the leading causes of cirrhosis – surpassing infections as the main driver of end-stage liver disease.

“In this country, the epidemic of obesity compounds the problem, and risks for NAFLD include obesity and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Roberts.

The concept of coffee as beneficial is not new, but data suggest that the effects vary with insulin resistance, he said. If liver disease is advanced, coffee and its components may not have much benefit, but early on, it might have a role.

The likely mechanism of action for the benefits of coffee on the reduction in liver fibrosis is through a complex set of metabolic steps that interrupt the promotion of collagen production and reduce liver stiffness, said Dr. Roberts.

The current study authors were up front about the limitations, mainly the use of self-reports, although including the urine collection provided more scientific data, he said. More studies are needed in other populations, but the findings are interesting enough to merit additional research.

The take-home message for primary care, however, is that drinking coffee – regular or decaf – does not replace standard of care, Dr. Roberts emphasized.

“If a patient is a coffee drinker and they have NAFLD or are at risk, they could be encouraged to continue drinking coffee,” in reasonable amounts, said Dr. Roberts. “Anywhere from 1-3 cups a day is unlikely to be a problem, and there is some hope and interest in this area,” but the findings of the current study “should not be taken as gospel or advocacy as a solution for people with NAFLD.”

Instead, clinicians should focus on the standard of care for management of patients at risk for NAFLD, promoting lifestyle changes such as weight loss, diet, and exercise (challenging as that may be), and prescribing appropriate medications, he said.

The study was supported by the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, and the researchers received funding from the ISIC to conduct the study. Dr. Roberts had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

New research suggests that coffee’s benefits for reducing severity of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) stem from more than just caffeine.

Increased intake of both regular and decaffeinated coffee was significantly associated with a reduced severity of NAFLD in the study, published in Nutrients. The study participants included 156 overweight adults, most of whom had type 2 diabetes.

A confluence of factors including diet and lifestyle changes and increased obesity have contributed to a rise in type 2 diabetes and of NAFLD, Margarida Coelho, of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal), and colleagues wrote.

Previous studies support an association between coffee and protection against NAFLD, but the roles of the caffeine and noncaffeine components of coffee have not been examined, corresponding author John Griffith Jones, PhD, also of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra, said in an interview.

“There have been previous studies indicating a link between coffee intake and NAFLD amelioration, but these were entirely based on self-reporting questionnaire data, but the main limitation of this approach is that it does not provide any information on which components of coffee confer the beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “The development of new analytical techniques allowing reliable profiling of coffee metabolites in urine allowed this limitation to be addressed.”

Dr. Jones and associates examined the relationship between consumption of regular and decaffeinated coffee on the fatty liver index (FLI), a validated predictor of NAFLD. They measured coffee intake of 156 overweight adults, 135 of whom had type 2 diabetes. The study population included 76 women and 80 men with a mean age of 59 years and a mean body mass index of 29 kg/m².

The participants reported coffee intake via questionnaires, and 98 participants (all with type 2 diabetes) also provided urine samples for measurement of caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites (the products of the body breaking down coffee). NAFLD was assessed using the FLI and a scanning measure of fibrosis.

Overall, no associations appeared between self-reported coffee intake and NAFLD measures. However, urine caffeine metabolite levels were significantly higher among individuals with no liver fibrosis, compared with those with fibrosis, and noncaffeine metabolites showed a significant negative association with FLI measures.

In a multiple regression analysis of 89 individuals with type 2 diabetes, both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites were negatively associated with FLI, which suggests less severe NAFLD, the researchers noted.

Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the findings suggest that other noncaffeine coffee components such as polyphenols may reduce the risk of fibrosis by reducing oxidative stress on the liver, they said.
 

Benefits beyond caffeine

“The main surprise of the study was that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites had beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “We had anticipated caffeine, based on its well-known effects on inhibiting liver fibrosis, but the effects of other components were less well described.”

Clinicians can encourage their patients with type 2 diabetes who drink coffee to continue to do so within a normal range (up to three to four cups per day) including decaffeinated coffee; however, “they should be strongly encouraged to drink coffee without added fats and sugars, otherwise the protective benefits [against more severe NAFLD] will not be realized,” Dr. Jones said.

Additional research is needed to extend the analysis to include more coffee compounds, especially those truly unique to coffee, since caffeine can be found in many other foods and beverages, Dr. Jones added.
 

Limitations include 24-hour time frame

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 24-hour urine sample, which may not represent an individual’s habitual coffee consumption, the researchers noted. The urine metabolites measured also may be derived from foods and beverages other than coffee. In addition, the assessment of NAFLD was based on serum markers and ultrasound/elastography, which are less precise than liver biopsy and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

However, the study is the first known to use urine data to examine coffee’s protective effect against NAFLD and suggests that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites are associated with less severe disease, they concluded.
 

Findings intriguing but not ready for prime time

“The bottom line is that we have a major epidemic of NAFLD in the United States,” Victor L. Roberts, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. NAFLD has become the most common cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, and will become one of the leading causes of cirrhosis – surpassing infections as the main driver of end-stage liver disease.

“In this country, the epidemic of obesity compounds the problem, and risks for NAFLD include obesity and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Roberts.

The concept of coffee as beneficial is not new, but data suggest that the effects vary with insulin resistance, he said. If liver disease is advanced, coffee and its components may not have much benefit, but early on, it might have a role.

The likely mechanism of action for the benefits of coffee on the reduction in liver fibrosis is through a complex set of metabolic steps that interrupt the promotion of collagen production and reduce liver stiffness, said Dr. Roberts.

The current study authors were up front about the limitations, mainly the use of self-reports, although including the urine collection provided more scientific data, he said. More studies are needed in other populations, but the findings are interesting enough to merit additional research.

The take-home message for primary care, however, is that drinking coffee – regular or decaf – does not replace standard of care, Dr. Roberts emphasized.

“If a patient is a coffee drinker and they have NAFLD or are at risk, they could be encouraged to continue drinking coffee,” in reasonable amounts, said Dr. Roberts. “Anywhere from 1-3 cups a day is unlikely to be a problem, and there is some hope and interest in this area,” but the findings of the current study “should not be taken as gospel or advocacy as a solution for people with NAFLD.”

Instead, clinicians should focus on the standard of care for management of patients at risk for NAFLD, promoting lifestyle changes such as weight loss, diet, and exercise (challenging as that may be), and prescribing appropriate medications, he said.

The study was supported by the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, and the researchers received funding from the ISIC to conduct the study. Dr. Roberts had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

New research suggests that coffee’s benefits for reducing severity of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) stem from more than just caffeine.

Increased intake of both regular and decaffeinated coffee was significantly associated with a reduced severity of NAFLD in the study, published in Nutrients. The study participants included 156 overweight adults, most of whom had type 2 diabetes.

A confluence of factors including diet and lifestyle changes and increased obesity have contributed to a rise in type 2 diabetes and of NAFLD, Margarida Coelho, of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal), and colleagues wrote.

Previous studies support an association between coffee and protection against NAFLD, but the roles of the caffeine and noncaffeine components of coffee have not been examined, corresponding author John Griffith Jones, PhD, also of the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra, said in an interview.

“There have been previous studies indicating a link between coffee intake and NAFLD amelioration, but these were entirely based on self-reporting questionnaire data, but the main limitation of this approach is that it does not provide any information on which components of coffee confer the beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “The development of new analytical techniques allowing reliable profiling of coffee metabolites in urine allowed this limitation to be addressed.”

Dr. Jones and associates examined the relationship between consumption of regular and decaffeinated coffee on the fatty liver index (FLI), a validated predictor of NAFLD. They measured coffee intake of 156 overweight adults, 135 of whom had type 2 diabetes. The study population included 76 women and 80 men with a mean age of 59 years and a mean body mass index of 29 kg/m².

The participants reported coffee intake via questionnaires, and 98 participants (all with type 2 diabetes) also provided urine samples for measurement of caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites (the products of the body breaking down coffee). NAFLD was assessed using the FLI and a scanning measure of fibrosis.

Overall, no associations appeared between self-reported coffee intake and NAFLD measures. However, urine caffeine metabolite levels were significantly higher among individuals with no liver fibrosis, compared with those with fibrosis, and noncaffeine metabolites showed a significant negative association with FLI measures.

In a multiple regression analysis of 89 individuals with type 2 diabetes, both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites were negatively associated with FLI, which suggests less severe NAFLD, the researchers noted.

Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the findings suggest that other noncaffeine coffee components such as polyphenols may reduce the risk of fibrosis by reducing oxidative stress on the liver, they said.
 

Benefits beyond caffeine

“The main surprise of the study was that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites had beneficial effects,” Dr. Jones said. “We had anticipated caffeine, based on its well-known effects on inhibiting liver fibrosis, but the effects of other components were less well described.”

Clinicians can encourage their patients with type 2 diabetes who drink coffee to continue to do so within a normal range (up to three to four cups per day) including decaffeinated coffee; however, “they should be strongly encouraged to drink coffee without added fats and sugars, otherwise the protective benefits [against more severe NAFLD] will not be realized,” Dr. Jones said.

Additional research is needed to extend the analysis to include more coffee compounds, especially those truly unique to coffee, since caffeine can be found in many other foods and beverages, Dr. Jones added.
 

Limitations include 24-hour time frame

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of 24-hour urine sample, which may not represent an individual’s habitual coffee consumption, the researchers noted. The urine metabolites measured also may be derived from foods and beverages other than coffee. In addition, the assessment of NAFLD was based on serum markers and ultrasound/elastography, which are less precise than liver biopsy and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

However, the study is the first known to use urine data to examine coffee’s protective effect against NAFLD and suggests that both caffeine and noncaffeine metabolites are associated with less severe disease, they concluded.
 

Findings intriguing but not ready for prime time

“The bottom line is that we have a major epidemic of NAFLD in the United States,” Victor L. Roberts, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. NAFLD has become the most common cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, and will become one of the leading causes of cirrhosis – surpassing infections as the main driver of end-stage liver disease.

“In this country, the epidemic of obesity compounds the problem, and risks for NAFLD include obesity and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Roberts.

The concept of coffee as beneficial is not new, but data suggest that the effects vary with insulin resistance, he said. If liver disease is advanced, coffee and its components may not have much benefit, but early on, it might have a role.

The likely mechanism of action for the benefits of coffee on the reduction in liver fibrosis is through a complex set of metabolic steps that interrupt the promotion of collagen production and reduce liver stiffness, said Dr. Roberts.

The current study authors were up front about the limitations, mainly the use of self-reports, although including the urine collection provided more scientific data, he said. More studies are needed in other populations, but the findings are interesting enough to merit additional research.

The take-home message for primary care, however, is that drinking coffee – regular or decaf – does not replace standard of care, Dr. Roberts emphasized.

“If a patient is a coffee drinker and they have NAFLD or are at risk, they could be encouraged to continue drinking coffee,” in reasonable amounts, said Dr. Roberts. “Anywhere from 1-3 cups a day is unlikely to be a problem, and there is some hope and interest in this area,” but the findings of the current study “should not be taken as gospel or advocacy as a solution for people with NAFLD.”

Instead, clinicians should focus on the standard of care for management of patients at risk for NAFLD, promoting lifestyle changes such as weight loss, diet, and exercise (challenging as that may be), and prescribing appropriate medications, he said.

The study was supported by the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, and the researchers received funding from the ISIC to conduct the study. Dr. Roberts had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with a lower risk for liver and nonliver complications, as well as a “large and significant” 57% reduction in the risk for death from any cause, a large, real-world analysis finds.

Improved outcomes were seen among patients without cirrhosis, those with compensated cirrhosis, and those with existing liver decompensation, the authors noted.

The findings highlight a “substantial need to provide DAA therapy to all patients with HCV, regardless of disease stage or financial status,” wrote Mindie Nguyen, MD, of Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., and coinvestigators.

“Additional national efforts are needed to reach and treat U.S. population groups that are underinsured or not insured, incarcerated and otherwise marginalized, such as users of illicit drugs, who are also at higher risk of disease complication and reinfection,” they said.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

CHC and its complications are associated with high rates of illness and death. However, large-scale data on long-term liver and nonliver effects of DAA treatment are limited.

For their study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues analyzed administrative claims data from 2010 to 2021 for 245,596 adults with CHC, of whom 40,654 had received one or more DAA therapies (without interferon) and 204,942 had not received treatment.

DAA-treated patients were slightly older than their untreated peers (mean age, 59.9 years, vs. 58.5 years) and were more likely to be male (62% vs. 58%) and White (59% vs. 57%), and to have diabetes (26% vs. 25%) and cirrhosis (44% vs. 29%).

For liver outcomes, DAA therapy was associated with a lower incidence of decompensation (28.2 vs. 40.8 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in compensated cirrhosis (20.1 vs. 41.8; P < .001).

For nonliver outcomes, DAA treatment was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes (30.2 vs. 37.2 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and chronic kidney disease (31.1 vs. 34.1; P < .001).

The all-cause mortality rate per 1,000 person-years was 36.5 in the DAA-treated group, vs. 64.7 in the untreated group (P < .001).

In multivariable regression analysis, DAA treatment was independently associated with a significant decrease in the risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73), decompensation (aHR, 0.36), diabetes (aHR, 0.74), chronic kidney disease (aHR, 0.81), cardiovascular disease (aHR, 0.90), nonliver cancer (aHR, 0.89), and mortality (aHR, 0.43).

The 57% lower mortality rate observed among DAA-treated vs. untreated patients aligns with a large French study of adults with CHC.

“Because HCV treatment with a DAA regimen is well tolerated for nearly all patients, we believe these findings provide further support for universal HCV treatment coverage for all patients affected by HCV,” Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wrote.

The strengths of this study are its large sample of DAA-treated and untreated patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups from across the United States and from diverse practice settings (not just tertiary centers).

One limitation is that the study cohort included only patients covered by private insurance; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to individuals who are underinsured or not insured. Miscoding and misclassification are also possible with large claims databases.

Support for the study was provided by Stanford University and the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences. Dr. Nguyen has received institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with a lower risk for liver and nonliver complications, as well as a “large and significant” 57% reduction in the risk for death from any cause, a large, real-world analysis finds.

Improved outcomes were seen among patients without cirrhosis, those with compensated cirrhosis, and those with existing liver decompensation, the authors noted.

The findings highlight a “substantial need to provide DAA therapy to all patients with HCV, regardless of disease stage or financial status,” wrote Mindie Nguyen, MD, of Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., and coinvestigators.

“Additional national efforts are needed to reach and treat U.S. population groups that are underinsured or not insured, incarcerated and otherwise marginalized, such as users of illicit drugs, who are also at higher risk of disease complication and reinfection,” they said.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

CHC and its complications are associated with high rates of illness and death. However, large-scale data on long-term liver and nonliver effects of DAA treatment are limited.

For their study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues analyzed administrative claims data from 2010 to 2021 for 245,596 adults with CHC, of whom 40,654 had received one or more DAA therapies (without interferon) and 204,942 had not received treatment.

DAA-treated patients were slightly older than their untreated peers (mean age, 59.9 years, vs. 58.5 years) and were more likely to be male (62% vs. 58%) and White (59% vs. 57%), and to have diabetes (26% vs. 25%) and cirrhosis (44% vs. 29%).

For liver outcomes, DAA therapy was associated with a lower incidence of decompensation (28.2 vs. 40.8 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in compensated cirrhosis (20.1 vs. 41.8; P < .001).

For nonliver outcomes, DAA treatment was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes (30.2 vs. 37.2 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and chronic kidney disease (31.1 vs. 34.1; P < .001).

The all-cause mortality rate per 1,000 person-years was 36.5 in the DAA-treated group, vs. 64.7 in the untreated group (P < .001).

In multivariable regression analysis, DAA treatment was independently associated with a significant decrease in the risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73), decompensation (aHR, 0.36), diabetes (aHR, 0.74), chronic kidney disease (aHR, 0.81), cardiovascular disease (aHR, 0.90), nonliver cancer (aHR, 0.89), and mortality (aHR, 0.43).

The 57% lower mortality rate observed among DAA-treated vs. untreated patients aligns with a large French study of adults with CHC.

“Because HCV treatment with a DAA regimen is well tolerated for nearly all patients, we believe these findings provide further support for universal HCV treatment coverage for all patients affected by HCV,” Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wrote.

The strengths of this study are its large sample of DAA-treated and untreated patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups from across the United States and from diverse practice settings (not just tertiary centers).

One limitation is that the study cohort included only patients covered by private insurance; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to individuals who are underinsured or not insured. Miscoding and misclassification are also possible with large claims databases.

Support for the study was provided by Stanford University and the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences. Dr. Nguyen has received institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with a lower risk for liver and nonliver complications, as well as a “large and significant” 57% reduction in the risk for death from any cause, a large, real-world analysis finds.

Improved outcomes were seen among patients without cirrhosis, those with compensated cirrhosis, and those with existing liver decompensation, the authors noted.

The findings highlight a “substantial need to provide DAA therapy to all patients with HCV, regardless of disease stage or financial status,” wrote Mindie Nguyen, MD, of Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., and coinvestigators.

“Additional national efforts are needed to reach and treat U.S. population groups that are underinsured or not insured, incarcerated and otherwise marginalized, such as users of illicit drugs, who are also at higher risk of disease complication and reinfection,” they said.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

CHC and its complications are associated with high rates of illness and death. However, large-scale data on long-term liver and nonliver effects of DAA treatment are limited.

For their study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues analyzed administrative claims data from 2010 to 2021 for 245,596 adults with CHC, of whom 40,654 had received one or more DAA therapies (without interferon) and 204,942 had not received treatment.

DAA-treated patients were slightly older than their untreated peers (mean age, 59.9 years, vs. 58.5 years) and were more likely to be male (62% vs. 58%) and White (59% vs. 57%), and to have diabetes (26% vs. 25%) and cirrhosis (44% vs. 29%).

For liver outcomes, DAA therapy was associated with a lower incidence of decompensation (28.2 vs. 40.8 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in compensated cirrhosis (20.1 vs. 41.8; P < .001).

For nonliver outcomes, DAA treatment was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes (30.2 vs. 37.2 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and chronic kidney disease (31.1 vs. 34.1; P < .001).

The all-cause mortality rate per 1,000 person-years was 36.5 in the DAA-treated group, vs. 64.7 in the untreated group (P < .001).

In multivariable regression analysis, DAA treatment was independently associated with a significant decrease in the risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73), decompensation (aHR, 0.36), diabetes (aHR, 0.74), chronic kidney disease (aHR, 0.81), cardiovascular disease (aHR, 0.90), nonliver cancer (aHR, 0.89), and mortality (aHR, 0.43).

The 57% lower mortality rate observed among DAA-treated vs. untreated patients aligns with a large French study of adults with CHC.

“Because HCV treatment with a DAA regimen is well tolerated for nearly all patients, we believe these findings provide further support for universal HCV treatment coverage for all patients affected by HCV,” Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wrote.

The strengths of this study are its large sample of DAA-treated and untreated patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups from across the United States and from diverse practice settings (not just tertiary centers).

One limitation is that the study cohort included only patients covered by private insurance; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to individuals who are underinsured or not insured. Miscoding and misclassification are also possible with large claims databases.

Support for the study was provided by Stanford University and the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences. Dr. Nguyen has received institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonheavy alcohol use – fewer than 14 drinks per week for women and fewer than 21 drinks per week for men – is associated with liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new report.

An analysis of current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study found that a higher number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking were associated with increased odds of fibrosis among patients whose consumption fell below the threshold for heavy alcohol use.

“Although the detrimental effects of heavy alcohol use are well accepted, there is no consensus guideline on how to counsel patients about how nonheavy alcohol use may affect liver health,” Brooke Rice, MD, an internal medicine resident at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Current terminology classifies fatty liver disease as either alcoholic or nonalcoholic,” she said. “Our results call this strict categorization into question, suggesting that even nonheavy alcohol use should be considered as a factor contributing to more advanced nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] phenotypes.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing associations

NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, which are the most common causes of chronic liver disease worldwide, are histologically identical but distinguished by the presence of significant alcohol use, the study authors wrote.

Heavy alcohol use, based on guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, is defined as more than 14 drinks per week for women or more than 21 drinks per week for men.

Although heavy alcohol use is consistently associated with cirrhosis and steatohepatitis, studies of nonheavy alcohol use have shown conflicting results, the authors wrote. However, evidence suggests that the pattern of alcohol consumption – particularly increased weekly drinking and binge drinking – may be an important predictor.

Dr. Rice and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study of 2,629 current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study who completed alcohol-use questionnaires and vibration-controlled transient elastography between April 2016 and April 2019. They analyzed the association between fibrosis and several alcohol-use measures, including total consumption and drinking patterns, among nonheavy alcohol users whose liver disease would be classified as “nonalcoholic” by current nomenclature.

The research team defined clinically significant fibrosis as a liver stiffness measurement of 8.2 kPa or higher. For at-risk NASH, the researchers used two FibroScan-AST (FAST) score thresholds – greater than 0.35 or 0.67 and higher. They also considered additional metabolic factors such as physical activity, body mass index, blood pressure, glucose measures, and metabolic syndrome.

Participants were asked to estimate the frequency of alcohol use (average number of drinking days per week during the past year) and the usual quantity of alcohol consumed (average number of drinks on a typical drinking day during the past year). Researchers multiplied the figures to estimate the average total number of drinks per week.

Among the 2,629 current drinkers (53% women, 47% men), the average age was 54 years, 7.2% had diabetes, and 26.9% met the criteria for metabolic syndrome. Participants drank about 3 days per week on average with a usual consumption of two drinks per drinking day, averaging a total weekly alcohol consumption of six drinks.

The average liver stiffness measurement was 5.6 kPa, and 8.2% had significant fibrosis.

At the FAST score threshold of 0.67 or greater, 1.9% of participants were likely to have at-risk NASH, with a higher prevalence in those with obesity (4.5%) or diabetes (9.5%). At the FAST score threshold of greater than 0.35, the prevalence of at-risk NASH was 12.4%, which was higher in those with obesity (26.3%) or diabetes (34.4%).

Overall, an increased total number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking days were associated with increased odds of fibrosis.

Almost 17.5% of participants engaged in risky weekly drinking, which was defined as 8 or more drinks per week for women and 15 or more drinks per week for men. Risky weekly drinking was also associated with higher odds of fibrosis.

After excluding 158 heavy drinkers, the prevalence of fibrosis was unchanged at 8%, and an increased total of drinks per week remained significantly associated with fibrosis.

In addition, multiple alcohol-use measures were positively associated with a FAST score greater than 0.35 and were similar after excluding heavy alcohol users. These measures include the number of drinks per week, the frequency of drinking days, and binge drinking.

“We showed that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with fibrosis and at-risk NASH, which are both predictors of long-term liver-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Rice said.
 

Implications for patient care

The findings have important implications for both NAFLD clinical trials and patient care, the study authors wrote. For instance, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend limiting alcohol use to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.

“Our results reinforce the importance of encouraging all patients to reduce alcohol intake as much as possible and to at least adhere to current U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommended limits,” Dr. Rice said. “Almost half of participants in our study consumed in excess of these limits, which strongly associated with at-risk NASH.”

Additional long-term studies are needed to determine the benefits of limiting alcohol consumption to reduce liver-related morbidity and mortality, the authors wrote.

The effect of alcohol consumption on liver health “has been controversial, since some studies have suggested that nonheavy alcohol use can even have some beneficial metabolic effects and has been associated with reduced risk of fatty liver disease, while other studies have found that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with increased risk for liver-related clinical outcomes,” Fredrik Åberg, MD, PhD, a hepatologist and liver transplant specialist at Helsinki University Hospital, said in an interview.

Dr. Åberg wasn’t involved with this study but has researched alcohol consumption and liver disease. Among non–heavy alcohol users, drinking more alcohol per week is associated with increased hospitalization for liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death, he and his colleagues have found.

“We concluded that the net effect of non-heavy drinking on the liver is harm,” he said. “Overall, this study by Rice and colleagues supports the recommendation that persons with mild liver disease should reduce their drinking, and persons with severe liver disease (cirrhosis and advanced fibrosis) should abstain from alcohol use.”

The study authors are supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, a Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Grant, a Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, the Boston University Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and the Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. The Framingham Heart Study is supported in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors and Dr. Åberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonheavy alcohol use – fewer than 14 drinks per week for women and fewer than 21 drinks per week for men – is associated with liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new report.

An analysis of current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study found that a higher number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking were associated with increased odds of fibrosis among patients whose consumption fell below the threshold for heavy alcohol use.

“Although the detrimental effects of heavy alcohol use are well accepted, there is no consensus guideline on how to counsel patients about how nonheavy alcohol use may affect liver health,” Brooke Rice, MD, an internal medicine resident at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Current terminology classifies fatty liver disease as either alcoholic or nonalcoholic,” she said. “Our results call this strict categorization into question, suggesting that even nonheavy alcohol use should be considered as a factor contributing to more advanced nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] phenotypes.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing associations

NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, which are the most common causes of chronic liver disease worldwide, are histologically identical but distinguished by the presence of significant alcohol use, the study authors wrote.

Heavy alcohol use, based on guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, is defined as more than 14 drinks per week for women or more than 21 drinks per week for men.

Although heavy alcohol use is consistently associated with cirrhosis and steatohepatitis, studies of nonheavy alcohol use have shown conflicting results, the authors wrote. However, evidence suggests that the pattern of alcohol consumption – particularly increased weekly drinking and binge drinking – may be an important predictor.

Dr. Rice and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study of 2,629 current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study who completed alcohol-use questionnaires and vibration-controlled transient elastography between April 2016 and April 2019. They analyzed the association between fibrosis and several alcohol-use measures, including total consumption and drinking patterns, among nonheavy alcohol users whose liver disease would be classified as “nonalcoholic” by current nomenclature.

The research team defined clinically significant fibrosis as a liver stiffness measurement of 8.2 kPa or higher. For at-risk NASH, the researchers used two FibroScan-AST (FAST) score thresholds – greater than 0.35 or 0.67 and higher. They also considered additional metabolic factors such as physical activity, body mass index, blood pressure, glucose measures, and metabolic syndrome.

Participants were asked to estimate the frequency of alcohol use (average number of drinking days per week during the past year) and the usual quantity of alcohol consumed (average number of drinks on a typical drinking day during the past year). Researchers multiplied the figures to estimate the average total number of drinks per week.

Among the 2,629 current drinkers (53% women, 47% men), the average age was 54 years, 7.2% had diabetes, and 26.9% met the criteria for metabolic syndrome. Participants drank about 3 days per week on average with a usual consumption of two drinks per drinking day, averaging a total weekly alcohol consumption of six drinks.

The average liver stiffness measurement was 5.6 kPa, and 8.2% had significant fibrosis.

At the FAST score threshold of 0.67 or greater, 1.9% of participants were likely to have at-risk NASH, with a higher prevalence in those with obesity (4.5%) or diabetes (9.5%). At the FAST score threshold of greater than 0.35, the prevalence of at-risk NASH was 12.4%, which was higher in those with obesity (26.3%) or diabetes (34.4%).

Overall, an increased total number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking days were associated with increased odds of fibrosis.

Almost 17.5% of participants engaged in risky weekly drinking, which was defined as 8 or more drinks per week for women and 15 or more drinks per week for men. Risky weekly drinking was also associated with higher odds of fibrosis.

After excluding 158 heavy drinkers, the prevalence of fibrosis was unchanged at 8%, and an increased total of drinks per week remained significantly associated with fibrosis.

In addition, multiple alcohol-use measures were positively associated with a FAST score greater than 0.35 and were similar after excluding heavy alcohol users. These measures include the number of drinks per week, the frequency of drinking days, and binge drinking.

“We showed that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with fibrosis and at-risk NASH, which are both predictors of long-term liver-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Rice said.
 

Implications for patient care

The findings have important implications for both NAFLD clinical trials and patient care, the study authors wrote. For instance, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend limiting alcohol use to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.

“Our results reinforce the importance of encouraging all patients to reduce alcohol intake as much as possible and to at least adhere to current U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommended limits,” Dr. Rice said. “Almost half of participants in our study consumed in excess of these limits, which strongly associated with at-risk NASH.”

Additional long-term studies are needed to determine the benefits of limiting alcohol consumption to reduce liver-related morbidity and mortality, the authors wrote.

The effect of alcohol consumption on liver health “has been controversial, since some studies have suggested that nonheavy alcohol use can even have some beneficial metabolic effects and has been associated with reduced risk of fatty liver disease, while other studies have found that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with increased risk for liver-related clinical outcomes,” Fredrik Åberg, MD, PhD, a hepatologist and liver transplant specialist at Helsinki University Hospital, said in an interview.

Dr. Åberg wasn’t involved with this study but has researched alcohol consumption and liver disease. Among non–heavy alcohol users, drinking more alcohol per week is associated with increased hospitalization for liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death, he and his colleagues have found.

“We concluded that the net effect of non-heavy drinking on the liver is harm,” he said. “Overall, this study by Rice and colleagues supports the recommendation that persons with mild liver disease should reduce their drinking, and persons with severe liver disease (cirrhosis and advanced fibrosis) should abstain from alcohol use.”

The study authors are supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, a Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Grant, a Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, the Boston University Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and the Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. The Framingham Heart Study is supported in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors and Dr. Åberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonheavy alcohol use – fewer than 14 drinks per week for women and fewer than 21 drinks per week for men – is associated with liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), according to a new report.

An analysis of current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study found that a higher number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking were associated with increased odds of fibrosis among patients whose consumption fell below the threshold for heavy alcohol use.

“Although the detrimental effects of heavy alcohol use are well accepted, there is no consensus guideline on how to counsel patients about how nonheavy alcohol use may affect liver health,” Brooke Rice, MD, an internal medicine resident at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Current terminology classifies fatty liver disease as either alcoholic or nonalcoholic,” she said. “Our results call this strict categorization into question, suggesting that even nonheavy alcohol use should be considered as a factor contributing to more advanced nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] phenotypes.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing associations

NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, which are the most common causes of chronic liver disease worldwide, are histologically identical but distinguished by the presence of significant alcohol use, the study authors wrote.

Heavy alcohol use, based on guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, is defined as more than 14 drinks per week for women or more than 21 drinks per week for men.

Although heavy alcohol use is consistently associated with cirrhosis and steatohepatitis, studies of nonheavy alcohol use have shown conflicting results, the authors wrote. However, evidence suggests that the pattern of alcohol consumption – particularly increased weekly drinking and binge drinking – may be an important predictor.

Dr. Rice and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study of 2,629 current drinkers in the Framingham Heart Study who completed alcohol-use questionnaires and vibration-controlled transient elastography between April 2016 and April 2019. They analyzed the association between fibrosis and several alcohol-use measures, including total consumption and drinking patterns, among nonheavy alcohol users whose liver disease would be classified as “nonalcoholic” by current nomenclature.

The research team defined clinically significant fibrosis as a liver stiffness measurement of 8.2 kPa or higher. For at-risk NASH, the researchers used two FibroScan-AST (FAST) score thresholds – greater than 0.35 or 0.67 and higher. They also considered additional metabolic factors such as physical activity, body mass index, blood pressure, glucose measures, and metabolic syndrome.

Participants were asked to estimate the frequency of alcohol use (average number of drinking days per week during the past year) and the usual quantity of alcohol consumed (average number of drinks on a typical drinking day during the past year). Researchers multiplied the figures to estimate the average total number of drinks per week.

Among the 2,629 current drinkers (53% women, 47% men), the average age was 54 years, 7.2% had diabetes, and 26.9% met the criteria for metabolic syndrome. Participants drank about 3 days per week on average with a usual consumption of two drinks per drinking day, averaging a total weekly alcohol consumption of six drinks.

The average liver stiffness measurement was 5.6 kPa, and 8.2% had significant fibrosis.

At the FAST score threshold of 0.67 or greater, 1.9% of participants were likely to have at-risk NASH, with a higher prevalence in those with obesity (4.5%) or diabetes (9.5%). At the FAST score threshold of greater than 0.35, the prevalence of at-risk NASH was 12.4%, which was higher in those with obesity (26.3%) or diabetes (34.4%).

Overall, an increased total number of drinks per week and higher frequency of drinking days were associated with increased odds of fibrosis.

Almost 17.5% of participants engaged in risky weekly drinking, which was defined as 8 or more drinks per week for women and 15 or more drinks per week for men. Risky weekly drinking was also associated with higher odds of fibrosis.

After excluding 158 heavy drinkers, the prevalence of fibrosis was unchanged at 8%, and an increased total of drinks per week remained significantly associated with fibrosis.

In addition, multiple alcohol-use measures were positively associated with a FAST score greater than 0.35 and were similar after excluding heavy alcohol users. These measures include the number of drinks per week, the frequency of drinking days, and binge drinking.

“We showed that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with fibrosis and at-risk NASH, which are both predictors of long-term liver-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Rice said.
 

Implications for patient care

The findings have important implications for both NAFLD clinical trials and patient care, the study authors wrote. For instance, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend limiting alcohol use to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.

“Our results reinforce the importance of encouraging all patients to reduce alcohol intake as much as possible and to at least adhere to current U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommended limits,” Dr. Rice said. “Almost half of participants in our study consumed in excess of these limits, which strongly associated with at-risk NASH.”

Additional long-term studies are needed to determine the benefits of limiting alcohol consumption to reduce liver-related morbidity and mortality, the authors wrote.

The effect of alcohol consumption on liver health “has been controversial, since some studies have suggested that nonheavy alcohol use can even have some beneficial metabolic effects and has been associated with reduced risk of fatty liver disease, while other studies have found that nonheavy alcohol use is associated with increased risk for liver-related clinical outcomes,” Fredrik Åberg, MD, PhD, a hepatologist and liver transplant specialist at Helsinki University Hospital, said in an interview.

Dr. Åberg wasn’t involved with this study but has researched alcohol consumption and liver disease. Among non–heavy alcohol users, drinking more alcohol per week is associated with increased hospitalization for liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death, he and his colleagues have found.

“We concluded that the net effect of non-heavy drinking on the liver is harm,” he said. “Overall, this study by Rice and colleagues supports the recommendation that persons with mild liver disease should reduce their drinking, and persons with severe liver disease (cirrhosis and advanced fibrosis) should abstain from alcohol use.”

The study authors are supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, a Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Grant, a Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, the Boston University Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and the Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. The Framingham Heart Study is supported in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors and Dr. Åberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.