Hepatology

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

Mirroring the opioid crisis, maternal and newborn hepatitis C infections (HCV) more than doubled in the United States between 2009 and 2019, with disproportionate increases in people of White, American Indian, and Alaska Native race, especially those with less education, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Health Forum. However, the level of risk within these populations was mitigated in counties with higher employment, reported Stephen W. Patrick, MD, of Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors.

“As we develop public health approaches to prevent HCV infections, connect to treatment, and monitor exposed infants, understanding these factors can be of critical importance to tailoring interventions,” Dr. Patrick said in an interview. “HCV is one more complication of the opioid crisis,” he added. “These data also enable us to step back a bit from HCV and look at the landscape of how the opioid crisis continues to grow in complexity and scope. Throughout the opioid crisis we have often failed to recognize and address the unique needs of pregnant people and infants.”

The study authors used data from the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and from the Area Health Resource File to examine maternal-infant HCV infection among all U.S. births between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also examined community-level risk factors including rurality, employment, and access to medical care.

In counties reporting HCV, there were 39,380,122 people who had live births, of whom 138,343 (0.4%) were diagnosed with HCV. The overall rate of maternal HCV infection increased from 1.8 to 5.1 per 1,000 live births between 2009 and 2019.

Infection rates were highest in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and White people (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.94 and 7.37, respectively) compared with Black people. They were higher among individuals without a 4-year degree compared to those with higher education (aOR, 3.19).

Among these groups considered to be at higher risk for HCV infection, high employment rates somewhat mitigated the risk. Specifically, in counties in the 10th percentile of employment, the predicted probability of HCV increased from 0.16% to 1.37%, between 2009 and 2019, whereas in counties at the 90th percentile of employment, the predicted probability remained similar, at 0.36% in 2009 and 0.48% in 2019.

“With constrained national resources, understanding both individual and community-level factors associated with HCV infections in pregnant people could inform strategies to mitigate its spread, such as harm reduction efforts (e.g., syringe service programs), improving access to treatment for [opioid use disorder] or increasing the obstetrical workforce in high-risk communities, HCV testing strategies in pregnant people and people of childbearing age, and treatment with novel antiviral therapies,” wrote the authors.

In the time since the authors began the study, universal HCV screening for every pregnancy has been recommended by a number of groups, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). However, Dr. Patrick says even though such recommendations are now adopted, it will be some time before they are fully operational, making knowledge of HCV risk factors important for obstetricians as well as pediatricians and family physicians. “We don’t know how if hospitals and clinicians have started universal screening for HCV and even when it is completely adopted, understanding individual and community-level factors associated with HCV in pregnant people is still of critical importance,” he explained. “In some of our previous work we have found that non-White HCV-exposed infants are less likely to be tested for HCV than are White infants, even after accounting for multiple individual and hospital-level factors. The pattern we are seeing in our research and in research in other groups is one of unequal treatment of pregnant people with substance use disorder in terms of being given evidence-based treatments, being tested for HCV, and even in child welfare outcomes like foster placement. It is important to know these issues are occurring, but we need specific equitable approaches to ensuring optimal outcomes for all families.

Jeffrey A. Kuller, MD, one of the authors of the SMFM’s new recommendations for universal HCV screening in pregnancy, agreed that until universal screening is widely adopted, awareness of maternal HCV risk factors is important, “to better determine who is at highest risk for hep C, barriers to care, and patients to better target.” This information also affects procedure at the time of delivery, added Dr. Kuller, professor of obstetrics and gynecology in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “We do not perform C-sections for the presence of hep C,” he told this publication. However, in labor, “we try to avoid internal fetal monitoring when possible, and early artificial rupture of membranes when possible, and avoid the use of routine episiotomy,” he said. “Hep C–positive patients should also be assessed for other sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and hep B. “Although we do not typically treat hep C pharmacologically during pregnancy, we try to get the patient placed with a hepatologist for long-term management.”

The study has important implications for pediatric patients, added Audrey R. Lloyd, MD, a med-peds infectious disease fellow who is studying HCV in pregnancy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “In the setting of maternal HCV viremia, maternal-fetal transmission occurs in around 6% of exposed infants and around 10% if there is maternal HIV-HCV coinfection,” she said in an interview. “With the increasing rates of HCV in pregnant women described by Dr. Patrick et al., HCV infections among infants will also rise. Even when maternal HCV infection is documented, we often do not do a good job screening the infants for infection and linking them to treatment. This new data makes me worried we may see more complications of pediatric HCV infection in the future,” she added. She explained that safe and effective treatments for HCV infection are approved down to 3 years of age, but patients must first be diagnosed to receive treatment. 

From whichever angle you approach it, tackling both the opioid epidemic and HCV infection in pregnancy will inevitably end up helping both parts of the mother-infant dyad, said Dr. Patrick. “Not too long ago I was caring for an opioid-exposed infant at the hospital where I practice who had transferred in from another center hours away. The mother had not been tested for HCV, so I tested the infant for HCV antibodies which were positive. Imagine that, determining a mother is HCV positive by testing the infant. There are so many layers of systems that should be fixed to make this not happen. And what are the chances the mother, after she found out, was able to access treatment for HCV? What about the infant being tested? The systems are just fragmented and we need to do better.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health. Neither Dr. Patrick, Dr. Kuller, nor Dr. Lloyd reported any conflicts of interest.

Mirroring the opioid crisis, maternal and newborn hepatitis C infections (HCV) more than doubled in the United States between 2009 and 2019, with disproportionate increases in people of White, American Indian, and Alaska Native race, especially those with less education, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Health Forum. However, the level of risk within these populations was mitigated in counties with higher employment, reported Stephen W. Patrick, MD, of Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors.

“As we develop public health approaches to prevent HCV infections, connect to treatment, and monitor exposed infants, understanding these factors can be of critical importance to tailoring interventions,” Dr. Patrick said in an interview. “HCV is one more complication of the opioid crisis,” he added. “These data also enable us to step back a bit from HCV and look at the landscape of how the opioid crisis continues to grow in complexity and scope. Throughout the opioid crisis we have often failed to recognize and address the unique needs of pregnant people and infants.”

The study authors used data from the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and from the Area Health Resource File to examine maternal-infant HCV infection among all U.S. births between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also examined community-level risk factors including rurality, employment, and access to medical care.

In counties reporting HCV, there were 39,380,122 people who had live births, of whom 138,343 (0.4%) were diagnosed with HCV. The overall rate of maternal HCV infection increased from 1.8 to 5.1 per 1,000 live births between 2009 and 2019.

Infection rates were highest in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and White people (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.94 and 7.37, respectively) compared with Black people. They were higher among individuals without a 4-year degree compared to those with higher education (aOR, 3.19).

Among these groups considered to be at higher risk for HCV infection, high employment rates somewhat mitigated the risk. Specifically, in counties in the 10th percentile of employment, the predicted probability of HCV increased from 0.16% to 1.37%, between 2009 and 2019, whereas in counties at the 90th percentile of employment, the predicted probability remained similar, at 0.36% in 2009 and 0.48% in 2019.

“With constrained national resources, understanding both individual and community-level factors associated with HCV infections in pregnant people could inform strategies to mitigate its spread, such as harm reduction efforts (e.g., syringe service programs), improving access to treatment for [opioid use disorder] or increasing the obstetrical workforce in high-risk communities, HCV testing strategies in pregnant people and people of childbearing age, and treatment with novel antiviral therapies,” wrote the authors.

In the time since the authors began the study, universal HCV screening for every pregnancy has been recommended by a number of groups, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). However, Dr. Patrick says even though such recommendations are now adopted, it will be some time before they are fully operational, making knowledge of HCV risk factors important for obstetricians as well as pediatricians and family physicians. “We don’t know how if hospitals and clinicians have started universal screening for HCV and even when it is completely adopted, understanding individual and community-level factors associated with HCV in pregnant people is still of critical importance,” he explained. “In some of our previous work we have found that non-White HCV-exposed infants are less likely to be tested for HCV than are White infants, even after accounting for multiple individual and hospital-level factors. The pattern we are seeing in our research and in research in other groups is one of unequal treatment of pregnant people with substance use disorder in terms of being given evidence-based treatments, being tested for HCV, and even in child welfare outcomes like foster placement. It is important to know these issues are occurring, but we need specific equitable approaches to ensuring optimal outcomes for all families.

Jeffrey A. Kuller, MD, one of the authors of the SMFM’s new recommendations for universal HCV screening in pregnancy, agreed that until universal screening is widely adopted, awareness of maternal HCV risk factors is important, “to better determine who is at highest risk for hep C, barriers to care, and patients to better target.” This information also affects procedure at the time of delivery, added Dr. Kuller, professor of obstetrics and gynecology in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “We do not perform C-sections for the presence of hep C,” he told this publication. However, in labor, “we try to avoid internal fetal monitoring when possible, and early artificial rupture of membranes when possible, and avoid the use of routine episiotomy,” he said. “Hep C–positive patients should also be assessed for other sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and hep B. “Although we do not typically treat hep C pharmacologically during pregnancy, we try to get the patient placed with a hepatologist for long-term management.”

The study has important implications for pediatric patients, added Audrey R. Lloyd, MD, a med-peds infectious disease fellow who is studying HCV in pregnancy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “In the setting of maternal HCV viremia, maternal-fetal transmission occurs in around 6% of exposed infants and around 10% if there is maternal HIV-HCV coinfection,” she said in an interview. “With the increasing rates of HCV in pregnant women described by Dr. Patrick et al., HCV infections among infants will also rise. Even when maternal HCV infection is documented, we often do not do a good job screening the infants for infection and linking them to treatment. This new data makes me worried we may see more complications of pediatric HCV infection in the future,” she added. She explained that safe and effective treatments for HCV infection are approved down to 3 years of age, but patients must first be diagnosed to receive treatment. 

From whichever angle you approach it, tackling both the opioid epidemic and HCV infection in pregnancy will inevitably end up helping both parts of the mother-infant dyad, said Dr. Patrick. “Not too long ago I was caring for an opioid-exposed infant at the hospital where I practice who had transferred in from another center hours away. The mother had not been tested for HCV, so I tested the infant for HCV antibodies which were positive. Imagine that, determining a mother is HCV positive by testing the infant. There are so many layers of systems that should be fixed to make this not happen. And what are the chances the mother, after she found out, was able to access treatment for HCV? What about the infant being tested? The systems are just fragmented and we need to do better.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health. Neither Dr. Patrick, Dr. Kuller, nor Dr. Lloyd reported any conflicts of interest.

Mirroring the opioid crisis, maternal and newborn hepatitis C infections (HCV) more than doubled in the United States between 2009 and 2019, with disproportionate increases in people of White, American Indian, and Alaska Native race, especially those with less education, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Health Forum. However, the level of risk within these populations was mitigated in counties with higher employment, reported Stephen W. Patrick, MD, of Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors.

“As we develop public health approaches to prevent HCV infections, connect to treatment, and monitor exposed infants, understanding these factors can be of critical importance to tailoring interventions,” Dr. Patrick said in an interview. “HCV is one more complication of the opioid crisis,” he added. “These data also enable us to step back a bit from HCV and look at the landscape of how the opioid crisis continues to grow in complexity and scope. Throughout the opioid crisis we have often failed to recognize and address the unique needs of pregnant people and infants.”

The study authors used data from the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and from the Area Health Resource File to examine maternal-infant HCV infection among all U.S. births between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also examined community-level risk factors including rurality, employment, and access to medical care.

In counties reporting HCV, there were 39,380,122 people who had live births, of whom 138,343 (0.4%) were diagnosed with HCV. The overall rate of maternal HCV infection increased from 1.8 to 5.1 per 1,000 live births between 2009 and 2019.

Infection rates were highest in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and White people (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.94 and 7.37, respectively) compared with Black people. They were higher among individuals without a 4-year degree compared to those with higher education (aOR, 3.19).

Among these groups considered to be at higher risk for HCV infection, high employment rates somewhat mitigated the risk. Specifically, in counties in the 10th percentile of employment, the predicted probability of HCV increased from 0.16% to 1.37%, between 2009 and 2019, whereas in counties at the 90th percentile of employment, the predicted probability remained similar, at 0.36% in 2009 and 0.48% in 2019.

“With constrained national resources, understanding both individual and community-level factors associated with HCV infections in pregnant people could inform strategies to mitigate its spread, such as harm reduction efforts (e.g., syringe service programs), improving access to treatment for [opioid use disorder] or increasing the obstetrical workforce in high-risk communities, HCV testing strategies in pregnant people and people of childbearing age, and treatment with novel antiviral therapies,” wrote the authors.

In the time since the authors began the study, universal HCV screening for every pregnancy has been recommended by a number of groups, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). However, Dr. Patrick says even though such recommendations are now adopted, it will be some time before they are fully operational, making knowledge of HCV risk factors important for obstetricians as well as pediatricians and family physicians. “We don’t know how if hospitals and clinicians have started universal screening for HCV and even when it is completely adopted, understanding individual and community-level factors associated with HCV in pregnant people is still of critical importance,” he explained. “In some of our previous work we have found that non-White HCV-exposed infants are less likely to be tested for HCV than are White infants, even after accounting for multiple individual and hospital-level factors. The pattern we are seeing in our research and in research in other groups is one of unequal treatment of pregnant people with substance use disorder in terms of being given evidence-based treatments, being tested for HCV, and even in child welfare outcomes like foster placement. It is important to know these issues are occurring, but we need specific equitable approaches to ensuring optimal outcomes for all families.

Jeffrey A. Kuller, MD, one of the authors of the SMFM’s new recommendations for universal HCV screening in pregnancy, agreed that until universal screening is widely adopted, awareness of maternal HCV risk factors is important, “to better determine who is at highest risk for hep C, barriers to care, and patients to better target.” This information also affects procedure at the time of delivery, added Dr. Kuller, professor of obstetrics and gynecology in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “We do not perform C-sections for the presence of hep C,” he told this publication. However, in labor, “we try to avoid internal fetal monitoring when possible, and early artificial rupture of membranes when possible, and avoid the use of routine episiotomy,” he said. “Hep C–positive patients should also be assessed for other sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and hep B. “Although we do not typically treat hep C pharmacologically during pregnancy, we try to get the patient placed with a hepatologist for long-term management.”

The study has important implications for pediatric patients, added Audrey R. Lloyd, MD, a med-peds infectious disease fellow who is studying HCV in pregnancy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “In the setting of maternal HCV viremia, maternal-fetal transmission occurs in around 6% of exposed infants and around 10% if there is maternal HIV-HCV coinfection,” she said in an interview. “With the increasing rates of HCV in pregnant women described by Dr. Patrick et al., HCV infections among infants will also rise. Even when maternal HCV infection is documented, we often do not do a good job screening the infants for infection and linking them to treatment. This new data makes me worried we may see more complications of pediatric HCV infection in the future,” she added. She explained that safe and effective treatments for HCV infection are approved down to 3 years of age, but patients must first be diagnosed to receive treatment. 

From whichever angle you approach it, tackling both the opioid epidemic and HCV infection in pregnancy will inevitably end up helping both parts of the mother-infant dyad, said Dr. Patrick. “Not too long ago I was caring for an opioid-exposed infant at the hospital where I practice who had transferred in from another center hours away. The mother had not been tested for HCV, so I tested the infant for HCV antibodies which were positive. Imagine that, determining a mother is HCV positive by testing the infant. There are so many layers of systems that should be fixed to make this not happen. And what are the chances the mother, after she found out, was able to access treatment for HCV? What about the infant being tested? The systems are just fragmented and we need to do better.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health. Neither Dr. Patrick, Dr. Kuller, nor Dr. Lloyd reported any conflicts of interest.

A noninvasive enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) blood test identifies patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) who are at increased risk of advanced fibrosis, according to a new study.

According to the study researchers, when combined with the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score the ELF test may be a reliable method that can assess for advanced fibrosis in clinical practice.

Despite the utility of identifying advanced fibrosis in the NAFLD population, significant barriers exist to “risk stratifying patients in clinical practice owing to the need for liver biopsy,” wrote study authors Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of the Inova Health System in Falls Church, Va., and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

“NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] can only be diagnosed by biopsy and liver pathology yet validated noninvasive tests that accurately diagnose NASH don’t exist,” said Dr. Younossi in an interview. “Developing noninvasive tests to accurately risk stratify patients with significant fibrosis in NASH is highly desirable in clinical practice. A blood test such as ELF can open the opportunity to order this test anywhere in the country.”

The ELF test reflects extracellular matrix metabolism as opposed to tests that assess alterations in hepatic function. The study authors explain that the noninvasive ELF test is a “blood-derived panel of biomarkers consisting of three components: type III procollagen peptide, hyaluronic acid, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1.”

To gain a further understanding of the role of ELF in predicting the risk of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in NAFLD, Dr. Younossi and colleagues performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of outpatients within a community-based liver clinic from 2001 in 2020. The study cohort included 829 patients (mean age, 53.1 years) with NAFLD, which was characterized by steatosis greater than 5% without any other liver disease or excessive alcohol use.

In the overall study population, the mean FIB-4 score was 1.34. In the 463 patients with liver biopsy, approximately 24.4% presented with bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis. A total of 79 (17.1%) of the 462 patients with transient elastography data presented with liver stiffness results of 9.6 kPa or greater, which according to the researchers was indicative of advanced fibrosis.

Biopsy determined that those with advanced fibrosis in the study had significantly increased ELF scores versus patients without advanced fibrosis (10.1 vs. 8.6, respectively; P <.001). Moreover, patients with advanced fibrosis had significantly greater liver stiffness as determined by transient elastography (10.0 vs. 9.0; P <.001).

In the NAFLD population, the ELF test demonstrated excellent performance in identifying patients with advanced fibrosis, as reflected by an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.85) for those whose fibrosis was diagnosed by biopsy as well as 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.82) for fibrosis diagnosed by transient elastography. Similar performances of the ELF score were reported among those with NAFLD who were aged 65 years or older (AUROC, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.87) or patients who had type 2 diabetes (AUROC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.84).

The researchers regarded the combination of an ELF score of 7.2 or greater with a FIB-4 score of 0.74 or greater, as indicative of a negative predictive value of 95.1% (95% CI, 91.8%-98.4%) and a sensitivity of 92.5% (95% CI, 87.4%-97.5%). According to the investigators, these values “can reliably rule out advanced fibrosis.”

Additionally, the combination of an ELF score of 9.8 or greater with a FIB-4 score of 2.9 or greater, was associated with a positive predictive value of 95.0% (95% CI, 85.5%-100%) and a specificity of 99.7% (95% CI, 99.1%-100%), suggesting this combination can conversely “be used to rule in advanced fibrosis,” the researchers wrote.

Serologic approaches for predicting the risk of NASH are more widely available and “easier” to use than radiologic approaches, but the former may not be as reliable or accurate as the latter, explained Tibor Krisko, MD, a gastroenterologist at Weill Cornell Medicine and New York-Presbyterian, in an interview. “The choice of which serologic test is utilized is often guided by what is available in a region/practice, what the provider is familiar with, and what a given patient’s insurance covers,” said Dr. Krisko, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“The study by Dr. Younossi et al. perhaps confirms that ELF alone is unlikely to be the future standard of care, and the authors weave this to a conclusion and strength, highlighting that the combination had excellent accuracy,” commented Dr. Krisko. “This is an exciting and important area of research and clinical practice advancement, but all of these serological tests have limitations, such as their lack in liver specificity, their risk of being affected by clearance rate, and the fact that they are not biomarkers but rather surrogate markers.”

Therefore, added Dr. Krisko, clinicians should continue to consider each patient’s clinical picture carefully and utilize radiographic methods liberally, particularly when serologic results are deemed ambiguous.

Dr. Younossi reported conflicts of interest with several pharmaceutical companies. No funding was reported for the study. Dr. Krisko had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

A noninvasive enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) blood test identifies patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) who are at increased risk of advanced fibrosis, according to a new study.

According to the study researchers, when combined with the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score the ELF test may be a reliable method that can assess for advanced fibrosis in clinical practice.

Despite the utility of identifying advanced fibrosis in the NAFLD population, significant barriers exist to “risk stratifying patients in clinical practice owing to the need for liver biopsy,” wrote study authors Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of the Inova Health System in Falls Church, Va., and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

“NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] can only be diagnosed by biopsy and liver pathology yet validated noninvasive tests that accurately diagnose NASH don’t exist,” said Dr. Younossi in an interview. “Developing noninvasive tests to accurately risk stratify patients with significant fibrosis in NASH is highly desirable in clinical practice. A blood test such as ELF can open the opportunity to order this test anywhere in the country.”

The ELF test reflects extracellular matrix metabolism as opposed to tests that assess alterations in hepatic function. The study authors explain that the noninvasive ELF test is a “blood-derived panel of biomarkers consisting of three components: type III procollagen peptide, hyaluronic acid, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1.”

To gain a further understanding of the role of ELF in predicting the risk of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in NAFLD, Dr. Younossi and colleagues performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of outpatients within a community-based liver clinic from 2001 in 2020. The study cohort included 829 patients (mean age, 53.1 years) with NAFLD, which was characterized by steatosis greater than 5% without any other liver disease or excessive alcohol use.

In the overall study population, the mean FIB-4 score was 1.34. In the 463 patients with liver biopsy, approximately 24.4% presented with bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis. A total of 79 (17.1%) of the 462 patients with transient elastography data presented with liver stiffness results of 9.6 kPa or greater, which according to the researchers was indicative of advanced fibrosis.

Biopsy determined that those with advanced fibrosis in the study had significantly increased ELF scores versus patients without advanced fibrosis (10.1 vs. 8.6, respectively; P <.001). Moreover, patients with advanced fibrosis had significantly greater liver stiffness as determined by transient elastography (10.0 vs. 9.0; P <.001).

In the NAFLD population, the ELF test demonstrated excellent performance in identifying patients with advanced fibrosis, as reflected by an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.85) for those whose fibrosis was diagnosed by biopsy as well as 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.82) for fibrosis diagnosed by transient elastography. Similar performances of the ELF score were reported among those with NAFLD who were aged 65 years or older (AUROC, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.87) or patients who had type 2 diabetes (AUROC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.84).

The researchers regarded the combination of an ELF score of 7.2 or greater with a FIB-4 score of 0.74 or greater, as indicative of a negative predictive value of 95.1% (95% CI, 91.8%-98.4%) and a sensitivity of 92.5% (95% CI, 87.4%-97.5%). According to the investigators, these values “can reliably rule out advanced fibrosis.”

Additionally, the combination of an ELF score of 9.8 or greater with a FIB-4 score of 2.9 or greater, was associated with a positive predictive value of 95.0% (95% CI, 85.5%-100%) and a specificity of 99.7% (95% CI, 99.1%-100%), suggesting this combination can conversely “be used to rule in advanced fibrosis,” the researchers wrote.

Serologic approaches for predicting the risk of NASH are more widely available and “easier” to use than radiologic approaches, but the former may not be as reliable or accurate as the latter, explained Tibor Krisko, MD, a gastroenterologist at Weill Cornell Medicine and New York-Presbyterian, in an interview. “The choice of which serologic test is utilized is often guided by what is available in a region/practice, what the provider is familiar with, and what a given patient’s insurance covers,” said Dr. Krisko, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“The study by Dr. Younossi et al. perhaps confirms that ELF alone is unlikely to be the future standard of care, and the authors weave this to a conclusion and strength, highlighting that the combination had excellent accuracy,” commented Dr. Krisko. “This is an exciting and important area of research and clinical practice advancement, but all of these serological tests have limitations, such as their lack in liver specificity, their risk of being affected by clearance rate, and the fact that they are not biomarkers but rather surrogate markers.”

Therefore, added Dr. Krisko, clinicians should continue to consider each patient’s clinical picture carefully and utilize radiographic methods liberally, particularly when serologic results are deemed ambiguous.

Dr. Younossi reported conflicts of interest with several pharmaceutical companies. No funding was reported for the study. Dr. Krisko had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

A noninvasive enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) blood test identifies patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) who are at increased risk of advanced fibrosis, according to a new study.

According to the study researchers, when combined with the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score the ELF test may be a reliable method that can assess for advanced fibrosis in clinical practice.

Despite the utility of identifying advanced fibrosis in the NAFLD population, significant barriers exist to “risk stratifying patients in clinical practice owing to the need for liver biopsy,” wrote study authors Zobair M. Younossi, MD, of the Inova Health System in Falls Church, Va., and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

“NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] can only be diagnosed by biopsy and liver pathology yet validated noninvasive tests that accurately diagnose NASH don’t exist,” said Dr. Younossi in an interview. “Developing noninvasive tests to accurately risk stratify patients with significant fibrosis in NASH is highly desirable in clinical practice. A blood test such as ELF can open the opportunity to order this test anywhere in the country.”

The ELF test reflects extracellular matrix metabolism as opposed to tests that assess alterations in hepatic function. The study authors explain that the noninvasive ELF test is a “blood-derived panel of biomarkers consisting of three components: type III procollagen peptide, hyaluronic acid, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1.”

To gain a further understanding of the role of ELF in predicting the risk of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in NAFLD, Dr. Younossi and colleagues performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of outpatients within a community-based liver clinic from 2001 in 2020. The study cohort included 829 patients (mean age, 53.1 years) with NAFLD, which was characterized by steatosis greater than 5% without any other liver disease or excessive alcohol use.

In the overall study population, the mean FIB-4 score was 1.34. In the 463 patients with liver biopsy, approximately 24.4% presented with bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis. A total of 79 (17.1%) of the 462 patients with transient elastography data presented with liver stiffness results of 9.6 kPa or greater, which according to the researchers was indicative of advanced fibrosis.

Biopsy determined that those with advanced fibrosis in the study had significantly increased ELF scores versus patients without advanced fibrosis (10.1 vs. 8.6, respectively; P <.001). Moreover, patients with advanced fibrosis had significantly greater liver stiffness as determined by transient elastography (10.0 vs. 9.0; P <.001).

In the NAFLD population, the ELF test demonstrated excellent performance in identifying patients with advanced fibrosis, as reflected by an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.85) for those whose fibrosis was diagnosed by biopsy as well as 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.82) for fibrosis diagnosed by transient elastography. Similar performances of the ELF score were reported among those with NAFLD who were aged 65 years or older (AUROC, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.87) or patients who had type 2 diabetes (AUROC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.84).

The researchers regarded the combination of an ELF score of 7.2 or greater with a FIB-4 score of 0.74 or greater, as indicative of a negative predictive value of 95.1% (95% CI, 91.8%-98.4%) and a sensitivity of 92.5% (95% CI, 87.4%-97.5%). According to the investigators, these values “can reliably rule out advanced fibrosis.”

Additionally, the combination of an ELF score of 9.8 or greater with a FIB-4 score of 2.9 or greater, was associated with a positive predictive value of 95.0% (95% CI, 85.5%-100%) and a specificity of 99.7% (95% CI, 99.1%-100%), suggesting this combination can conversely “be used to rule in advanced fibrosis,” the researchers wrote.

Serologic approaches for predicting the risk of NASH are more widely available and “easier” to use than radiologic approaches, but the former may not be as reliable or accurate as the latter, explained Tibor Krisko, MD, a gastroenterologist at Weill Cornell Medicine and New York-Presbyterian, in an interview. “The choice of which serologic test is utilized is often guided by what is available in a region/practice, what the provider is familiar with, and what a given patient’s insurance covers,” said Dr. Krisko, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“The study by Dr. Younossi et al. perhaps confirms that ELF alone is unlikely to be the future standard of care, and the authors weave this to a conclusion and strength, highlighting that the combination had excellent accuracy,” commented Dr. Krisko. “This is an exciting and important area of research and clinical practice advancement, but all of these serological tests have limitations, such as their lack in liver specificity, their risk of being affected by clearance rate, and the fact that they are not biomarkers but rather surrogate markers.”

Therefore, added Dr. Krisko, clinicians should continue to consider each patient’s clinical picture carefully and utilize radiographic methods liberally, particularly when serologic results are deemed ambiguous.

Dr. Younossi reported conflicts of interest with several pharmaceutical companies. No funding was reported for the study. Dr. Krisko had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated Nov. 5, 2021.

A newly updated version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was effective for predicting short-term mortality in patients with end-stage liver disease and addressed important determinants of wait list outcomes that haven’t been addressed in previous versions, according to findings from a recent study. The new model, termed MELD 3.0, includes new variables such as female sex, serum albumin, and updated creatinine cutoffs.

Thomas Northcut/Getty Images

“We believe that the new model represents an opportunity to lower wait list mortality in the United States and propose it to be considered to replace the current version of MELD in determining allocation priorities in liver transplantation,” wrote study authors W. Ray Kim, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

In patients with end-stage liver disease, the MELD score was shown to be a reliable predictor of short-term survival, according to the researchers. The original version of MELD consists of international normalized ratio of prothrombin time and serum concentrations of bilirubin and creatinine; MELDNa consists of the same with the addition of serum concentrations of total sodium. Since 2016, MELDNa has been utilized in the United States to allocate livers for transplant.

Despite the utility of the current MELD score, questions have been raised concerning the accuracy of the tool’s ability to predict mortality, including a study by Sumeet K. Asrani, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Changes in liver disease epidemiology, the introduction of newer therapies that alter prognosis, as well as increasing age and prevalence of comorbidities in transplant-eligible patients are several drivers for these concerns, according to Dr. Kim and colleagues. Also, there is an increasing concern regarding women and their potential disadvantages in the current system: At least one study has suggested that serum creatinine may overestimate renal function and consequently underestimate mortality risk in female patients, compared with men with the same creatinine level.

Dr. Kim and colleagues sought to further optimize the fit of the current MELD score by considering alternative interactions and including other variables relevant to predicting short-term mortality in patients awaiting liver transplant. The study included patients who are registered on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files newly wait-listed from 2016 through 2018. The full cohort was divided 70:30 into a development set (n = 20,587) and a validation set (n = 8,823); there were no significant differences between the sets in respect to age, sex, race, or liver disease severity.

The investigators used univariable and multivariable regression models to predict 90-day survival following wait list registration. The 90-day Kaplan-Meier survival rate in the development set was 91.3%. Additionally, model fit was tested, and the investigators used the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to estimate the impact of replacing the current version of the MELD with MELD 3.0.

In the final MELD 3.0 model, the researchers included several additional variables such as female sex and serum albumin. Additionally, the final model was characterized by interactions between bilirubin and sodium as well as between albumin and creatinine. Also, an adjustment to the current version of MELD lowering the upper bound for creatinine from 4.0 mg/dL to 3.0 mg/dL.

The MELD 3.0 featured significantly better discrimination, compared with the MELDNa (C-statistic = 0.8693 vs. 0.8622, respectively; P < .01). In addition, the researchers wrote that the new MELD 3.0 score “correctly reclassified a net of 8.8% of decedents to a higher MELD tier, affording them a meaningfully higher chance of transplantation, particularly in women.” The MELD 3.0 score with albumin also led to fewer wait-list deaths, compared with the MELDNa, according to the Liver Simulated Allocation Model analysis (P = .02); the number for MELD 3.0 without albumin was not statistically significant.

According to the investigators, a cause of concern for the MELD 3.0 was the addition of albumin, as this variable may be vulnerable to manipulation. In addition, the researchers note that, while differences in wait list mortality and survival based on race/ethnicity were observed in the study, they were unable to describe the exact root causes of worse outcomes among patients belonging to minority groups. “Thus, inclusion in a risk prediction score without fully understanding the underlying reasons for the racial disparity may have unintended consequences,” the researchers wrote.

“Based on recent data consisting of liver transplant candidates in the United States, we identify additional variables that are meaningfully associated with short-term mortality, including female sex and serum albumin. We also found evidence to support lowering the serum creatinine ceiling to 3 mg/dL,” they wrote. “Based on these data, we created an updated version of the MELD score, which improves mortality prediction compared to the current MELDNa model, including the recognition of female sex as a risk factor for death.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.

This article was updated Nov. 5, 2021.

A newly updated version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was effective for predicting short-term mortality in patients with end-stage liver disease and addressed important determinants of wait list outcomes that haven’t been addressed in previous versions, according to findings from a recent study. The new model, termed MELD 3.0, includes new variables such as female sex, serum albumin, and updated creatinine cutoffs.

Thomas Northcut/Getty Images

“We believe that the new model represents an opportunity to lower wait list mortality in the United States and propose it to be considered to replace the current version of MELD in determining allocation priorities in liver transplantation,” wrote study authors W. Ray Kim, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

In patients with end-stage liver disease, the MELD score was shown to be a reliable predictor of short-term survival, according to the researchers. The original version of MELD consists of international normalized ratio of prothrombin time and serum concentrations of bilirubin and creatinine; MELDNa consists of the same with the addition of serum concentrations of total sodium. Since 2016, MELDNa has been utilized in the United States to allocate livers for transplant.

Despite the utility of the current MELD score, questions have been raised concerning the accuracy of the tool’s ability to predict mortality, including a study by Sumeet K. Asrani, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Changes in liver disease epidemiology, the introduction of newer therapies that alter prognosis, as well as increasing age and prevalence of comorbidities in transplant-eligible patients are several drivers for these concerns, according to Dr. Kim and colleagues. Also, there is an increasing concern regarding women and their potential disadvantages in the current system: At least one study has suggested that serum creatinine may overestimate renal function and consequently underestimate mortality risk in female patients, compared with men with the same creatinine level.

Dr. Kim and colleagues sought to further optimize the fit of the current MELD score by considering alternative interactions and including other variables relevant to predicting short-term mortality in patients awaiting liver transplant. The study included patients who are registered on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files newly wait-listed from 2016 through 2018. The full cohort was divided 70:30 into a development set (n = 20,587) and a validation set (n = 8,823); there were no significant differences between the sets in respect to age, sex, race, or liver disease severity.

The investigators used univariable and multivariable regression models to predict 90-day survival following wait list registration. The 90-day Kaplan-Meier survival rate in the development set was 91.3%. Additionally, model fit was tested, and the investigators used the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to estimate the impact of replacing the current version of the MELD with MELD 3.0.

In the final MELD 3.0 model, the researchers included several additional variables such as female sex and serum albumin. Additionally, the final model was characterized by interactions between bilirubin and sodium as well as between albumin and creatinine. Also, an adjustment to the current version of MELD lowering the upper bound for creatinine from 4.0 mg/dL to 3.0 mg/dL.

The MELD 3.0 featured significantly better discrimination, compared with the MELDNa (C-statistic = 0.8693 vs. 0.8622, respectively; P < .01). In addition, the researchers wrote that the new MELD 3.0 score “correctly reclassified a net of 8.8% of decedents to a higher MELD tier, affording them a meaningfully higher chance of transplantation, particularly in women.” The MELD 3.0 score with albumin also led to fewer wait-list deaths, compared with the MELDNa, according to the Liver Simulated Allocation Model analysis (P = .02); the number for MELD 3.0 without albumin was not statistically significant.

According to the investigators, a cause of concern for the MELD 3.0 was the addition of albumin, as this variable may be vulnerable to manipulation. In addition, the researchers note that, while differences in wait list mortality and survival based on race/ethnicity were observed in the study, they were unable to describe the exact root causes of worse outcomes among patients belonging to minority groups. “Thus, inclusion in a risk prediction score without fully understanding the underlying reasons for the racial disparity may have unintended consequences,” the researchers wrote.

“Based on recent data consisting of liver transplant candidates in the United States, we identify additional variables that are meaningfully associated with short-term mortality, including female sex and serum albumin. We also found evidence to support lowering the serum creatinine ceiling to 3 mg/dL,” they wrote. “Based on these data, we created an updated version of the MELD score, which improves mortality prediction compared to the current MELDNa model, including the recognition of female sex as a risk factor for death.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.

This article was updated Nov. 5, 2021.

A newly updated version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was effective for predicting short-term mortality in patients with end-stage liver disease and addressed important determinants of wait list outcomes that haven’t been addressed in previous versions, according to findings from a recent study. The new model, termed MELD 3.0, includes new variables such as female sex, serum albumin, and updated creatinine cutoffs.

Thomas Northcut/Getty Images

“We believe that the new model represents an opportunity to lower wait list mortality in the United States and propose it to be considered to replace the current version of MELD in determining allocation priorities in liver transplantation,” wrote study authors W. Ray Kim, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

In patients with end-stage liver disease, the MELD score was shown to be a reliable predictor of short-term survival, according to the researchers. The original version of MELD consists of international normalized ratio of prothrombin time and serum concentrations of bilirubin and creatinine; MELDNa consists of the same with the addition of serum concentrations of total sodium. Since 2016, MELDNa has been utilized in the United States to allocate livers for transplant.

Despite the utility of the current MELD score, questions have been raised concerning the accuracy of the tool’s ability to predict mortality, including a study by Sumeet K. Asrani, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Changes in liver disease epidemiology, the introduction of newer therapies that alter prognosis, as well as increasing age and prevalence of comorbidities in transplant-eligible patients are several drivers for these concerns, according to Dr. Kim and colleagues. Also, there is an increasing concern regarding women and their potential disadvantages in the current system: At least one study has suggested that serum creatinine may overestimate renal function and consequently underestimate mortality risk in female patients, compared with men with the same creatinine level.

Dr. Kim and colleagues sought to further optimize the fit of the current MELD score by considering alternative interactions and including other variables relevant to predicting short-term mortality in patients awaiting liver transplant. The study included patients who are registered on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files newly wait-listed from 2016 through 2018. The full cohort was divided 70:30 into a development set (n = 20,587) and a validation set (n = 8,823); there were no significant differences between the sets in respect to age, sex, race, or liver disease severity.

The investigators used univariable and multivariable regression models to predict 90-day survival following wait list registration. The 90-day Kaplan-Meier survival rate in the development set was 91.3%. Additionally, model fit was tested, and the investigators used the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to estimate the impact of replacing the current version of the MELD with MELD 3.0.

In the final MELD 3.0 model, the researchers included several additional variables such as female sex and serum albumin. Additionally, the final model was characterized by interactions between bilirubin and sodium as well as between albumin and creatinine. Also, an adjustment to the current version of MELD lowering the upper bound for creatinine from 4.0 mg/dL to 3.0 mg/dL.

The MELD 3.0 featured significantly better discrimination, compared with the MELDNa (C-statistic = 0.8693 vs. 0.8622, respectively; P < .01). In addition, the researchers wrote that the new MELD 3.0 score “correctly reclassified a net of 8.8% of decedents to a higher MELD tier, affording them a meaningfully higher chance of transplantation, particularly in women.” The MELD 3.0 score with albumin also led to fewer wait-list deaths, compared with the MELDNa, according to the Liver Simulated Allocation Model analysis (P = .02); the number for MELD 3.0 without albumin was not statistically significant.

According to the investigators, a cause of concern for the MELD 3.0 was the addition of albumin, as this variable may be vulnerable to manipulation. In addition, the researchers note that, while differences in wait list mortality and survival based on race/ethnicity were observed in the study, they were unable to describe the exact root causes of worse outcomes among patients belonging to minority groups. “Thus, inclusion in a risk prediction score without fully understanding the underlying reasons for the racial disparity may have unintended consequences,” the researchers wrote.

“Based on recent data consisting of liver transplant candidates in the United States, we identify additional variables that are meaningfully associated with short-term mortality, including female sex and serum albumin. We also found evidence to support lowering the serum creatinine ceiling to 3 mg/dL,” they wrote. “Based on these data, we created an updated version of the MELD score, which improves mortality prediction compared to the current MELDNa model, including the recognition of female sex as a risk factor for death.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.

Drinking more than three cups of caffeinated coffee a day is associated with less liver stiffness, according to an analysis of a nationally representative survey, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

amenic181/Getty Images

The study is likely the most rigorous look to date on the benefits of coffee on liver health in the U.S. It was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), in which participants were asked about what they eat and drink. Crucially, in 2017, NHANES began to include elastography (FibroScan), of participants’ liver stiffness, not because of suspected problems with the liver but as across-the-board evaluations of all participants.

“Because it’s an unselected population for FibroScan and because of the detail, the granularity, the richness of the information from the nutritional surveys that they do, this is the closest we’re ever going to get to a linkage between what people are eating or drinking and the health of their liver, absent a longitudinal study where we set out to follow people for many, many years,” said Elliot Tapper, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s senior author.

Researchers examined data from about 4,500 patients who had participated in the NHANES study in 2017-2018. The participants were aged 20 years or older, with an average age of 48; 73% were overweight, about the national average.

The researchers found no association between coffee consumption and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), a measure of fatty liver. But they found a link between coffee and liver stiffness.

Those who drank more than three cups of coffee daily had a liver stiffness measure (LSM) that was 0.9 kilopascals (kPa) lower than others (P = .03). Drinking more than three cups a day also was found to be protective against an LSM of 9.5 kPa or higher, the threshold for advanced liver fibrosis (OR, 0.4; P = .05). Decaffeinated coffee was not found to be associated with LSM.

Caffeine is an antagonist to adenosine receptors in the liver cell that, if blocked, stops the production of scar tissue, according to the researchers. But when they looked at estimated caffeine consumption, calculated through the detailed, trained interviews performed by nutritionists, there was no association with liver stiffness. That said, Dr. Tapper noted that this could be due to the imperfection of making those estimations.

“If we had to hypothesize about a mechanism, it would most likely be caffeine, and the reason we couldn’t see that here is because these are estimated milligrams of caffeine per coffee – but the way that we brew coffee, and the beans that we’re using, are so highly variable it just can’t be captured in this kind of database,” he said.

He said the data will be reassuring to clinicians who suggest coffee-drinking to patients.

“There are hepatologists around the world who are actively recommending coffee – they’ll feel empowered by these data,” he said. “I would still like to see more robust longitudinal data before I start spending our precious time counseling patients about coffee. There are many other data-driven interventions for the management of liver disease that we should be focusing our time on.”

Moreover, he said that the data will be important for patients who are particularly interested in natural remedies.

“For patients who are very interested in a natural supplement, to feel like they’re taking an active role in the health of their liver, I will tell them to avoid carbohydrates and increase their exercise – and that it is OK to add coffee to their daily routine.”

A study based on a UK database found that coffee was associated with protection against chronic liver disease, but the association was seen for both caffeinated and decaffeinated drinks, noted Nathan Davies, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the Institute of the Liver and Digestive Health at the University College London.

Dr. Davies, a registered nutritionist who has studied coffee’s effects on the liver, said that while including elastography in the Michigan study is interesting, it “does not necessarily by itself add greatly” to the evidence base.

The outcomes from both studies do suggest a positive effect for coffee, but he said it’s important to remember that liver disease develops over years and decades.

“Looking at a snapshot moment does not necessarily reflect an individual’s behavior during the onset and development of their condition,” he said. “As such, there are a number of behavioral and nutritional factors that could be contributing to the observed effect over a period of years.”

He pointed out that while different coffee and brewing types affect the amount of caffeine in a cup, all cups of coffee in this study were treated the same way. He noted there was no apparent dose-dependent effect, which would have been expected if there is an active ingredient that affects liver stiffness.

“In general, my advice is to improve diet, take more exercise, and reduce alcohol consumption, which is likely to be more effective in preventing liver disease – and its progression – than drinking an extra cup of coffee,” Dr. Davies said. “That being said, for patients at increased risk for liver disease who currently drink three cups or more of coffee daily, it may be prudent for them to continue because this level of consumption might be actively lowering their chances of developing more serious disease.”

Dr. Tapper has done consulting for Novartis, Axcella and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts. Dr. Davies reported no relevant disclosures.

Drinking more than three cups of caffeinated coffee a day is associated with less liver stiffness, according to an analysis of a nationally representative survey, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

amenic181/Getty Images

The study is likely the most rigorous look to date on the benefits of coffee on liver health in the U.S. It was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), in which participants were asked about what they eat and drink. Crucially, in 2017, NHANES began to include elastography (FibroScan), of participants’ liver stiffness, not because of suspected problems with the liver but as across-the-board evaluations of all participants.

“Because it’s an unselected population for FibroScan and because of the detail, the granularity, the richness of the information from the nutritional surveys that they do, this is the closest we’re ever going to get to a linkage between what people are eating or drinking and the health of their liver, absent a longitudinal study where we set out to follow people for many, many years,” said Elliot Tapper, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s senior author.

Researchers examined data from about 4,500 patients who had participated in the NHANES study in 2017-2018. The participants were aged 20 years or older, with an average age of 48; 73% were overweight, about the national average.

The researchers found no association between coffee consumption and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), a measure of fatty liver. But they found a link between coffee and liver stiffness.

Those who drank more than three cups of coffee daily had a liver stiffness measure (LSM) that was 0.9 kilopascals (kPa) lower than others (P = .03). Drinking more than three cups a day also was found to be protective against an LSM of 9.5 kPa or higher, the threshold for advanced liver fibrosis (OR, 0.4; P = .05). Decaffeinated coffee was not found to be associated with LSM.

Caffeine is an antagonist to adenosine receptors in the liver cell that, if blocked, stops the production of scar tissue, according to the researchers. But when they looked at estimated caffeine consumption, calculated through the detailed, trained interviews performed by nutritionists, there was no association with liver stiffness. That said, Dr. Tapper noted that this could be due to the imperfection of making those estimations.

“If we had to hypothesize about a mechanism, it would most likely be caffeine, and the reason we couldn’t see that here is because these are estimated milligrams of caffeine per coffee – but the way that we brew coffee, and the beans that we’re using, are so highly variable it just can’t be captured in this kind of database,” he said.

He said the data will be reassuring to clinicians who suggest coffee-drinking to patients.

“There are hepatologists around the world who are actively recommending coffee – they’ll feel empowered by these data,” he said. “I would still like to see more robust longitudinal data before I start spending our precious time counseling patients about coffee. There are many other data-driven interventions for the management of liver disease that we should be focusing our time on.”

Moreover, he said that the data will be important for patients who are particularly interested in natural remedies.

“For patients who are very interested in a natural supplement, to feel like they’re taking an active role in the health of their liver, I will tell them to avoid carbohydrates and increase their exercise – and that it is OK to add coffee to their daily routine.”

A study based on a UK database found that coffee was associated with protection against chronic liver disease, but the association was seen for both caffeinated and decaffeinated drinks, noted Nathan Davies, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the Institute of the Liver and Digestive Health at the University College London.

Dr. Davies, a registered nutritionist who has studied coffee’s effects on the liver, said that while including elastography in the Michigan study is interesting, it “does not necessarily by itself add greatly” to the evidence base.

The outcomes from both studies do suggest a positive effect for coffee, but he said it’s important to remember that liver disease develops over years and decades.

“Looking at a snapshot moment does not necessarily reflect an individual’s behavior during the onset and development of their condition,” he said. “As such, there are a number of behavioral and nutritional factors that could be contributing to the observed effect over a period of years.”

He pointed out that while different coffee and brewing types affect the amount of caffeine in a cup, all cups of coffee in this study were treated the same way. He noted there was no apparent dose-dependent effect, which would have been expected if there is an active ingredient that affects liver stiffness.

“In general, my advice is to improve diet, take more exercise, and reduce alcohol consumption, which is likely to be more effective in preventing liver disease – and its progression – than drinking an extra cup of coffee,” Dr. Davies said. “That being said, for patients at increased risk for liver disease who currently drink three cups or more of coffee daily, it may be prudent for them to continue because this level of consumption might be actively lowering their chances of developing more serious disease.”

Dr. Tapper has done consulting for Novartis, Axcella and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts. Dr. Davies reported no relevant disclosures.

Drinking more than three cups of caffeinated coffee a day is associated with less liver stiffness, according to an analysis of a nationally representative survey, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

amenic181/Getty Images

The study is likely the most rigorous look to date on the benefits of coffee on liver health in the U.S. It was based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), in which participants were asked about what they eat and drink. Crucially, in 2017, NHANES began to include elastography (FibroScan), of participants’ liver stiffness, not because of suspected problems with the liver but as across-the-board evaluations of all participants.

“Because it’s an unselected population for FibroScan and because of the detail, the granularity, the richness of the information from the nutritional surveys that they do, this is the closest we’re ever going to get to a linkage between what people are eating or drinking and the health of their liver, absent a longitudinal study where we set out to follow people for many, many years,” said Elliot Tapper, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s senior author.

Researchers examined data from about 4,500 patients who had participated in the NHANES study in 2017-2018. The participants were aged 20 years or older, with an average age of 48; 73% were overweight, about the national average.

The researchers found no association between coffee consumption and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), a measure of fatty liver. But they found a link between coffee and liver stiffness.

Those who drank more than three cups of coffee daily had a liver stiffness measure (LSM) that was 0.9 kilopascals (kPa) lower than others (P = .03). Drinking more than three cups a day also was found to be protective against an LSM of 9.5 kPa or higher, the threshold for advanced liver fibrosis (OR, 0.4; P = .05). Decaffeinated coffee was not found to be associated with LSM.

Caffeine is an antagonist to adenosine receptors in the liver cell that, if blocked, stops the production of scar tissue, according to the researchers. But when they looked at estimated caffeine consumption, calculated through the detailed, trained interviews performed by nutritionists, there was no association with liver stiffness. That said, Dr. Tapper noted that this could be due to the imperfection of making those estimations.

“If we had to hypothesize about a mechanism, it would most likely be caffeine, and the reason we couldn’t see that here is because these are estimated milligrams of caffeine per coffee – but the way that we brew coffee, and the beans that we’re using, are so highly variable it just can’t be captured in this kind of database,” he said.

He said the data will be reassuring to clinicians who suggest coffee-drinking to patients.

“There are hepatologists around the world who are actively recommending coffee – they’ll feel empowered by these data,” he said. “I would still like to see more robust longitudinal data before I start spending our precious time counseling patients about coffee. There are many other data-driven interventions for the management of liver disease that we should be focusing our time on.”

Moreover, he said that the data will be important for patients who are particularly interested in natural remedies.

“For patients who are very interested in a natural supplement, to feel like they’re taking an active role in the health of their liver, I will tell them to avoid carbohydrates and increase their exercise – and that it is OK to add coffee to their daily routine.”

A study based on a UK database found that coffee was associated with protection against chronic liver disease, but the association was seen for both caffeinated and decaffeinated drinks, noted Nathan Davies, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the Institute of the Liver and Digestive Health at the University College London.

Dr. Davies, a registered nutritionist who has studied coffee’s effects on the liver, said that while including elastography in the Michigan study is interesting, it “does not necessarily by itself add greatly” to the evidence base.

The outcomes from both studies do suggest a positive effect for coffee, but he said it’s important to remember that liver disease develops over years and decades.

“Looking at a snapshot moment does not necessarily reflect an individual’s behavior during the onset and development of their condition,” he said. “As such, there are a number of behavioral and nutritional factors that could be contributing to the observed effect over a period of years.”

He pointed out that while different coffee and brewing types affect the amount of caffeine in a cup, all cups of coffee in this study were treated the same way. He noted there was no apparent dose-dependent effect, which would have been expected if there is an active ingredient that affects liver stiffness.

“In general, my advice is to improve diet, take more exercise, and reduce alcohol consumption, which is likely to be more effective in preventing liver disease – and its progression – than drinking an extra cup of coffee,” Dr. Davies said. “That being said, for patients at increased risk for liver disease who currently drink three cups or more of coffee daily, it may be prudent for them to continue because this level of consumption might be actively lowering their chances of developing more serious disease.”

Dr. Tapper has done consulting for Novartis, Axcella and Allergan, has served on advisory boards for Mallinckrodt, Bausch Health, Kaleido, and Novo Nordisk, and has unrestricted research grants from Gilead and Valeant. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts. Dr. Davies reported no relevant disclosures.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

American children gained a lot of weight in the last year, setting a dangerous trajectory towards metabolic disease that requires urgent policy change, according to a new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“Our nation’s safety net is fragile, outdated, and out of reach for millions of eligible kids and caregivers,” said Jamie Bussel, senior program officer at the RWJF, and senior author of the report. She added that the pandemic further fractured an already broken system that disproportionately overlooks “children of color and those who live farthest from economic opportunity”.
 

It’s time to think ‘bigger and better’

Ms. Bussel said, during a press conference, that congress responded to the pandemic with “an array of policy solutions,” but it’s now time to think ‘bigger and better.’

“There have been huge flexibilities deployed across the safety net program and these have been really important reliefs, but the fact is many of them are temporary emergency relief measures,” she explained.

For the past 3 years, the RWJF’s annual State of Childhood Obesity report has drawn national and state obesity data from large surveys including the National Survey of Children’s Health, the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, the WIC Participant and Program Characteristics Survey, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Similar to in past years, this year’s data show that rates of obesity and overweight have remained relatively steady and have been highest among minority and low-income populations. For example, data from the 2019-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, along with an analysis conducted by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, show that one in six – or 16.2% – of youth aged 10-17 years have obesity.

While non-Hispanic Asian children had the lowest obesity rate (8.1%), followed by non-Hispanic White children (12.1%), rates were significantly higher for Hispanic (21.4%), non-Hispanic Black (23.8%), and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (28.7%) children, according to the report.

“Additional years of data are needed to assess whether obesity rates changed after the onset of the pandemic,” explained Ms. Bussel.
 

Digging deeper

Other studies included in this year’s report were specifically designed to measure the impact of the pandemic, and show a distinct rise in overweight and obesity, especially in younger children. For example, a retrospective cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California showed the rate of overweight and obesity in children aged 5-11 years rose to 45.7% between March 2020 and January 2021, up from 36.2% before the pandemic.

Another of these studies, which was based on national electronic health records of more than 430,000 children, showed the obesity rate crept from 19.3% to 22.4% between August 2019 and August 2020.

“The lid we had been trying desperately to put on the obesity epidemic has come off again,” said Sandra G Hassink, MD, MSc, who is medical director of the American Academy of Pediatrics Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

“In the absence of COVID we had been seeing slow upticks in the numbers – and in some groups we’d been thinking maybe we were headed toward stabilization – but these numbers blow that out of the water ... COVID has escalated the rates,” she said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, these two crises – the COVID pandemic, the childhood obesity epidemic – in so many ways have exacerbated one another,” said Ms. Bussel. “It’s not a huge surprise that we’re seeing an increase in childhood obesity rates given the complete and utter disruption of every single system that circumscribes our lives.”
 

The systems that feed obesity

Addressing childhood obesity requires targeting far beyond healthy eating and physical activity, Ms. Bussel said.

“As important is whether that child has a safe place to call home. Does mom or dad or their care provider have a stable income? Is there reliable transportation? Is their access to health insurance? Is there access to high-quality health care? ... All of those factors influence the child and the family’s opportunities to live well, be healthy, and be at a healthy weight,” she noted.

The report includes a list of five main policy recommendations.

• Making free, universal school meal programs permanent.
• Extending eligibility for WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, to postpartum mothers and to children through age 6.
• Extending and expanding other programs, such as the Child Tax Credit.
• Closing the Medicaid coverage gap.
• Developing a consistent approach to collecting obesity data organized by race, ethnicity, and income level.

“Collectively, over at least the course of the last generation or two, our policy approach to obesity prevention has not been sufficient. But that doesn’t mean all of our policy approaches have been failures,” Ms. Bussel said during an interview. “Policy change does not always need to be dramatic to have a real impact on families.”

Fighting complacency

For Dr. Hassink, one of the barriers to change is society’s level of acceptance. She said an identifiable explanation for pandemic weight gain doesn’t mean society should simply shrug it off.

“If we regarded childhood obesity as the population level catastrophe that it is for chronic disease maybe people would be activated around these policy changes,” she said.

“We’re accepting a disease process that wreaks havoc on people,” noted Dr. Hassink, who was not involved in the new report. “I think it’s hard for people to realize the magnitude of the disease burden that we’re seeing. If you’re in a weight management clinic or any pediatrician’s office you would see it – you would see kids coming in with liver disease, 9-year-olds on [continuous positive airway pressure] for sleep apnea, kids needing their hips pinned because they had a hip fracture because of obesity.

“So, those of us that see the disease burden see what’s behind those numbers. The sadness of what we’re talking about is we know a lot about what could push the dial and help reduce this epidemic and we’re not doing what we already know,” added Dr. Hassink.

Ms. Bussel and Dr. Hassink reported no conflicts.

American children gained a lot of weight in the last year, setting a dangerous trajectory towards metabolic disease that requires urgent policy change, according to a new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“Our nation’s safety net is fragile, outdated, and out of reach for millions of eligible kids and caregivers,” said Jamie Bussel, senior program officer at the RWJF, and senior author of the report. She added that the pandemic further fractured an already broken system that disproportionately overlooks “children of color and those who live farthest from economic opportunity”.
 

It’s time to think ‘bigger and better’

Ms. Bussel said, during a press conference, that congress responded to the pandemic with “an array of policy solutions,” but it’s now time to think ‘bigger and better.’

“There have been huge flexibilities deployed across the safety net program and these have been really important reliefs, but the fact is many of them are temporary emergency relief measures,” she explained.

For the past 3 years, the RWJF’s annual State of Childhood Obesity report has drawn national and state obesity data from large surveys including the National Survey of Children’s Health, the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, the WIC Participant and Program Characteristics Survey, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Similar to in past years, this year’s data show that rates of obesity and overweight have remained relatively steady and have been highest among minority and low-income populations. For example, data from the 2019-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, along with an analysis conducted by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, show that one in six – or 16.2% – of youth aged 10-17 years have obesity.

While non-Hispanic Asian children had the lowest obesity rate (8.1%), followed by non-Hispanic White children (12.1%), rates were significantly higher for Hispanic (21.4%), non-Hispanic Black (23.8%), and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (28.7%) children, according to the report.

“Additional years of data are needed to assess whether obesity rates changed after the onset of the pandemic,” explained Ms. Bussel.
 

Digging deeper

Other studies included in this year’s report were specifically designed to measure the impact of the pandemic, and show a distinct rise in overweight and obesity, especially in younger children. For example, a retrospective cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California showed the rate of overweight and obesity in children aged 5-11 years rose to 45.7% between March 2020 and January 2021, up from 36.2% before the pandemic.

Another of these studies, which was based on national electronic health records of more than 430,000 children, showed the obesity rate crept from 19.3% to 22.4% between August 2019 and August 2020.

“The lid we had been trying desperately to put on the obesity epidemic has come off again,” said Sandra G Hassink, MD, MSc, who is medical director of the American Academy of Pediatrics Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

“In the absence of COVID we had been seeing slow upticks in the numbers – and in some groups we’d been thinking maybe we were headed toward stabilization – but these numbers blow that out of the water ... COVID has escalated the rates,” she said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, these two crises – the COVID pandemic, the childhood obesity epidemic – in so many ways have exacerbated one another,” said Ms. Bussel. “It’s not a huge surprise that we’re seeing an increase in childhood obesity rates given the complete and utter disruption of every single system that circumscribes our lives.”
 

The systems that feed obesity

Addressing childhood obesity requires targeting far beyond healthy eating and physical activity, Ms. Bussel said.

“As important is whether that child has a safe place to call home. Does mom or dad or their care provider have a stable income? Is there reliable transportation? Is their access to health insurance? Is there access to high-quality health care? ... All of those factors influence the child and the family’s opportunities to live well, be healthy, and be at a healthy weight,” she noted.

The report includes a list of five main policy recommendations.

• Making free, universal school meal programs permanent.
• Extending eligibility for WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, to postpartum mothers and to children through age 6.
• Extending and expanding other programs, such as the Child Tax Credit.
• Closing the Medicaid coverage gap.
• Developing a consistent approach to collecting obesity data organized by race, ethnicity, and income level.

“Collectively, over at least the course of the last generation or two, our policy approach to obesity prevention has not been sufficient. But that doesn’t mean all of our policy approaches have been failures,” Ms. Bussel said during an interview. “Policy change does not always need to be dramatic to have a real impact on families.”

Fighting complacency

For Dr. Hassink, one of the barriers to change is society’s level of acceptance. She said an identifiable explanation for pandemic weight gain doesn’t mean society should simply shrug it off.

“If we regarded childhood obesity as the population level catastrophe that it is for chronic disease maybe people would be activated around these policy changes,” she said.

“We’re accepting a disease process that wreaks havoc on people,” noted Dr. Hassink, who was not involved in the new report. “I think it’s hard for people to realize the magnitude of the disease burden that we’re seeing. If you’re in a weight management clinic or any pediatrician’s office you would see it – you would see kids coming in with liver disease, 9-year-olds on [continuous positive airway pressure] for sleep apnea, kids needing their hips pinned because they had a hip fracture because of obesity.

“So, those of us that see the disease burden see what’s behind those numbers. The sadness of what we’re talking about is we know a lot about what could push the dial and help reduce this epidemic and we’re not doing what we already know,” added Dr. Hassink.

Ms. Bussel and Dr. Hassink reported no conflicts.

American children gained a lot of weight in the last year, setting a dangerous trajectory towards metabolic disease that requires urgent policy change, according to a new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“Our nation’s safety net is fragile, outdated, and out of reach for millions of eligible kids and caregivers,” said Jamie Bussel, senior program officer at the RWJF, and senior author of the report. She added that the pandemic further fractured an already broken system that disproportionately overlooks “children of color and those who live farthest from economic opportunity”.
 

It’s time to think ‘bigger and better’

Ms. Bussel said, during a press conference, that congress responded to the pandemic with “an array of policy solutions,” but it’s now time to think ‘bigger and better.’

“There have been huge flexibilities deployed across the safety net program and these have been really important reliefs, but the fact is many of them are temporary emergency relief measures,” she explained.

For the past 3 years, the RWJF’s annual State of Childhood Obesity report has drawn national and state obesity data from large surveys including the National Survey of Children’s Health, the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, the WIC Participant and Program Characteristics Survey, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Similar to in past years, this year’s data show that rates of obesity and overweight have remained relatively steady and have been highest among minority and low-income populations. For example, data from the 2019-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, along with an analysis conducted by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, show that one in six – or 16.2% – of youth aged 10-17 years have obesity.

While non-Hispanic Asian children had the lowest obesity rate (8.1%), followed by non-Hispanic White children (12.1%), rates were significantly higher for Hispanic (21.4%), non-Hispanic Black (23.8%), and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (28.7%) children, according to the report.

“Additional years of data are needed to assess whether obesity rates changed after the onset of the pandemic,” explained Ms. Bussel.
 

Digging deeper

Other studies included in this year’s report were specifically designed to measure the impact of the pandemic, and show a distinct rise in overweight and obesity, especially in younger children. For example, a retrospective cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California showed the rate of overweight and obesity in children aged 5-11 years rose to 45.7% between March 2020 and January 2021, up from 36.2% before the pandemic.

Another of these studies, which was based on national electronic health records of more than 430,000 children, showed the obesity rate crept from 19.3% to 22.4% between August 2019 and August 2020.

“The lid we had been trying desperately to put on the obesity epidemic has come off again,” said Sandra G Hassink, MD, MSc, who is medical director of the American Academy of Pediatrics Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

“In the absence of COVID we had been seeing slow upticks in the numbers – and in some groups we’d been thinking maybe we were headed toward stabilization – but these numbers blow that out of the water ... COVID has escalated the rates,” she said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, these two crises – the COVID pandemic, the childhood obesity epidemic – in so many ways have exacerbated one another,” said Ms. Bussel. “It’s not a huge surprise that we’re seeing an increase in childhood obesity rates given the complete and utter disruption of every single system that circumscribes our lives.”
 

The systems that feed obesity

Addressing childhood obesity requires targeting far beyond healthy eating and physical activity, Ms. Bussel said.

“As important is whether that child has a safe place to call home. Does mom or dad or their care provider have a stable income? Is there reliable transportation? Is their access to health insurance? Is there access to high-quality health care? ... All of those factors influence the child and the family’s opportunities to live well, be healthy, and be at a healthy weight,” she noted.

The report includes a list of five main policy recommendations.

• Making free, universal school meal programs permanent.
• Extending eligibility for WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, to postpartum mothers and to children through age 6.
• Extending and expanding other programs, such as the Child Tax Credit.
• Closing the Medicaid coverage gap.
• Developing a consistent approach to collecting obesity data organized by race, ethnicity, and income level.

“Collectively, over at least the course of the last generation or two, our policy approach to obesity prevention has not been sufficient. But that doesn’t mean all of our policy approaches have been failures,” Ms. Bussel said during an interview. “Policy change does not always need to be dramatic to have a real impact on families.”

Fighting complacency

For Dr. Hassink, one of the barriers to change is society’s level of acceptance. She said an identifiable explanation for pandemic weight gain doesn’t mean society should simply shrug it off.

“If we regarded childhood obesity as the population level catastrophe that it is for chronic disease maybe people would be activated around these policy changes,” she said.

“We’re accepting a disease process that wreaks havoc on people,” noted Dr. Hassink, who was not involved in the new report. “I think it’s hard for people to realize the magnitude of the disease burden that we’re seeing. If you’re in a weight management clinic or any pediatrician’s office you would see it – you would see kids coming in with liver disease, 9-year-olds on [continuous positive airway pressure] for sleep apnea, kids needing their hips pinned because they had a hip fracture because of obesity.

“So, those of us that see the disease burden see what’s behind those numbers. The sadness of what we’re talking about is we know a lot about what could push the dial and help reduce this epidemic and we’re not doing what we already know,” added Dr. Hassink.

Ms. Bussel and Dr. Hassink reported no conflicts.

A combination of magnetic resonance elastography and blood levels of fibrosis-4 index (MEFIB) outperformed FibroScan-AST (FAST) in determining the presence of significant fibrosis among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a new prospective cohort analysis.

© parisvas/Thinkstock

Liver fibrosis is the most important prognostic factor for NAFLD, but the invasiveness, propensity for sampling error, and interoperator variability of biopsy have prompted efforts to develop alternatives. FAST, which uses vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), and aspartate aminotransferase levels, and MEFIB have been developed as candidates, but they had not been directly compared in screening. The findings suggest that MEFIB may be a better tool for identifying NAFLD patients at heightened risk of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), as well as which patients could be candidates for pharmacotherapy interventions and clinical trials.

Although there are no drugs currently approved for high-risk NAFLD patients, many clinical trials are underway. Patients with stage 2 or higher fibrosis are candidates for clinical trials, but many trials experience a high screening failure rate. A noninvasive method that can identify clinical trial candidates while avoiding liver biopsy would be a welcome addition, Nobuharu Tamaki, MD, PhD, of the NAFLD Research Center, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, department of medicine, at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues explained in Hepatology.

“We suspect that these are the patients; if there is going to be a drug approved, it will be for this patient population. So it’s important for prognosis, but it’s also important potentially for future treatment with new drugs,” said Zobair Younossi, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

The researchers examined a cohort of 234 consecutive adults at UCSD and 314 consecutive adults at Yokohama (Japan) City University who underwent liver biopsy, magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), VCTE, and CAP assessment.

Significant fibrosis was found in 29.5% of the UCSD cohort and 66.2% of the Yokohama cohort.* MEFIB had a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve than FAST in the UCSD cohort (0.860 vs. 0.757; P = .005) and the Yokohama cohort (0.899 vs. 0.724; P < .001).

When the researchers employed MEFIB as a rule-in criteria (MRE value ≥3.3 kPa and FIB-4 ≥1.6), MEFIB had a positive predictive value of 91.2% in the UCSD cohort and 96.0% in the Yokohama cohort, versus 74.2% and 89.2% for FAST (≥0.67), respectively. Rule-out criteria included MRE less than 3.3 kPa and Fib-4 less than1.6 for MEFIB, as well as FAST of 0.35 or less; with those parameters, negative predictive value for significant fibrosis was 92.8% in the UCSD group and 85.6% in the Yokohama group for MEFIB, and 88.3% and 57.8% for FAST, respectively.

Most existing noninvasive tests do a pretty good job of excluding advanced fibrosis, but they don’t perform as well at identifying those with cirrhosis, according to Dr. Younossi. He added that MEFIB isn’t suitable for general population screening, but rather for case finding, in which it can be used to identify patients who are likely to have high risk for fibrosis. “Nevertheless, it seems like the combination of FIB-4 and MRE has very good performance for identifying and excluding NAFLD patients with moderate to advance fibrosis, at least in the two cohorts that were looked at,” said Dr. Younossi.

However, Dr. Younossi noted some potential limitations to the study. Both cohorts were from referral centers, making it likely that the included patients have higher prevalences of fibrosis than a typical practice patient population, making it important to validate the findings in a real-world setting. The approach also relies on magnetic resonance technology, which is costly and may not be readily available. “We need to potentially find other, simpler noninvasive test combinations that are easier to do than MRE,” said Dr. Younossi.

Several authors disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical and device companies, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Siemens. Dr. Younossi has no relevant financial disclosures.

Correction, 1/18/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage of each cohort that had significant fibrosis.

A combination of magnetic resonance elastography and blood levels of fibrosis-4 index (MEFIB) outperformed FibroScan-AST (FAST) in determining the presence of significant fibrosis among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a new prospective cohort analysis.

© parisvas/Thinkstock

Liver fibrosis is the most important prognostic factor for NAFLD, but the invasiveness, propensity for sampling error, and interoperator variability of biopsy have prompted efforts to develop alternatives. FAST, which uses vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), and aspartate aminotransferase levels, and MEFIB have been developed as candidates, but they had not been directly compared in screening. The findings suggest that MEFIB may be a better tool for identifying NAFLD patients at heightened risk of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), as well as which patients could be candidates for pharmacotherapy interventions and clinical trials.

Although there are no drugs currently approved for high-risk NAFLD patients, many clinical trials are underway. Patients with stage 2 or higher fibrosis are candidates for clinical trials, but many trials experience a high screening failure rate. A noninvasive method that can identify clinical trial candidates while avoiding liver biopsy would be a welcome addition, Nobuharu Tamaki, MD, PhD, of the NAFLD Research Center, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, department of medicine, at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues explained in Hepatology.

“We suspect that these are the patients; if there is going to be a drug approved, it will be for this patient population. So it’s important for prognosis, but it’s also important potentially for future treatment with new drugs,” said Zobair Younossi, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

The researchers examined a cohort of 234 consecutive adults at UCSD and 314 consecutive adults at Yokohama (Japan) City University who underwent liver biopsy, magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), VCTE, and CAP assessment.

Significant fibrosis was found in 29.5% of the UCSD cohort and 66.2% of the Yokohama cohort.* MEFIB had a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve than FAST in the UCSD cohort (0.860 vs. 0.757; P = .005) and the Yokohama cohort (0.899 vs. 0.724; P < .001).

When the researchers employed MEFIB as a rule-in criteria (MRE value ≥3.3 kPa and FIB-4 ≥1.6), MEFIB had a positive predictive value of 91.2% in the UCSD cohort and 96.0% in the Yokohama cohort, versus 74.2% and 89.2% for FAST (≥0.67), respectively. Rule-out criteria included MRE less than 3.3 kPa and Fib-4 less than1.6 for MEFIB, as well as FAST of 0.35 or less; with those parameters, negative predictive value for significant fibrosis was 92.8% in the UCSD group and 85.6% in the Yokohama group for MEFIB, and 88.3% and 57.8% for FAST, respectively.

Most existing noninvasive tests do a pretty good job of excluding advanced fibrosis, but they don’t perform as well at identifying those with cirrhosis, according to Dr. Younossi. He added that MEFIB isn’t suitable for general population screening, but rather for case finding, in which it can be used to identify patients who are likely to have high risk for fibrosis. “Nevertheless, it seems like the combination of FIB-4 and MRE has very good performance for identifying and excluding NAFLD patients with moderate to advance fibrosis, at least in the two cohorts that were looked at,” said Dr. Younossi.

However, Dr. Younossi noted some potential limitations to the study. Both cohorts were from referral centers, making it likely that the included patients have higher prevalences of fibrosis than a typical practice patient population, making it important to validate the findings in a real-world setting. The approach also relies on magnetic resonance technology, which is costly and may not be readily available. “We need to potentially find other, simpler noninvasive test combinations that are easier to do than MRE,” said Dr. Younossi.

Several authors disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical and device companies, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Siemens. Dr. Younossi has no relevant financial disclosures.

Correction, 1/18/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage of each cohort that had significant fibrosis.

A combination of magnetic resonance elastography and blood levels of fibrosis-4 index (MEFIB) outperformed FibroScan-AST (FAST) in determining the presence of significant fibrosis among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a new prospective cohort analysis.

© parisvas/Thinkstock

Liver fibrosis is the most important prognostic factor for NAFLD, but the invasiveness, propensity for sampling error, and interoperator variability of biopsy have prompted efforts to develop alternatives. FAST, which uses vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), and aspartate aminotransferase levels, and MEFIB have been developed as candidates, but they had not been directly compared in screening. The findings suggest that MEFIB may be a better tool for identifying NAFLD patients at heightened risk of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), as well as which patients could be candidates for pharmacotherapy interventions and clinical trials.

Although there are no drugs currently approved for high-risk NAFLD patients, many clinical trials are underway. Patients with stage 2 or higher fibrosis are candidates for clinical trials, but many trials experience a high screening failure rate. A noninvasive method that can identify clinical trial candidates while avoiding liver biopsy would be a welcome addition, Nobuharu Tamaki, MD, PhD, of the NAFLD Research Center, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, department of medicine, at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues explained in Hepatology.

“We suspect that these are the patients; if there is going to be a drug approved, it will be for this patient population. So it’s important for prognosis, but it’s also important potentially for future treatment with new drugs,” said Zobair Younossi, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

The researchers examined a cohort of 234 consecutive adults at UCSD and 314 consecutive adults at Yokohama (Japan) City University who underwent liver biopsy, magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), VCTE, and CAP assessment.

Significant fibrosis was found in 29.5% of the UCSD cohort and 66.2% of the Yokohama cohort.* MEFIB had a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve than FAST in the UCSD cohort (0.860 vs. 0.757; P = .005) and the Yokohama cohort (0.899 vs. 0.724; P < .001).

When the researchers employed MEFIB as a rule-in criteria (MRE value ≥3.3 kPa and FIB-4 ≥1.6), MEFIB had a positive predictive value of 91.2% in the UCSD cohort and 96.0% in the Yokohama cohort, versus 74.2% and 89.2% for FAST (≥0.67), respectively. Rule-out criteria included MRE less than 3.3 kPa and Fib-4 less than1.6 for MEFIB, as well as FAST of 0.35 or less; with those parameters, negative predictive value for significant fibrosis was 92.8% in the UCSD group and 85.6% in the Yokohama group for MEFIB, and 88.3% and 57.8% for FAST, respectively.

Most existing noninvasive tests do a pretty good job of excluding advanced fibrosis, but they don’t perform as well at identifying those with cirrhosis, according to Dr. Younossi. He added that MEFIB isn’t suitable for general population screening, but rather for case finding, in which it can be used to identify patients who are likely to have high risk for fibrosis. “Nevertheless, it seems like the combination of FIB-4 and MRE has very good performance for identifying and excluding NAFLD patients with moderate to advance fibrosis, at least in the two cohorts that were looked at,” said Dr. Younossi.

However, Dr. Younossi noted some potential limitations to the study. Both cohorts were from referral centers, making it likely that the included patients have higher prevalences of fibrosis than a typical practice patient population, making it important to validate the findings in a real-world setting. The approach also relies on magnetic resonance technology, which is costly and may not be readily available. “We need to potentially find other, simpler noninvasive test combinations that are easier to do than MRE,” said Dr. Younossi.

Several authors disclosed ties with numerous pharmaceutical and device companies, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Siemens. Dr. Younossi has no relevant financial disclosures.

Correction, 1/18/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage of each cohort that had significant fibrosis.

Alcohol intake and obesity are independent risk factors for morbidity among patients with cirrhosis, but the two factors do not appear to combine for a stronger effect (supra-additive), according to conclusions from a new analysis of participants in the UK Biobank study published in Hepatology.

Nikada/iStockphoto

The researchers analyzed data from the records of 489,285 individuals in the UK Biobank from May 2006 to July 2010. Researchers defined morbidity as first-time hospitalization for cirrhosis and calculated the cumulative incidence at 10 years among included individuals. The researchers defined obesity as body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and healthy BMI as 20-25. Safe drinking was defined as having fewer than 22 units per week for males or fewer than 15 units for females, harmful drinking was defined as more than 50 units per week for males or more than 35 for females, and hazardous drinking was defined as 22-49 units per week for males and 15-35 for females. The researchers assumed 2 units in a pint of beer or cider, 1.5 units in a glass of wine and “other” drinks, and 1 unit per measure of spirits.

The mean age was 57.0 years, and 45.4% were male. Overall, 24.3% of subjects were obese, 76.5% had safe levels of alcohol consumption, 19.7% had hazardous alcohol consumption, and 3.8% were classified as harmful drinkers.

Overall, harmful drinking was associated with 5.0 times the 10-year cumulative incidence of cirrhosis morbidity among harmful versus safe drinkers (1.51% vs. 0.30%). However, among those with a healthy BMI, harmful was associated with an 8.6-fold increase of cirrhosis morbidity, compared with safe drinkers (1.38% vs. 0.16%). On the other hand, obese patients with harmful drinking habits had a 3.6-fold increase over obese safe drinkers (1.99% vs. 0.56%).

When looked at according to BMI, 10-year cumulative incidence was 3.1 times higher in patients who with obesity versus those who with healthy BMI (0.65% vs. 0.21%). This varied strongly with drinking: Safe drinkers who with obesity had 3.7 times the incidence, compared with safe drinkers with healthy BMI (0.56% vs. 0.15%), and harmful drinkers who were obese had a 1.4-fold increased incidence, compared with harmful drinkers of a healthy weight (1.99% vs. 1.38%).

“In contrast to some previous studies, we found little evidence that [obesity and drinking] interacted supra-additively to modulate the risk of cirrhosis morbidity,” the authors wrote. “On the contrary, through a relative risk lens, the association between alcohol intake and cirrhosis morbidity was actually weaker for individuals with obesity than for individuals with a healthy BMI (indicating a sub-additive relationship).”

Fine-Gray regression modelling seemed to confirm that the relationship was sub-additive. After controlling for various factors, researchers found that harmful drinkers had a 6.84-fold increased risk at a healthy BMI, while the risk was only 3.14 times higher in obese patients (P _interaction = 3.53 x 10^–6).

The findings contradict previous studies, which suggested that high BMI and harmful drinking combined may produce much higher risk than either factor alone, possibly because obesity might “prime” the liver to be vulnerable to the effects of alcohol.

The authors suggest that the differences in findings may be caused by methodological limitations of the earlier studies, such as reliance on self-reported BMI data; small sample sizes and a relatively small number of liver events among those with obesity and harmful alcohol consumption; and the failure to use a competing risk perspective. The latter is relevant because alcohol and obesity are risk factors for other potentially fatal health conditions.

But the current study is not without its own limitations, according to Nancy Reau, MD, who is a professor of medicine and chair of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Reau pointed out that the authors found the highest frequency of complications was observed in people with harmful alcohol intake whose BMI was under 20. That group may be composed of subjects with sarcopenia and end-stage liver disease from alcohol use. “Until you can separate these from the truly healthy BMI but [with harmful alcohol use], you can’t interpret this arm,” said Dr. Reau.

Beyond that, the researchers found increased risks of harm among individuals regardless of BMI, but the risks were highest among those with BMI over 30. Dr. Reau posited that the frequency might have been significantly greater at BMI higher than 35 and 40, but the researchers didn’t report results among these subcategories.

“In no way does this suggest that we need to ignore alcohol use in our patients with NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] or [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis],” said Dr. Reau.

In fact, she pointed to a figure in the paper that showed the highest increase in frequency among those with harmful alcohol use and obesity. “It’s clear that both conditions are much more serious than just obesity alone. It is incredibly important to council our NAFLD patients on appropriate alcohol use, [since] problematic drinking increases their risk. Problematic drinking remains a serious problem and increased awareness and linking to addiction services is important,” she said.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Reau has no relevant financial disclosures.

Alcohol intake and obesity are independent risk factors for morbidity among patients with cirrhosis, but the two factors do not appear to combine for a stronger effect (supra-additive), according to conclusions from a new analysis of participants in the UK Biobank study published in Hepatology.

Nikada/iStockphoto

The researchers analyzed data from the records of 489,285 individuals in the UK Biobank from May 2006 to July 2010. Researchers defined morbidity as first-time hospitalization for cirrhosis and calculated the cumulative incidence at 10 years among included individuals. The researchers defined obesity as body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and healthy BMI as 20-25. Safe drinking was defined as having fewer than 22 units per week for males or fewer than 15 units for females, harmful drinking was defined as more than 50 units per week for males or more than 35 for females, and hazardous drinking was defined as 22-49 units per week for males and 15-35 for females. The researchers assumed 2 units in a pint of beer or cider, 1.5 units in a glass of wine and “other” drinks, and 1 unit per measure of spirits.

The mean age was 57.0 years, and 45.4% were male. Overall, 24.3% of subjects were obese, 76.5% had safe levels of alcohol consumption, 19.7% had hazardous alcohol consumption, and 3.8% were classified as harmful drinkers.

Overall, harmful drinking was associated with 5.0 times the 10-year cumulative incidence of cirrhosis morbidity among harmful versus safe drinkers (1.51% vs. 0.30%). However, among those with a healthy BMI, harmful was associated with an 8.6-fold increase of cirrhosis morbidity, compared with safe drinkers (1.38% vs. 0.16%). On the other hand, obese patients with harmful drinking habits had a 3.6-fold increase over obese safe drinkers (1.99% vs. 0.56%).

When looked at according to BMI, 10-year cumulative incidence was 3.1 times higher in patients who with obesity versus those who with healthy BMI (0.65% vs. 0.21%). This varied strongly with drinking: Safe drinkers who with obesity had 3.7 times the incidence, compared with safe drinkers with healthy BMI (0.56% vs. 0.15%), and harmful drinkers who were obese had a 1.4-fold increased incidence, compared with harmful drinkers of a healthy weight (1.99% vs. 1.38%).

“In contrast to some previous studies, we found little evidence that [obesity and drinking] interacted supra-additively to modulate the risk of cirrhosis morbidity,” the authors wrote. “On the contrary, through a relative risk lens, the association between alcohol intake and cirrhosis morbidity was actually weaker for individuals with obesity than for individuals with a healthy BMI (indicating a sub-additive relationship).”

Fine-Gray regression modelling seemed to confirm that the relationship was sub-additive. After controlling for various factors, researchers found that harmful drinkers had a 6.84-fold increased risk at a healthy BMI, while the risk was only 3.14 times higher in obese patients (P _interaction = 3.53 x 10^–6).

The findings contradict previous studies, which suggested that high BMI and harmful drinking combined may produce much higher risk than either factor alone, possibly because obesity might “prime” the liver to be vulnerable to the effects of alcohol.

The authors suggest that the differences in findings may be caused by methodological limitations of the earlier studies, such as reliance on self-reported BMI data; small sample sizes and a relatively small number of liver events among those with obesity and harmful alcohol consumption; and the failure to use a competing risk perspective. The latter is relevant because alcohol and obesity are risk factors for other potentially fatal health conditions.

But the current study is not without its own limitations, according to Nancy Reau, MD, who is a professor of medicine and chair of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Reau pointed out that the authors found the highest frequency of complications was observed in people with harmful alcohol intake whose BMI was under 20. That group may be composed of subjects with sarcopenia and end-stage liver disease from alcohol use. “Until you can separate these from the truly healthy BMI but [with harmful alcohol use], you can’t interpret this arm,” said Dr. Reau.

Beyond that, the researchers found increased risks of harm among individuals regardless of BMI, but the risks were highest among those with BMI over 30. Dr. Reau posited that the frequency might have been significantly greater at BMI higher than 35 and 40, but the researchers didn’t report results among these subcategories.

“In no way does this suggest that we need to ignore alcohol use in our patients with NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] or [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis],” said Dr. Reau.

In fact, she pointed to a figure in the paper that showed the highest increase in frequency among those with harmful alcohol use and obesity. “It’s clear that both conditions are much more serious than just obesity alone. It is incredibly important to council our NAFLD patients on appropriate alcohol use, [since] problematic drinking increases their risk. Problematic drinking remains a serious problem and increased awareness and linking to addiction services is important,” she said.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Reau has no relevant financial disclosures.

Alcohol intake and obesity are independent risk factors for morbidity among patients with cirrhosis, but the two factors do not appear to combine for a stronger effect (supra-additive), according to conclusions from a new analysis of participants in the UK Biobank study published in Hepatology.

Nikada/iStockphoto

The researchers analyzed data from the records of 489,285 individuals in the UK Biobank from May 2006 to July 2010. Researchers defined morbidity as first-time hospitalization for cirrhosis and calculated the cumulative incidence at 10 years among included individuals. The researchers defined obesity as body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and healthy BMI as 20-25. Safe drinking was defined as having fewer than 22 units per week for males or fewer than 15 units for females, harmful drinking was defined as more than 50 units per week for males or more than 35 for females, and hazardous drinking was defined as 22-49 units per week for males and 15-35 for females. The researchers assumed 2 units in a pint of beer or cider, 1.5 units in a glass of wine and “other” drinks, and 1 unit per measure of spirits.

The mean age was 57.0 years, and 45.4% were male. Overall, 24.3% of subjects were obese, 76.5% had safe levels of alcohol consumption, 19.7% had hazardous alcohol consumption, and 3.8% were classified as harmful drinkers.

Overall, harmful drinking was associated with 5.0 times the 10-year cumulative incidence of cirrhosis morbidity among harmful versus safe drinkers (1.51% vs. 0.30%). However, among those with a healthy BMI, harmful was associated with an 8.6-fold increase of cirrhosis morbidity, compared with safe drinkers (1.38% vs. 0.16%). On the other hand, obese patients with harmful drinking habits had a 3.6-fold increase over obese safe drinkers (1.99% vs. 0.56%).

When looked at according to BMI, 10-year cumulative incidence was 3.1 times higher in patients who with obesity versus those who with healthy BMI (0.65% vs. 0.21%). This varied strongly with drinking: Safe drinkers who with obesity had 3.7 times the incidence, compared with safe drinkers with healthy BMI (0.56% vs. 0.15%), and harmful drinkers who were obese had a 1.4-fold increased incidence, compared with harmful drinkers of a healthy weight (1.99% vs. 1.38%).

“In contrast to some previous studies, we found little evidence that [obesity and drinking] interacted supra-additively to modulate the risk of cirrhosis morbidity,” the authors wrote. “On the contrary, through a relative risk lens, the association between alcohol intake and cirrhosis morbidity was actually weaker for individuals with obesity than for individuals with a healthy BMI (indicating a sub-additive relationship).”

Fine-Gray regression modelling seemed to confirm that the relationship was sub-additive. After controlling for various factors, researchers found that harmful drinkers had a 6.84-fold increased risk at a healthy BMI, while the risk was only 3.14 times higher in obese patients (P _interaction = 3.53 x 10^–6).

The findings contradict previous studies, which suggested that high BMI and harmful drinking combined may produce much higher risk than either factor alone, possibly because obesity might “prime” the liver to be vulnerable to the effects of alcohol.

The authors suggest that the differences in findings may be caused by methodological limitations of the earlier studies, such as reliance on self-reported BMI data; small sample sizes and a relatively small number of liver events among those with obesity and harmful alcohol consumption; and the failure to use a competing risk perspective. The latter is relevant because alcohol and obesity are risk factors for other potentially fatal health conditions.

But the current study is not without its own limitations, according to Nancy Reau, MD, who is a professor of medicine and chair of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Reau pointed out that the authors found the highest frequency of complications was observed in people with harmful alcohol intake whose BMI was under 20. That group may be composed of subjects with sarcopenia and end-stage liver disease from alcohol use. “Until you can separate these from the truly healthy BMI but [with harmful alcohol use], you can’t interpret this arm,” said Dr. Reau.

Beyond that, the researchers found increased risks of harm among individuals regardless of BMI, but the risks were highest among those with BMI over 30. Dr. Reau posited that the frequency might have been significantly greater at BMI higher than 35 and 40, but the researchers didn’t report results among these subcategories.

“In no way does this suggest that we need to ignore alcohol use in our patients with NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] or [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis],” said Dr. Reau.

In fact, she pointed to a figure in the paper that showed the highest increase in frequency among those with harmful alcohol use and obesity. “It’s clear that both conditions are much more serious than just obesity alone. It is incredibly important to council our NAFLD patients on appropriate alcohol use, [since] problematic drinking increases their risk. Problematic drinking remains a serious problem and increased awareness and linking to addiction services is important,” she said.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Reau has no relevant financial disclosures.