Transplant

Renal transplant is associated with a substantial survival benefit in patients with end-stage renal disease due to lupus nephritis, according to researchers who conducted a nationwide cohort study encompassing nearly all such patients treated in the United States over a 20-year period.

Transplant conferred a 70% reduction in overall death risk in these lupus nephritis end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, largely due to reduced deaths caused by infection and cardiovascular disease, according to the researchers, led by April Jorge, MD, and Zachary Wallace, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Those findings suggest that patients with lupus nephritis ESRD should routinely be considered for renal transplant in a timely manner, the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Improved access to renal transplantation for this population may considerably improve outcomes,” they said.

The study was based on an analysis of 9,659 patients who had lupus nephritis ESRD between 1995 and 2014 and were waitlisted for renal transplant. The data came from the United States Renal Data System, which includes most ESRD patients treated in the country. Of those 9,659 patients, 5,738 (59%) underwent kidney transplant.

Mortality rates were 22.5 per 1,000 person-years for lupus nephritis ESRD patients who underwent transplant, and 56.3 per 1,000 person-years for those patients who did not receive transplant, the investigators found.

Renal transplant reduced risk of death by 70% in results of multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.27-0.33).

That lower risk of all-cause mortality was consistent across racial groups and for other characteristics, such as sex, age at ESRD onset, and Medicare enrollment status.

Risk of cardiovascular death was 74% lower with renal transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.23-0.30), and risk of death from infection was also markedly lower among those who underwent transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.32-0.52), investigators found in a cause-specific mortality analysis.

While transplant has been associated with improved survival in patients with ESRD from all causes, there are “unique concerns” regarding the potential for infections or other post-transplant complications from transplant in lupus nephritis patients with ESRD, Dr. Jorge and colleagues wrote.

“To that end, our study provides evidence for a substantial survival benefit of renal transplant among patients with lupus nephritis ESRD,” they noted.

Dr. Jorge reported grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases during the conduct of the study. One co-author provided additional disclosures related to Teva Pharmaceuticals and Gilead Sciences outside of the study conduct.

SOURCE: Jorge A, et al. Ann Intern Med 2019 Jan 21. doi: 10.7326/M18-1570.

Renal transplant is associated with a substantial survival benefit in patients with end-stage renal disease due to lupus nephritis, according to researchers who conducted a nationwide cohort study encompassing nearly all such patients treated in the United States over a 20-year period.

Transplant conferred a 70% reduction in overall death risk in these lupus nephritis end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, largely due to reduced deaths caused by infection and cardiovascular disease, according to the researchers, led by April Jorge, MD, and Zachary Wallace, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Those findings suggest that patients with lupus nephritis ESRD should routinely be considered for renal transplant in a timely manner, the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Improved access to renal transplantation for this population may considerably improve outcomes,” they said.

The study was based on an analysis of 9,659 patients who had lupus nephritis ESRD between 1995 and 2014 and were waitlisted for renal transplant. The data came from the United States Renal Data System, which includes most ESRD patients treated in the country. Of those 9,659 patients, 5,738 (59%) underwent kidney transplant.

Mortality rates were 22.5 per 1,000 person-years for lupus nephritis ESRD patients who underwent transplant, and 56.3 per 1,000 person-years for those patients who did not receive transplant, the investigators found.

Renal transplant reduced risk of death by 70% in results of multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.27-0.33).

That lower risk of all-cause mortality was consistent across racial groups and for other characteristics, such as sex, age at ESRD onset, and Medicare enrollment status.

Risk of cardiovascular death was 74% lower with renal transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.23-0.30), and risk of death from infection was also markedly lower among those who underwent transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.32-0.52), investigators found in a cause-specific mortality analysis.

While transplant has been associated with improved survival in patients with ESRD from all causes, there are “unique concerns” regarding the potential for infections or other post-transplant complications from transplant in lupus nephritis patients with ESRD, Dr. Jorge and colleagues wrote.

“To that end, our study provides evidence for a substantial survival benefit of renal transplant among patients with lupus nephritis ESRD,” they noted.

Dr. Jorge reported grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases during the conduct of the study. One co-author provided additional disclosures related to Teva Pharmaceuticals and Gilead Sciences outside of the study conduct.

SOURCE: Jorge A, et al. Ann Intern Med 2019 Jan 21. doi: 10.7326/M18-1570.

Renal transplant is associated with a substantial survival benefit in patients with end-stage renal disease due to lupus nephritis, according to researchers who conducted a nationwide cohort study encompassing nearly all such patients treated in the United States over a 20-year period.

Transplant conferred a 70% reduction in overall death risk in these lupus nephritis end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, largely due to reduced deaths caused by infection and cardiovascular disease, according to the researchers, led by April Jorge, MD, and Zachary Wallace, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Those findings suggest that patients with lupus nephritis ESRD should routinely be considered for renal transplant in a timely manner, the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Improved access to renal transplantation for this population may considerably improve outcomes,” they said.

The study was based on an analysis of 9,659 patients who had lupus nephritis ESRD between 1995 and 2014 and were waitlisted for renal transplant. The data came from the United States Renal Data System, which includes most ESRD patients treated in the country. Of those 9,659 patients, 5,738 (59%) underwent kidney transplant.

Mortality rates were 22.5 per 1,000 person-years for lupus nephritis ESRD patients who underwent transplant, and 56.3 per 1,000 person-years for those patients who did not receive transplant, the investigators found.

Renal transplant reduced risk of death by 70% in results of multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.27-0.33).

That lower risk of all-cause mortality was consistent across racial groups and for other characteristics, such as sex, age at ESRD onset, and Medicare enrollment status.

Risk of cardiovascular death was 74% lower with renal transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.23-0.30), and risk of death from infection was also markedly lower among those who underwent transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.32-0.52), investigators found in a cause-specific mortality analysis.

While transplant has been associated with improved survival in patients with ESRD from all causes, there are “unique concerns” regarding the potential for infections or other post-transplant complications from transplant in lupus nephritis patients with ESRD, Dr. Jorge and colleagues wrote.

“To that end, our study provides evidence for a substantial survival benefit of renal transplant among patients with lupus nephritis ESRD,” they noted.

Dr. Jorge reported grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases during the conduct of the study. One co-author provided additional disclosures related to Teva Pharmaceuticals and Gilead Sciences outside of the study conduct.

SOURCE: Jorge A, et al. Ann Intern Med 2019 Jan 21. doi: 10.7326/M18-1570.

SAN FRANCISCO – Using normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) to preserve steatotic livers may result in more successful transplantation of these organs, especially when used concomitantly with lipid apheresis filtration and defatting agents, results from a small trial showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This is important in the context of liver transplantation, because fatty livers do very badly when their time is blunted,” study coauthor Carlo Ceresa, MBChB, MRCS, said during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “They’re susceptible to ischemia reperfusion injury, and as a result, a large number are discarded. In the U.S., it’s estimated that around 6,000 steatotic livers are discarded each year. In the U.K., the picture is very similar. Because up to 20% of patients die on the waiting list for liver transplant, we need to try to identify methods to use more marginal organs. Unfortunately, with the obesity epidemic and obesity being a risk factor for NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease], we find more fatty livers in the donor pool, and we aren’t able to use them. Identifying methods to salvage these livers for transplantation [is] of great importance.”

NMP maintains the liver in a fully functioning state ex situ and provides oxygen and nutrition at 37° C, said Dr. Ceresa, who is a clinical research fellow with the Medical Research Council and a PhD candidate at the University of Oxford, England. In an effort to evaluate the impact of NMP and defatting adjuncts on human steatotic livers, he and his colleagues perfused 18 discarded human steatotic livers on a normothermic, blood-based circuit for 48 hours. Of these, six were perfused by normothermic machine perfusion alone (group 1), while six were perfused by NMP plus apheresis filtration, which removes lipoproteins (group 2). “The hypothesis here was that we could mechanically remove the fat that the liver releases,” he said. The remaining six livers were perfused with NMP, lipid apheresis filtration, and defatting agents including L-carnitine and forskolin (group 3).

The livers in group 1 “did pretty badly,” Dr. Ceresa said. “Their function wasn’t great and within 48 hours deteriorated, and there was a slight increase in liver fat. That’s probably attributable to de novo lipogenesis.” However, the livers in groups 2 and 3 demonstrated a significant reduction in circulating triglycerides and in perfusate total cholesterol by 48 hours, compared with those in group 1. The researchers also observed an increase in median fatty acid oxidation as measured by 3-hydroxybutyrate among the livers in group 3, compared with those in groups 1 and 2. In addition, the livers in group 3 were the only ones to show a mean reduction in tissue triglyceride level.

Dr. Ceresa described the findings as “exciting, because we have a captive organ we can manipulate, which could then result in a successful transplantation,” he said. “You also get to test drive and get an objective assessment of the organ’s function before you transplant it, so the result may be more predictable. It gives us a very useful model to study NAFLD.”

The next step, he said, is to plan a clinical trial to determine if clinical outcomes can be improved through these ex situ interventions on steatotic livers.

Dr. Ceresa reported having no financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

Source: Hepatology 2018;68[S1], Abstract 3.

SAN FRANCISCO – Using normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) to preserve steatotic livers may result in more successful transplantation of these organs, especially when used concomitantly with lipid apheresis filtration and defatting agents, results from a small trial showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This is important in the context of liver transplantation, because fatty livers do very badly when their time is blunted,” study coauthor Carlo Ceresa, MBChB, MRCS, said during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “They’re susceptible to ischemia reperfusion injury, and as a result, a large number are discarded. In the U.S., it’s estimated that around 6,000 steatotic livers are discarded each year. In the U.K., the picture is very similar. Because up to 20% of patients die on the waiting list for liver transplant, we need to try to identify methods to use more marginal organs. Unfortunately, with the obesity epidemic and obesity being a risk factor for NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease], we find more fatty livers in the donor pool, and we aren’t able to use them. Identifying methods to salvage these livers for transplantation [is] of great importance.”

NMP maintains the liver in a fully functioning state ex situ and provides oxygen and nutrition at 37° C, said Dr. Ceresa, who is a clinical research fellow with the Medical Research Council and a PhD candidate at the University of Oxford, England. In an effort to evaluate the impact of NMP and defatting adjuncts on human steatotic livers, he and his colleagues perfused 18 discarded human steatotic livers on a normothermic, blood-based circuit for 48 hours. Of these, six were perfused by normothermic machine perfusion alone (group 1), while six were perfused by NMP plus apheresis filtration, which removes lipoproteins (group 2). “The hypothesis here was that we could mechanically remove the fat that the liver releases,” he said. The remaining six livers were perfused with NMP, lipid apheresis filtration, and defatting agents including L-carnitine and forskolin (group 3).

The livers in group 1 “did pretty badly,” Dr. Ceresa said. “Their function wasn’t great and within 48 hours deteriorated, and there was a slight increase in liver fat. That’s probably attributable to de novo lipogenesis.” However, the livers in groups 2 and 3 demonstrated a significant reduction in circulating triglycerides and in perfusate total cholesterol by 48 hours, compared with those in group 1. The researchers also observed an increase in median fatty acid oxidation as measured by 3-hydroxybutyrate among the livers in group 3, compared with those in groups 1 and 2. In addition, the livers in group 3 were the only ones to show a mean reduction in tissue triglyceride level.

Dr. Ceresa described the findings as “exciting, because we have a captive organ we can manipulate, which could then result in a successful transplantation,” he said. “You also get to test drive and get an objective assessment of the organ’s function before you transplant it, so the result may be more predictable. It gives us a very useful model to study NAFLD.”

The next step, he said, is to plan a clinical trial to determine if clinical outcomes can be improved through these ex situ interventions on steatotic livers.

Dr. Ceresa reported having no financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

Source: Hepatology 2018;68[S1], Abstract 3.

SAN FRANCISCO – Using normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) to preserve steatotic livers may result in more successful transplantation of these organs, especially when used concomitantly with lipid apheresis filtration and defatting agents, results from a small trial showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This is important in the context of liver transplantation, because fatty livers do very badly when their time is blunted,” study coauthor Carlo Ceresa, MBChB, MRCS, said during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “They’re susceptible to ischemia reperfusion injury, and as a result, a large number are discarded. In the U.S., it’s estimated that around 6,000 steatotic livers are discarded each year. In the U.K., the picture is very similar. Because up to 20% of patients die on the waiting list for liver transplant, we need to try to identify methods to use more marginal organs. Unfortunately, with the obesity epidemic and obesity being a risk factor for NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease], we find more fatty livers in the donor pool, and we aren’t able to use them. Identifying methods to salvage these livers for transplantation [is] of great importance.”

NMP maintains the liver in a fully functioning state ex situ and provides oxygen and nutrition at 37° C, said Dr. Ceresa, who is a clinical research fellow with the Medical Research Council and a PhD candidate at the University of Oxford, England. In an effort to evaluate the impact of NMP and defatting adjuncts on human steatotic livers, he and his colleagues perfused 18 discarded human steatotic livers on a normothermic, blood-based circuit for 48 hours. Of these, six were perfused by normothermic machine perfusion alone (group 1), while six were perfused by NMP plus apheresis filtration, which removes lipoproteins (group 2). “The hypothesis here was that we could mechanically remove the fat that the liver releases,” he said. The remaining six livers were perfused with NMP, lipid apheresis filtration, and defatting agents including L-carnitine and forskolin (group 3).

The livers in group 1 “did pretty badly,” Dr. Ceresa said. “Their function wasn’t great and within 48 hours deteriorated, and there was a slight increase in liver fat. That’s probably attributable to de novo lipogenesis.” However, the livers in groups 2 and 3 demonstrated a significant reduction in circulating triglycerides and in perfusate total cholesterol by 48 hours, compared with those in group 1. The researchers also observed an increase in median fatty acid oxidation as measured by 3-hydroxybutyrate among the livers in group 3, compared with those in groups 1 and 2. In addition, the livers in group 3 were the only ones to show a mean reduction in tissue triglyceride level.

Dr. Ceresa described the findings as “exciting, because we have a captive organ we can manipulate, which could then result in a successful transplantation,” he said. “You also get to test drive and get an objective assessment of the organ’s function before you transplant it, so the result may be more predictable. It gives us a very useful model to study NAFLD.”

The next step, he said, is to plan a clinical trial to determine if clinical outcomes can be improved through these ex situ interventions on steatotic livers.

Dr. Ceresa reported having no financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

Source: Hepatology 2018;68[S1], Abstract 3.

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite the readiness of liver transplant candidates to engage in discussions about advance care planning, there are low rates of such conversations with clinicians, results from a single-center survey found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge Medical News

“Recent studies have shown that there have been low rates of these types of discussions in all areas of medicine, not just in liver transplantation per se,” Connie W. Wang, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “We were curious to see what it looked like in our practice setting.”

In an effort to evaluate current advanced care planning documentation practices in the liver transplantation setting, she and her colleagues reviewed the medical charts of 168 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation at the University of California, San Francisco, from January 2017 to June 2017. Next, to assess readiness to complete advanced care planning among liver transplant candidates, the researchers administered the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey to 41 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation from March 2018 to May 2018. The survey was scored on a Likert scale of 1-4, in which a score of 4 equaled “ready” or “confident,” and a score of 5 equaled “very ready” or “very confident.”

The mean age of the 168 transplant candidates was 53 years, 35% were female, and 52% were non-Hispanic white. Only 15 patients (9%) reported completing advanced care planning prior to their liver transplant evaluation and none had legal advance care planning forms scanned or end-of-life wishes documented in the medical record. Durable power of attorney for health care was discussed with 17 patients (10%). On logistic regression analysis, only white race was associated with completion of advanced care planning (OR 4.16; P = .03), but age, Child-Pugh score, and MELD-Na score were not.

The mean age of the 41 transplant candidates who completed the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey was 58 years, 39% were female, and 58% were non-Hispanic white. Nearly all respondents (93%) indicated that they were ready to appoint a durable power of attorney, 85% were ready to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% were ready to ask physicians questions about medical decisions. Similarly, 93% of patients felt confident to appoint a durable power of attorney, 88% felt confident to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% felt confident to ask physicians questions about medical decisions.

“It seems like from the patients’ perspective, they are very much open to having these conversations, but there hasn’t been [the right] environment or setting to have them,” said Dr. Wang, a third-year internal medicine resident at UCSF. “Or, there may be a barrier from the provider’s perspective. Clearly, there is a huge need that can be filled.” She noted that future research should focus on development of tools to facilitate discussions and documentation between transplant clinicians, patients, and their caregivers.

One of the study authors, Jennifer C. Lai, MD, reported being a consultant for Third Rock Ventures, LLC. The other researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Hepatol. 2018;68[S1]: Abstract 771.

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite the readiness of liver transplant candidates to engage in discussions about advance care planning, there are low rates of such conversations with clinicians, results from a single-center survey found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge Medical News

“Recent studies have shown that there have been low rates of these types of discussions in all areas of medicine, not just in liver transplantation per se,” Connie W. Wang, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “We were curious to see what it looked like in our practice setting.”

In an effort to evaluate current advanced care planning documentation practices in the liver transplantation setting, she and her colleagues reviewed the medical charts of 168 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation at the University of California, San Francisco, from January 2017 to June 2017. Next, to assess readiness to complete advanced care planning among liver transplant candidates, the researchers administered the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey to 41 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation from March 2018 to May 2018. The survey was scored on a Likert scale of 1-4, in which a score of 4 equaled “ready” or “confident,” and a score of 5 equaled “very ready” or “very confident.”

The mean age of the 168 transplant candidates was 53 years, 35% were female, and 52% were non-Hispanic white. Only 15 patients (9%) reported completing advanced care planning prior to their liver transplant evaluation and none had legal advance care planning forms scanned or end-of-life wishes documented in the medical record. Durable power of attorney for health care was discussed with 17 patients (10%). On logistic regression analysis, only white race was associated with completion of advanced care planning (OR 4.16; P = .03), but age, Child-Pugh score, and MELD-Na score were not.

The mean age of the 41 transplant candidates who completed the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey was 58 years, 39% were female, and 58% were non-Hispanic white. Nearly all respondents (93%) indicated that they were ready to appoint a durable power of attorney, 85% were ready to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% were ready to ask physicians questions about medical decisions. Similarly, 93% of patients felt confident to appoint a durable power of attorney, 88% felt confident to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% felt confident to ask physicians questions about medical decisions.

“It seems like from the patients’ perspective, they are very much open to having these conversations, but there hasn’t been [the right] environment or setting to have them,” said Dr. Wang, a third-year internal medicine resident at UCSF. “Or, there may be a barrier from the provider’s perspective. Clearly, there is a huge need that can be filled.” She noted that future research should focus on development of tools to facilitate discussions and documentation between transplant clinicians, patients, and their caregivers.

One of the study authors, Jennifer C. Lai, MD, reported being a consultant for Third Rock Ventures, LLC. The other researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Hepatol. 2018;68[S1]: Abstract 771.

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite the readiness of liver transplant candidates to engage in discussions about advance care planning, there are low rates of such conversations with clinicians, results from a single-center survey found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge Medical News

“Recent studies have shown that there have been low rates of these types of discussions in all areas of medicine, not just in liver transplantation per se,” Connie W. Wang, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “We were curious to see what it looked like in our practice setting.”

In an effort to evaluate current advanced care planning documentation practices in the liver transplantation setting, she and her colleagues reviewed the medical charts of 168 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation at the University of California, San Francisco, from January 2017 to June 2017. Next, to assess readiness to complete advanced care planning among liver transplant candidates, the researchers administered the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey to 41 adults who underwent an initial liver transplant evaluation from March 2018 to May 2018. The survey was scored on a Likert scale of 1-4, in which a score of 4 equaled “ready” or “confident,” and a score of 5 equaled “very ready” or “very confident.”

The mean age of the 168 transplant candidates was 53 years, 35% were female, and 52% were non-Hispanic white. Only 15 patients (9%) reported completing advanced care planning prior to their liver transplant evaluation and none had legal advance care planning forms scanned or end-of-life wishes documented in the medical record. Durable power of attorney for health care was discussed with 17 patients (10%). On logistic regression analysis, only white race was associated with completion of advanced care planning (OR 4.16; P = .03), but age, Child-Pugh score, and MELD-Na score were not.

The mean age of the 41 transplant candidates who completed the Advanced Care Planning Engagement Survey was 58 years, 39% were female, and 58% were non-Hispanic white. Nearly all respondents (93%) indicated that they were ready to appoint a durable power of attorney, 85% were ready to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% were ready to ask physicians questions about medical decisions. Similarly, 93% of patients felt confident to appoint a durable power of attorney, 88% felt confident to discuss end-of-life care, and 93% felt confident to ask physicians questions about medical decisions.

“It seems like from the patients’ perspective, they are very much open to having these conversations, but there hasn’t been [the right] environment or setting to have them,” said Dr. Wang, a third-year internal medicine resident at UCSF. “Or, there may be a barrier from the provider’s perspective. Clearly, there is a huge need that can be filled.” She noted that future research should focus on development of tools to facilitate discussions and documentation between transplant clinicians, patients, and their caregivers.

One of the study authors, Jennifer C. Lai, MD, reported being a consultant for Third Rock Ventures, LLC. The other researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Hepatol. 2018;68[S1]: Abstract 771.

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite implementation of the Model for End Stage Liver Disease score to prioritize liver transplantation, patients with Medicaid have significantly higher MELD scores at the time of liver transplantation wait-list registration and at the time of transplantation, results from a study of national data found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“It can be difficult for patients with Medicaid to access liver transplantation,” lead study author Ann Robinson, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “These patients may be living in underserved areas with limited resources.”

In an effort to evaluate insurance-specific disparities in severity of liver disease at the time of liver transplantation wait-list registration and at the time of liver transplantation, Dr. Robinson and her colleagues retrospectively evaluated the 2005-2016 United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplant Network liver transplant registry. They used multivariate linear regression models to make insurance-specific comparisons of MELD scores at wait-list registration and at liver transplantation, which included adjustments for age, sex, year, etiology of liver disease, body mass index, ascites, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and hepatic encephalopathy.

Dr. Robinson, who is a third-year internal medicine resident at Highland Hospital, Oakland, Calif., reported findings from 88,542 liver transplantation wait-list registrants with a mean age of 56 years. Their overall mean MELD score was 17.4 at wait-list registration and 22.6 at time of liver transplantation. The greatest mean MELD score at the time of wait-list registration was observed in Medicaid patients (18.4, compared with 17.2 among Veterans Affairs patients, 17 among Medicare patients, and 17 among privately/commercially insured patients; P less than .01). Meanwhile, the greatest mean MELD score at the time of liver transplantation was observed in Medicaid patients (23.5, compared with 21.4 among VA patients, 21.3 among privately/commercially insured patients, and 21.1 among Medicare patients; P less than .01).

Multivariate regression analysis revealed that, among patients without hepatocellular carcinoma, those with coverage other than private or commercial insurance had significantly higher MELD scores at wait-list registration (P less than .01). Specifically, the odds ratio was highest for VA patients (odds ratio, 2.59), followed by those covered by Medicaid (OR, 2.45), and Medicare (OR, 1.86). Similar trends were observed in hepatocellular carcinoma patients, with the highest biological MELD score at wait-list seen in those covered by Medicaid.

On regression analysis, while Medicaid patients with hepatocellular carcinoma had significantly higher biological MELD scores at time of liver transplantation, compared with those with private/commercial insurance (Medicaid OR, 2.06; P less than .05), no differences were observed among patients without hepatocellular carcinoma.

Dr. Robinson reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Hepatology 2018 Oct 1;68[S1], Abstract 464.

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite implementation of the Model for End Stage Liver Disease score to prioritize liver transplantation, patients with Medicaid have significantly higher MELD scores at the time of liver transplantation wait-list registration and at the time of transplantation, results from a study of national data found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“It can be difficult for patients with Medicaid to access liver transplantation,” lead study author Ann Robinson, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “These patients may be living in underserved areas with limited resources.”

In an effort to evaluate insurance-specific disparities in severity of liver disease at the time of liver transplantation wait-list registration and at the time of liver transplantation, Dr. Robinson and her colleagues retrospectively evaluated the 2005-2016 United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplant Network liver transplant registry. They used multivariate linear regression models to make insurance-specific comparisons of MELD scores at wait-list registration and at liver transplantation, which included adjustments for age, sex, year, etiology of liver disease, body mass index, ascites, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and hepatic encephalopathy.

Dr. Robinson, who is a third-year internal medicine resident at Highland Hospital, Oakland, Calif., reported findings from 88,542 liver transplantation wait-list registrants with a mean age of 56 years. Their overall mean MELD score was 17.4 at wait-list registration and 22.6 at time of liver transplantation. The greatest mean MELD score at the time of wait-list registration was observed in Medicaid patients (18.4, compared with 17.2 among Veterans Affairs patients, 17 among Medicare patients, and 17 among privately/commercially insured patients; P less than .01). Meanwhile, the greatest mean MELD score at the time of liver transplantation was observed in Medicaid patients (23.5, compared with 21.4 among VA patients, 21.3 among privately/commercially insured patients, and 21.1 among Medicare patients; P less than .01).

Multivariate regression analysis revealed that, among patients without hepatocellular carcinoma, those with coverage other than private or commercial insurance had significantly higher MELD scores at wait-list registration (P less than .01). Specifically, the odds ratio was highest for VA patients (odds ratio, 2.59), followed by those covered by Medicaid (OR, 2.45), and Medicare (OR, 1.86). Similar trends were observed in hepatocellular carcinoma patients, with the highest biological MELD score at wait-list seen in those covered by Medicaid.

On regression analysis, while Medicaid patients with hepatocellular carcinoma had significantly higher biological MELD scores at time of liver transplantation, compared with those with private/commercial insurance (Medicaid OR, 2.06; P less than .05), no differences were observed among patients without hepatocellular carcinoma.

Dr. Robinson reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Hepatology 2018 Oct 1;68[S1], Abstract 464.

SAN FRANCISCO – Despite implementation of the Model for End Stage Liver Disease score to prioritize liver transplantation, patients with Medicaid have significantly higher MELD scores at the time of liver transplantation wait-list registration and at the time of transplantation, results from a study of national data found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“It can be difficult for patients with Medicaid to access liver transplantation,” lead study author Ann Robinson, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “These patients may be living in underserved areas with limited resources.”

In an effort to evaluate insurance-specific disparities in severity of liver disease at the time of liver transplantation wait-list registration and at the time of liver transplantation, Dr. Robinson and her colleagues retrospectively evaluated the 2005-2016 United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplant Network liver transplant registry. They used multivariate linear regression models to make insurance-specific comparisons of MELD scores at wait-list registration and at liver transplantation, which included adjustments for age, sex, year, etiology of liver disease, body mass index, ascites, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and hepatic encephalopathy.

Dr. Robinson, who is a third-year internal medicine resident at Highland Hospital, Oakland, Calif., reported findings from 88,542 liver transplantation wait-list registrants with a mean age of 56 years. Their overall mean MELD score was 17.4 at wait-list registration and 22.6 at time of liver transplantation. The greatest mean MELD score at the time of wait-list registration was observed in Medicaid patients (18.4, compared with 17.2 among Veterans Affairs patients, 17 among Medicare patients, and 17 among privately/commercially insured patients; P less than .01). Meanwhile, the greatest mean MELD score at the time of liver transplantation was observed in Medicaid patients (23.5, compared with 21.4 among VA patients, 21.3 among privately/commercially insured patients, and 21.1 among Medicare patients; P less than .01).

Multivariate regression analysis revealed that, among patients without hepatocellular carcinoma, those with coverage other than private or commercial insurance had significantly higher MELD scores at wait-list registration (P less than .01). Specifically, the odds ratio was highest for VA patients (odds ratio, 2.59), followed by those covered by Medicaid (OR, 2.45), and Medicare (OR, 1.86). Similar trends were observed in hepatocellular carcinoma patients, with the highest biological MELD score at wait-list seen in those covered by Medicaid.

On regression analysis, while Medicaid patients with hepatocellular carcinoma had significantly higher biological MELD scores at time of liver transplantation, compared with those with private/commercial insurance (Medicaid OR, 2.06; P less than .05), no differences were observed among patients without hepatocellular carcinoma.

Dr. Robinson reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Source: Hepatology 2018 Oct 1;68[S1], Abstract 464.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new analysis shows that hepatitis C–infected livers can be safely transplanted into recipients with no effect on graft survival, retransplantation, or mortality. The work confirms that readily available direct-acting antiviral therapy can protect organ recipients and open a source of organs that is typically overlooked.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The work should encourage both physicians and patients to take a closer look at hepatitis C–infected organs, especially for sicker patients, according to Sonali Paul, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease 2018.

“A lot of people have an ethical issue with it because we’re actively transplanting a virus into someone. We’re giving someone a disease. My take on it is that we give people Epstein Barr virus or cytomegalovirus all the time – we just [provide] prophylaxis against it, and we don’t even bat an eye. Hepatitis C can be devastating, but we have totally effective treatments for it,” said Dr. Paul, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago.

She cited one colleague at the University of Chicago who several years ago transplanted an organ that had been passed over 700 times, though times have changed since then. “I think people more and more are doing this practice because we know it’s so successful,” said Dr. Paul.

It’s also cost effective. Another study, presented during the same session by Jag Chhatwal, PhD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, showed that accepting a hepatitis C–positive liver is cost effective in patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ranging from 22 to 40.

“I think we’re going to find across all organ systems, if we can transplant patients rather than keep them on dialysis or keep them on wait lists, it’s got to be cost effective, especially if you think of the health care–associated costs – like a heart transplant patient waiting on the list in the ICU. That’s a huge health care cost,” said Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul’s team performed an analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, including single organ transplants from deceased donors, during 2014-2018. Over that period, the number of transplants from hepatitis C–positive donors to hepatitis C–positive recipients rose from 8 in 2014 to 269, and the number of transplants from hepatitis C–positive donors to hepatitis C–negative recipients rose from 0 to 46.

The researchers compared trends from hepatitis C–negative donors with hepatitis C–negative recipients (n = 11,270), negative donors with positive recipients (n = 4,748), positive donors with negative recipients (n = 87), and positive donors with positive recipients (n = 753). Donor status had no effect on graft survival times at 1 or 2 years, with values ranging from 92.6% (negative to negative) to 94.3% (positive to positive) at 1 year and between 85.7% (positive to negative) and 89.7% (positive to positive) at 2 years.

“For someone who has a MELD score of over 20, who has a declining quality of life and really can’t do anything, I think this is a great opportunity. And most patients are absolutely willing to take these organs. We haven’t had many people say no, especially if they feel poorly,” said Dr. Paul.

She also underscored the importance of ensuring that the patient is informed of the status of the donor liver and the need to complete treatment: “The patient has to know what’s happening, and the hospital has to have a safety net if the insurance doesn’t pay for hepatitis C treatment.”
 

SOURCE: AASLD 2018, Abstract 0249.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new analysis shows that hepatitis C–infected livers can be safely transplanted into recipients with no effect on graft survival, retransplantation, or mortality. The work confirms that readily available direct-acting antiviral therapy can protect organ recipients and open a source of organs that is typically overlooked.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The work should encourage both physicians and patients to take a closer look at hepatitis C–infected organs, especially for sicker patients, according to Sonali Paul, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease 2018.

“A lot of people have an ethical issue with it because we’re actively transplanting a virus into someone. We’re giving someone a disease. My take on it is that we give people Epstein Barr virus or cytomegalovirus all the time – we just [provide] prophylaxis against it, and we don’t even bat an eye. Hepatitis C can be devastating, but we have totally effective treatments for it,” said Dr. Paul, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago.

She cited one colleague at the University of Chicago who several years ago transplanted an organ that had been passed over 700 times, though times have changed since then. “I think people more and more are doing this practice because we know it’s so successful,” said Dr. Paul.

It’s also cost effective. Another study, presented during the same session by Jag Chhatwal, PhD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, showed that accepting a hepatitis C–positive liver is cost effective in patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ranging from 22 to 40.

“I think we’re going to find across all organ systems, if we can transplant patients rather than keep them on dialysis or keep them on wait lists, it’s got to be cost effective, especially if you think of the health care–associated costs – like a heart transplant patient waiting on the list in the ICU. That’s a huge health care cost,” said Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul’s team performed an analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, including single organ transplants from deceased donors, during 2014-2018. Over that period, the number of transplants from hepatitis C–positive donors to hepatitis C–positive recipients rose from 8 in 2014 to 269, and the number of transplants from hepatitis C–positive donors to hepatitis C–negative recipients rose from 0 to 46.

The researchers compared trends from hepatitis C–negative donors with hepatitis C–negative recipients (n = 11,270), negative donors with positive recipients (n = 4,748), positive donors with negative recipients (n = 87), and positive donors with positive recipients (n = 753). Donor status had no effect on graft survival times at 1 or 2 years, with values ranging from 92.6% (negative to negative) to 94.3% (positive to positive) at 1 year and between 85.7% (positive to negative) and 89.7% (positive to positive) at 2 years.

“For someone who has a MELD score of over 20, who has a declining quality of life and really can’t do anything, I think this is a great opportunity. And most patients are absolutely willing to take these organs. We haven’t had many people say no, especially if they feel poorly,” said Dr. Paul.

She also underscored the importance of ensuring that the patient is informed of the status of the donor liver and the need to complete treatment: “The patient has to know what’s happening, and the hospital has to have a safety net if the insurance doesn’t pay for hepatitis C treatment.”
 

SOURCE: AASLD 2018, Abstract 0249.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new analysis shows that hepatitis C–infected livers can be safely transplanted into recipients with no effect on graft survival, retransplantation, or mortality. The work confirms that readily available direct-acting antiviral therapy can protect organ recipients and open a source of organs that is typically overlooked.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The work should encourage both physicians and patients to take a closer look at hepatitis C–infected organs, especially for sicker patients, according to Sonali Paul, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease 2018.

“A lot of people have an ethical issue with it because we’re actively transplanting a virus into someone. We’re giving someone a disease. My take on it is that we give people Epstein Barr virus or cytomegalovirus all the time – we just [provide] prophylaxis against it, and we don’t even bat an eye. Hepatitis C can be devastating, but we have totally effective treatments for it,” said Dr. Paul, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago.

She cited one colleague at the University of Chicago who several years ago transplanted an organ that had been passed over 700 times, though times have changed since then. “I think people more and more are doing this practice because we know it’s so successful,” said Dr. Paul.

It’s also cost effective. Another study, presented during the same session by Jag Chhatwal, PhD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, showed that accepting a hepatitis C–positive liver is cost effective in patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ranging from 22 to 40.

“I think we’re going to find across all organ systems, if we can transplant patients rather than keep them on dialysis or keep them on wait lists, it’s got to be cost effective, especially if you think of the health care–associated costs – like a heart transplant patient waiting on the list in the ICU. That’s a huge health care cost,” said Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul’s team performed an analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, including single organ transplants from deceased donors, during 2014-2018. Over that period, the number of transplants from hepatitis C–positive donors to hepatitis C–positive recipients rose from 8 in 2014 to 269, and the number of transplants from hepatitis C–positive donors to hepatitis C–negative recipients rose from 0 to 46.

The researchers compared trends from hepatitis C–negative donors with hepatitis C–negative recipients (n = 11,270), negative donors with positive recipients (n = 4,748), positive donors with negative recipients (n = 87), and positive donors with positive recipients (n = 753). Donor status had no effect on graft survival times at 1 or 2 years, with values ranging from 92.6% (negative to negative) to 94.3% (positive to positive) at 1 year and between 85.7% (positive to negative) and 89.7% (positive to positive) at 2 years.

“For someone who has a MELD score of over 20, who has a declining quality of life and really can’t do anything, I think this is a great opportunity. And most patients are absolutely willing to take these organs. We haven’t had many people say no, especially if they feel poorly,” said Dr. Paul.

She also underscored the importance of ensuring that the patient is informed of the status of the donor liver and the need to complete treatment: “The patient has to know what’s happening, and the hospital has to have a safety net if the insurance doesn’t pay for hepatitis C treatment.”
 

SOURCE: AASLD 2018, Abstract 0249.

SAN FRANCISCO – Patients with chronic liver disease are prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines at very high rates, despite risk for adverse consequences because of hepatic metabolism, according to results from a large longitudinal study of national data.

“Middle-aged individuals and those with a background of substance abuse and mental health conditions appear to have highest rates of use and represent populations for which targeted interventions to curb use could be highest yield,” lead study author Monica Konerman, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

In an effort to better understand the rates of prescription opioid and benzodiazepine use in chronic liver disease, Dr. Konerman, director of the Michigan Medicine NAFLD Clinic at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and her colleagues drew from the Truven Health Analytics Marketscan databases from 2009 to 2015. They limited the analysis to individuals with drug coverage who had chronic hepatitis C (HCV) without cirrhosis, cirrhosis, congestive heart failure (CHF), or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and examined pharmacy files for outpatient prescriptions.

Dr. Konerman reported data from 210,191 patients with HCV, 79,332 with cirrhosis, 766,840 with CHF, and 1,438,798 with COPD. Their median age was 59 years, and 51% were female. In per person-years, the prevalence of prescription opioid use was 25% among patients with chronic HCV, 53% among patients with cirrhosis, 26% among those with CHF, and 24% among those with COPD. At the same time, in per person-years, the prevalence of benzodiazepine use was 12% among patients with chronic HCV, 21% among patients with cirrhosis, 12% among those with CHF, and 13% among those with COPD. Use of opioids was greatest in adults 40-59 years of age (P less than .001). High-dose opioid use, defined as 100 opioid morphine equivalents per day or greater, occurred in 23% of those with cirrhosis and in 22% of those with HCV.

“The significant increase in rates of use in chronic liver disease, compared to other chronic conditions was remarkable, particularly given that patients with liver disease are at higher risk for adverse consequences of use due to hepatic metabolism of these medications,” Dr. Konerman said.

She went on to acknowledge “inherent limitations to studies that are secondary database analyses that rely on diagnosis codes for categorization of disease with potential for both over and under classification. We also did not capture inpatient prescriptions,” she said.

Dr. Konerman reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Patients with chronic liver disease are prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines at very high rates, despite risk for adverse consequences because of hepatic metabolism, according to results from a large longitudinal study of national data.

“Middle-aged individuals and those with a background of substance abuse and mental health conditions appear to have highest rates of use and represent populations for which targeted interventions to curb use could be highest yield,” lead study author Monica Konerman, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

In an effort to better understand the rates of prescription opioid and benzodiazepine use in chronic liver disease, Dr. Konerman, director of the Michigan Medicine NAFLD Clinic at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and her colleagues drew from the Truven Health Analytics Marketscan databases from 2009 to 2015. They limited the analysis to individuals with drug coverage who had chronic hepatitis C (HCV) without cirrhosis, cirrhosis, congestive heart failure (CHF), or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and examined pharmacy files for outpatient prescriptions.

Dr. Konerman reported data from 210,191 patients with HCV, 79,332 with cirrhosis, 766,840 with CHF, and 1,438,798 with COPD. Their median age was 59 years, and 51% were female. In per person-years, the prevalence of prescription opioid use was 25% among patients with chronic HCV, 53% among patients with cirrhosis, 26% among those with CHF, and 24% among those with COPD. At the same time, in per person-years, the prevalence of benzodiazepine use was 12% among patients with chronic HCV, 21% among patients with cirrhosis, 12% among those with CHF, and 13% among those with COPD. Use of opioids was greatest in adults 40-59 years of age (P less than .001). High-dose opioid use, defined as 100 opioid morphine equivalents per day or greater, occurred in 23% of those with cirrhosis and in 22% of those with HCV.

“The significant increase in rates of use in chronic liver disease, compared to other chronic conditions was remarkable, particularly given that patients with liver disease are at higher risk for adverse consequences of use due to hepatic metabolism of these medications,” Dr. Konerman said.

She went on to acknowledge “inherent limitations to studies that are secondary database analyses that rely on diagnosis codes for categorization of disease with potential for both over and under classification. We also did not capture inpatient prescriptions,” she said.

Dr. Konerman reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Patients with chronic liver disease are prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines at very high rates, despite risk for adverse consequences because of hepatic metabolism, according to results from a large longitudinal study of national data.

“Middle-aged individuals and those with a background of substance abuse and mental health conditions appear to have highest rates of use and represent populations for which targeted interventions to curb use could be highest yield,” lead study author Monica Konerman, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

In an effort to better understand the rates of prescription opioid and benzodiazepine use in chronic liver disease, Dr. Konerman, director of the Michigan Medicine NAFLD Clinic at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and her colleagues drew from the Truven Health Analytics Marketscan databases from 2009 to 2015. They limited the analysis to individuals with drug coverage who had chronic hepatitis C (HCV) without cirrhosis, cirrhosis, congestive heart failure (CHF), or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and examined pharmacy files for outpatient prescriptions.

Dr. Konerman reported data from 210,191 patients with HCV, 79,332 with cirrhosis, 766,840 with CHF, and 1,438,798 with COPD. Their median age was 59 years, and 51% were female. In per person-years, the prevalence of prescription opioid use was 25% among patients with chronic HCV, 53% among patients with cirrhosis, 26% among those with CHF, and 24% among those with COPD. At the same time, in per person-years, the prevalence of benzodiazepine use was 12% among patients with chronic HCV, 21% among patients with cirrhosis, 12% among those with CHF, and 13% among those with COPD. Use of opioids was greatest in adults 40-59 years of age (P less than .001). High-dose opioid use, defined as 100 opioid morphine equivalents per day or greater, occurred in 23% of those with cirrhosis and in 22% of those with HCV.

“The significant increase in rates of use in chronic liver disease, compared to other chronic conditions was remarkable, particularly given that patients with liver disease are at higher risk for adverse consequences of use due to hepatic metabolism of these medications,” Dr. Konerman said.

She went on to acknowledge “inherent limitations to studies that are secondary database analyses that rely on diagnosis codes for categorization of disease with potential for both over and under classification. We also did not capture inpatient prescriptions,” she said.

Dr. Konerman reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Black patients are more likely to be put on a transplant list because of acute liver failure, be listed as status 1, and receive a liver transplant, compared with white patients, according to a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Lauren D. Nephew, MD, MSCE, of Indiana University in Indianapolis, and her colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of black and white patients with a minimum age of 18 years in the United Network of Organ Sharing database who were wait-listed for a liver transplantation during 2002-2016. They examined patient clinical characteristics, acute liver failure (ALF) etiologies, wait-list status, and posttransplant survival outcomes through Kaplan Meier analysis.

“We really wanted to explore this topic in patients with acute liver failure, some of the sickest patients that we see,” Dr. Nephew said in her presentation. “We wanted to really determine whether or not there were differences in clinical characteristics and etiologies of acute liver failure in patients by race who are listed for liver transplantation.”

“Then, we wanted to compare wait-list outcomes,” she added, such as “differences by race in liver transplantation or wait-list removal because of death or becoming too sick for transplant.”

There were 11,289 patients in the white ALF group and 2,112 patients in the black ALF group; 2,876 (25.5%) of patients in the white ALF and 790 (37.4%) in the black ALF group were listed as status 1, which indicated an expected survival of 7 days or less. There were similar clinical characteristics for the white and black ALF status 1 patients regarding age (34.2 years vs. 36.3 years), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (34 vs. 36; P less than .001), international normalized ratio (INR) test (mean 4.5 vs. mean 5.0; P = .001), creatinine levels (2.1 mg/dL vs. 1.9 mg/dL; P less than .001), and percentage of patients who were hepatic encephalopathy grade 3 or 4 (60.0% vs. 63.2%; P = .10). However, Dr. Nephew noted significantly higher bilirubin levels in the black ALF status 1 cohort (17.9 mg/dL), compared with the white ALF status 1 cohort (11.3 mg/dL; P less than .001).

The causes for ALF in each group included drug-induced liver failure (white status 1 cohort, 34.1%; black status 1 cohort, 20.6%), autoimmune hepatitis (2.7% vs. 9.4%), Wilson’s disease (0.58% vs. 0.13%), unknown etiology (34.5% vs. 42.5%), and other etiology (22.9% vs. 17%). For patients who underwent liver transplant and wait-list removal, there were no significant differences in wait-list removal “despite black patients being sicker at presentation,” Dr. Nephew said. Black patients were more likely to be listed to status 1 and transplanted at 62% (490 patients), compared with white patients at 53% (1,524 patients). There were 713 white patients (24.8%) removed from the transplant list, compared with 114 (13.8%) of black patients.

“If you are transplanted and you don’t die, then you are likely removed from the list for other reasons, and the most common reason is that you improved and became well, and so white patients were significantly more likely to be removed from the wait-list because of improvement, compared with black patients,” Dr. Nephew said.

In a competing risk analysis, the researchers found the hazard ratio for white patients who were status 1 and removed from the wait-list because of death or becoming too sick was 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21) and those white patients who were listed as status 1 and then transplanted was 1.2 (95% CI, 1.08-1.30). In a multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio for white patients who were listed as status 1 and transplanted, which contained bilirubin at transplant, was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.98-1.19). Kaplan Meier 1-year survival post-transplant was 82.8% in white patients and 79.6% in black patients (P = .09).

“I think the question that we’ve been asking ourselves is, is this because black patients are presenting later with their acute liver disease and are sicker at presentation, or do they just have worse liver disease inherently on presentation that drove these findings?” Dr. Nephew said.

Dr. Nephew reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nephew L et al. ACG 2018, Presentation 59.

PHILADELPHIA – Black patients are more likely to be put on a transplant list because of acute liver failure, be listed as status 1, and receive a liver transplant, compared with white patients, according to a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Lauren D. Nephew, MD, MSCE, of Indiana University in Indianapolis, and her colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of black and white patients with a minimum age of 18 years in the United Network of Organ Sharing database who were wait-listed for a liver transplantation during 2002-2016. They examined patient clinical characteristics, acute liver failure (ALF) etiologies, wait-list status, and posttransplant survival outcomes through Kaplan Meier analysis.

“We really wanted to explore this topic in patients with acute liver failure, some of the sickest patients that we see,” Dr. Nephew said in her presentation. “We wanted to really determine whether or not there were differences in clinical characteristics and etiologies of acute liver failure in patients by race who are listed for liver transplantation.”

“Then, we wanted to compare wait-list outcomes,” she added, such as “differences by race in liver transplantation or wait-list removal because of death or becoming too sick for transplant.”

There were 11,289 patients in the white ALF group and 2,112 patients in the black ALF group; 2,876 (25.5%) of patients in the white ALF and 790 (37.4%) in the black ALF group were listed as status 1, which indicated an expected survival of 7 days or less. There were similar clinical characteristics for the white and black ALF status 1 patients regarding age (34.2 years vs. 36.3 years), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (34 vs. 36; P less than .001), international normalized ratio (INR) test (mean 4.5 vs. mean 5.0; P = .001), creatinine levels (2.1 mg/dL vs. 1.9 mg/dL; P less than .001), and percentage of patients who were hepatic encephalopathy grade 3 or 4 (60.0% vs. 63.2%; P = .10). However, Dr. Nephew noted significantly higher bilirubin levels in the black ALF status 1 cohort (17.9 mg/dL), compared with the white ALF status 1 cohort (11.3 mg/dL; P less than .001).

The causes for ALF in each group included drug-induced liver failure (white status 1 cohort, 34.1%; black status 1 cohort, 20.6%), autoimmune hepatitis (2.7% vs. 9.4%), Wilson’s disease (0.58% vs. 0.13%), unknown etiology (34.5% vs. 42.5%), and other etiology (22.9% vs. 17%). For patients who underwent liver transplant and wait-list removal, there were no significant differences in wait-list removal “despite black patients being sicker at presentation,” Dr. Nephew said. Black patients were more likely to be listed to status 1 and transplanted at 62% (490 patients), compared with white patients at 53% (1,524 patients). There were 713 white patients (24.8%) removed from the transplant list, compared with 114 (13.8%) of black patients.

“If you are transplanted and you don’t die, then you are likely removed from the list for other reasons, and the most common reason is that you improved and became well, and so white patients were significantly more likely to be removed from the wait-list because of improvement, compared with black patients,” Dr. Nephew said.

In a competing risk analysis, the researchers found the hazard ratio for white patients who were status 1 and removed from the wait-list because of death or becoming too sick was 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21) and those white patients who were listed as status 1 and then transplanted was 1.2 (95% CI, 1.08-1.30). In a multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio for white patients who were listed as status 1 and transplanted, which contained bilirubin at transplant, was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.98-1.19). Kaplan Meier 1-year survival post-transplant was 82.8% in white patients and 79.6% in black patients (P = .09).

“I think the question that we’ve been asking ourselves is, is this because black patients are presenting later with their acute liver disease and are sicker at presentation, or do they just have worse liver disease inherently on presentation that drove these findings?” Dr. Nephew said.

Dr. Nephew reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nephew L et al. ACG 2018, Presentation 59.

PHILADELPHIA – Black patients are more likely to be put on a transplant list because of acute liver failure, be listed as status 1, and receive a liver transplant, compared with white patients, according to a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Lauren D. Nephew, MD, MSCE, of Indiana University in Indianapolis, and her colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of black and white patients with a minimum age of 18 years in the United Network of Organ Sharing database who were wait-listed for a liver transplantation during 2002-2016. They examined patient clinical characteristics, acute liver failure (ALF) etiologies, wait-list status, and posttransplant survival outcomes through Kaplan Meier analysis.

“We really wanted to explore this topic in patients with acute liver failure, some of the sickest patients that we see,” Dr. Nephew said in her presentation. “We wanted to really determine whether or not there were differences in clinical characteristics and etiologies of acute liver failure in patients by race who are listed for liver transplantation.”

“Then, we wanted to compare wait-list outcomes,” she added, such as “differences by race in liver transplantation or wait-list removal because of death or becoming too sick for transplant.”

There were 11,289 patients in the white ALF group and 2,112 patients in the black ALF group; 2,876 (25.5%) of patients in the white ALF and 790 (37.4%) in the black ALF group were listed as status 1, which indicated an expected survival of 7 days or less. There were similar clinical characteristics for the white and black ALF status 1 patients regarding age (34.2 years vs. 36.3 years), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (34 vs. 36; P less than .001), international normalized ratio (INR) test (mean 4.5 vs. mean 5.0; P = .001), creatinine levels (2.1 mg/dL vs. 1.9 mg/dL; P less than .001), and percentage of patients who were hepatic encephalopathy grade 3 or 4 (60.0% vs. 63.2%; P = .10). However, Dr. Nephew noted significantly higher bilirubin levels in the black ALF status 1 cohort (17.9 mg/dL), compared with the white ALF status 1 cohort (11.3 mg/dL; P less than .001).

The causes for ALF in each group included drug-induced liver failure (white status 1 cohort, 34.1%; black status 1 cohort, 20.6%), autoimmune hepatitis (2.7% vs. 9.4%), Wilson’s disease (0.58% vs. 0.13%), unknown etiology (34.5% vs. 42.5%), and other etiology (22.9% vs. 17%). For patients who underwent liver transplant and wait-list removal, there were no significant differences in wait-list removal “despite black patients being sicker at presentation,” Dr. Nephew said. Black patients were more likely to be listed to status 1 and transplanted at 62% (490 patients), compared with white patients at 53% (1,524 patients). There were 713 white patients (24.8%) removed from the transplant list, compared with 114 (13.8%) of black patients.

“If you are transplanted and you don’t die, then you are likely removed from the list for other reasons, and the most common reason is that you improved and became well, and so white patients were significantly more likely to be removed from the wait-list because of improvement, compared with black patients,” Dr. Nephew said.

In a competing risk analysis, the researchers found the hazard ratio for white patients who were status 1 and removed from the wait-list because of death or becoming too sick was 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21) and those white patients who were listed as status 1 and then transplanted was 1.2 (95% CI, 1.08-1.30). In a multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio for white patients who were listed as status 1 and transplanted, which contained bilirubin at transplant, was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.98-1.19). Kaplan Meier 1-year survival post-transplant was 82.8% in white patients and 79.6% in black patients (P = .09).

“I think the question that we’ve been asking ourselves is, is this because black patients are presenting later with their acute liver disease and are sicker at presentation, or do they just have worse liver disease inherently on presentation that drove these findings?” Dr. Nephew said.

Dr. Nephew reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nephew L et al. ACG 2018, Presentation 59.

Factoring hyponatremic status into liver graft allocations led to significant reductions in wait-list mortality, researchers reported in the November issue of Gastroenterology.

©Eraxion/thinkstockphotos.com

Hyponatremic patients with low MELD scores benefited significantly from allocation based on the end-stage liver disease–sodium (MELD-Na) score, while its survival benefit was less evident among patients with higher scores, said Shunji Nagai, MD, PhD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, and his associates. “Therefore, liver allocation rules such as Share 15 and Share 35 need to be revised to fulfill the Final Rule under the MELD-Na based allocation,” they wrote.

The Share 35 rule offers liver grafts locally and regionally to wait-listed patients with MELD-Na scores of at least 35. Under the Share 15 rule, livers are offered regionally or nationally before considering local candidates with MELD scores under 15. The traditional MELD scoring system excluded hyponatremia, which has since been found to independently predict death from cirrhosis. Therefore, in January 2016, a modified MELD-Na score was implemented for patients with traditional MELD scores of at least 12. The MELD-Na score assigns patients between 1 and 11 additional points, and patients with low MELD scores and severe hyponatremia receive the most points. To assess the impact of this change, Dr. Nagai and his associates compared wait-list and posttransplantation outcomes during the pre and post–MELD-Na eras and the survival benefit of liver transplantation during the MELD-Na period. The study included all adults wait-listed for livers from June 2013, when Share 35 was implemented, through September 2017.

Mortality within 90 days on the wait list fell significantly during the MELD-Na era (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .001). Transplantation conferred a “definitive” survival benefit when MELD-Na scores were 21-23 (HR versus wait list, 0.34; P less than .001). During the traditional MELD period, the equivalent cutoff was 15-17 (HR, 0.36; P less than .001). “As such, the current rules for liver allocation may be suboptimal under the MELD-Na–based allocation and the criteria for Share 15 may need to be revisited,” the researchers wrote. They recommended raising the cutoff to 21.

The study also confirmed mild hyponatremia (130-134 mmol/L), moderate hyponatremia (125-129 mmol/L), and severe hyponatremia (less than 125 mmol/L) as independent predictors of wait-list mortality during the traditional MELD era. Hazard ratios were 1.4, 1.8, and 1.7, respectively (all P less than .001). The implementation of MELD-Na significantly weakened these associations, with HRs of 1.1 (P = .3), 1.3 (P = .02), and 1.4 (P = .04), respectively).

The probability of transplantation also rose significantly during the MELD-Na era (HR, 1.2; P less than .001), possibly because of the opioid epidemic, the researchers said. Although greater availability of liver grafts might have improved wait-list outcomes, all score categories would have shown a positive impact if this was the only reason, they added. Instead, MELD-Na most benefited patients with lower scores.

Finally, posttransplantation outcomes worsened during the MELD-Na era, perhaps because of transplant population aging. However, the survival benefit of transplant shifted to higher score ranges during the MELD-Na era even after the researchers controlled for this effect. “According to this analysis,” they wrote, “the survival benefit of liver transplant was definitive in patients with score category of 21-23, which could further validate our proposal to revise Share 15 rule to ‘Share 21.’ ”

The investigators reported having no external funding sources or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nagai S et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jul 26. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.025.

Factoring hyponatremic status into liver graft allocations led to significant reductions in wait-list mortality, researchers reported in the November issue of Gastroenterology.

©Eraxion/thinkstockphotos.com

Hyponatremic patients with low MELD scores benefited significantly from allocation based on the end-stage liver disease–sodium (MELD-Na) score, while its survival benefit was less evident among patients with higher scores, said Shunji Nagai, MD, PhD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, and his associates. “Therefore, liver allocation rules such as Share 15 and Share 35 need to be revised to fulfill the Final Rule under the MELD-Na based allocation,” they wrote.

The Share 35 rule offers liver grafts locally and regionally to wait-listed patients with MELD-Na scores of at least 35. Under the Share 15 rule, livers are offered regionally or nationally before considering local candidates with MELD scores under 15. The traditional MELD scoring system excluded hyponatremia, which has since been found to independently predict death from cirrhosis. Therefore, in January 2016, a modified MELD-Na score was implemented for patients with traditional MELD scores of at least 12. The MELD-Na score assigns patients between 1 and 11 additional points, and patients with low MELD scores and severe hyponatremia receive the most points. To assess the impact of this change, Dr. Nagai and his associates compared wait-list and posttransplantation outcomes during the pre and post–MELD-Na eras and the survival benefit of liver transplantation during the MELD-Na period. The study included all adults wait-listed for livers from June 2013, when Share 35 was implemented, through September 2017.

Mortality within 90 days on the wait list fell significantly during the MELD-Na era (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .001). Transplantation conferred a “definitive” survival benefit when MELD-Na scores were 21-23 (HR versus wait list, 0.34; P less than .001). During the traditional MELD period, the equivalent cutoff was 15-17 (HR, 0.36; P less than .001). “As such, the current rules for liver allocation may be suboptimal under the MELD-Na–based allocation and the criteria for Share 15 may need to be revisited,” the researchers wrote. They recommended raising the cutoff to 21.

The study also confirmed mild hyponatremia (130-134 mmol/L), moderate hyponatremia (125-129 mmol/L), and severe hyponatremia (less than 125 mmol/L) as independent predictors of wait-list mortality during the traditional MELD era. Hazard ratios were 1.4, 1.8, and 1.7, respectively (all P less than .001). The implementation of MELD-Na significantly weakened these associations, with HRs of 1.1 (P = .3), 1.3 (P = .02), and 1.4 (P = .04), respectively).

The probability of transplantation also rose significantly during the MELD-Na era (HR, 1.2; P less than .001), possibly because of the opioid epidemic, the researchers said. Although greater availability of liver grafts might have improved wait-list outcomes, all score categories would have shown a positive impact if this was the only reason, they added. Instead, MELD-Na most benefited patients with lower scores.

Finally, posttransplantation outcomes worsened during the MELD-Na era, perhaps because of transplant population aging. However, the survival benefit of transplant shifted to higher score ranges during the MELD-Na era even after the researchers controlled for this effect. “According to this analysis,” they wrote, “the survival benefit of liver transplant was definitive in patients with score category of 21-23, which could further validate our proposal to revise Share 15 rule to ‘Share 21.’ ”

The investigators reported having no external funding sources or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nagai S et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jul 26. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.025.

Factoring hyponatremic status into liver graft allocations led to significant reductions in wait-list mortality, researchers reported in the November issue of Gastroenterology.

©Eraxion/thinkstockphotos.com

Hyponatremic patients with low MELD scores benefited significantly from allocation based on the end-stage liver disease–sodium (MELD-Na) score, while its survival benefit was less evident among patients with higher scores, said Shunji Nagai, MD, PhD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, and his associates. “Therefore, liver allocation rules such as Share 15 and Share 35 need to be revised to fulfill the Final Rule under the MELD-Na based allocation,” they wrote.

The Share 35 rule offers liver grafts locally and regionally to wait-listed patients with MELD-Na scores of at least 35. Under the Share 15 rule, livers are offered regionally or nationally before considering local candidates with MELD scores under 15. The traditional MELD scoring system excluded hyponatremia, which has since been found to independently predict death from cirrhosis. Therefore, in January 2016, a modified MELD-Na score was implemented for patients with traditional MELD scores of at least 12. The MELD-Na score assigns patients between 1 and 11 additional points, and patients with low MELD scores and severe hyponatremia receive the most points. To assess the impact of this change, Dr. Nagai and his associates compared wait-list and posttransplantation outcomes during the pre and post–MELD-Na eras and the survival benefit of liver transplantation during the MELD-Na period. The study included all adults wait-listed for livers from June 2013, when Share 35 was implemented, through September 2017.

Mortality within 90 days on the wait list fell significantly during the MELD-Na era (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .001). Transplantation conferred a “definitive” survival benefit when MELD-Na scores were 21-23 (HR versus wait list, 0.34; P less than .001). During the traditional MELD period, the equivalent cutoff was 15-17 (HR, 0.36; P less than .001). “As such, the current rules for liver allocation may be suboptimal under the MELD-Na–based allocation and the criteria for Share 15 may need to be revisited,” the researchers wrote. They recommended raising the cutoff to 21.

The study also confirmed mild hyponatremia (130-134 mmol/L), moderate hyponatremia (125-129 mmol/L), and severe hyponatremia (less than 125 mmol/L) as independent predictors of wait-list mortality during the traditional MELD era. Hazard ratios were 1.4, 1.8, and 1.7, respectively (all P less than .001). The implementation of MELD-Na significantly weakened these associations, with HRs of 1.1 (P = .3), 1.3 (P = .02), and 1.4 (P = .04), respectively).

The probability of transplantation also rose significantly during the MELD-Na era (HR, 1.2; P less than .001), possibly because of the opioid epidemic, the researchers said. Although greater availability of liver grafts might have improved wait-list outcomes, all score categories would have shown a positive impact if this was the only reason, they added. Instead, MELD-Na most benefited patients with lower scores.

Finally, posttransplantation outcomes worsened during the MELD-Na era, perhaps because of transplant population aging. However, the survival benefit of transplant shifted to higher score ranges during the MELD-Na era even after the researchers controlled for this effect. “According to this analysis,” they wrote, “the survival benefit of liver transplant was definitive in patients with score category of 21-23, which could further validate our proposal to revise Share 15 rule to ‘Share 21.’ ”

The investigators reported having no external funding sources or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nagai S et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jul 26. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.025.

This article was produced in collaboration with the Houston Chronicle.

The Trump administration on Sept. 17 proposed eliminating a decade-old regulation that puts hospitals at risk of losing their Medicare funding if too many of their patients die or suffer organ failure after receiving transplants.

The rule the government is proposing to scrap is the same one that led the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cut off funding in August for heart transplants at Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center in Houston after an investigation by ProPublica and the Houston Chronicle revealed an outsized number of patient deaths and complications in recent years.

The proposal was unveiled Sept. 17 as part of the White House’s push to “cut the red tape” and do away with “burdensome regulation” that officials said put paperwork ahead of patients. In a speech announcing the proposed changes, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said the agency’s existing policies have “put lives in danger.”

“We are proposing to remove those inefficiencies to reduce the amount of time patients have to wait, so that they can begin healing,” Ms. Verma said.

The proposal, now subject to public comment and revision before it is finalized, surprised many transplant physicians who have long called for relaxed federal oversight. They’ve argued that the rules requiring that hospitals meet certain survival thresholds for transplants discourage them from taking on risky patients or accepting less-than-perfect organs, lengthening the time patients spend on the waiting list.

Some experts, however, said the proposal would not help patients because it would weaken the government’s authority to hold transplant programs accountable if they fail to provide safe patient care. The regulation was put in place in 2007 after a series of scandals at transplant programs revealed lax federal oversight. Several transplant programs had compiled abysmal patient survival statistics for years while continuing to receive Medicare funding.

Even though it has the authority to do so, Medicare rarely terminates programs for poor outcomes. It is far more common for the government to force underperforming programs into systems-improvement agreements, in which hospitals agree to make certain changes and be subject to stepped-up oversight.

Medicare bypassed that process and cut off funding for heart transplants at St. Luke’s in August after the hospital’s 1-year patient survival rate fell below national norms from 2014 to mid-2016. A few St. Luke’s cardiologists grew so concerned that they started sending some of their patients to other hospitals for transplants.

St. Luke’s has appealed its Medicare termination, saying, “we do not believe CMS’ recent decisions reflect our ongoing progress and accomplishments to improve the quality of our care.” A spokeswoman said officials are still reviewing the Medicare proposal and declined to comment.

In a statement to reporters Sept. 21, CMS said it would continue to monitoring transplant programs and is strengthening its process for inspecting transplant programs to ensure they provide safe, quality care.

“CMS will continue to collect the data on each transplant program’s performance with regards to patient and graft survival,” the agency said in the statement. “These data, rather than being a stand-alone measure, will be used as a component of the survey process to further inform and direct the survey.”

If the proposed regulatory change had been in place previously, it’s not clear whether St. Luke’s would have faced punitive action from Medicare.

“I am probably in the minority in the transplant community, but I think, based on what is proposed, this is a bad idea,” said Laura J. Aguiar, an Arizona-based transplant consultant who has spent years helping programs improve their outcomes to stave off Medicare penalties. “I have been around long enough to remember that there were very valid reasons why CMS, in the George W. Bush administration, took the steps they took in implementing all of this.”

Since the rules were put in place 11 years ago, the percentage of patients who survive at least 1 year after receiving heart, kidney, lung, and other organ transplants has increased nationally. But some experts say those gains have come at a cost.

Jesse D. Schold, PhD, a researcher in quantitative health sciences at the Cleveland Clinic, has spent years chronicling what he calls the “unintended consequences” of holding transplant programs accountable for poor outcomes. Even though CMS relies on data that has been adjusted to ensure that programs aren’t punished for treating sicker patients or accepting riskier donor organs, Dr. Schold said the rules have created a perception that programs need to turn away some ailing patients and reject less-than-ideal organs in order to meet outcome targets.

As a result, Dr. Schold said, some potentially viable donor organs are discarded while thousands of patients die on waiting lists each year. Dr. Schold said he was surprised to learn a study he coauthored was among the research cited by CMS as justification for the policy change, which he said would be a “significant net positive” for patients.

“I don’t want anything to in any way imply that I’m a fan of the current administration,” Dr. Schold said, referencing the Trump administration’s aggressive and often controversial efforts to slash regulations. “However, in this case, I think it is something that is beneficial.”

Joel Adler, MD, a liver surgeon at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, whose research also was cited by CMS, said a major weakness of the current regulation is that it focuses only on the survival of patients fortunate enough to have received a transplant. Medicare, he said, does not take into account the percentage of patients who die awaiting a transplant. That can discourage programs from accepting organs for patients who might be less likely to survive afterward.

Despite identifying problems with the current rules, Dr. Adler and his coauthor did not propose eliminating Medicare’s standards, but they instead suggested ways to improve outcome measures and create incentives for programs to perform more, not fewer, transplants.

“Should we get rid of (the regulation) entirely?” Dr. Adler asked. “I don’t know. I suspect we’ll swing back to somewhere in the middle, because there has to be some mechanism of capturing things when they are really, really bad. That has to exist.”

Medicare isn’t the only organization that oversees transplant centers. The United Network for Organ Sharing, a federal contractor that operates the national waiting list for organs, can put programs on probation or even revoke their good standing for continued poor results, though it rarely takes such actions. Similarly, another federal contractor, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, analyzes transplant outcomes and publicly reports which centers have mortality rates that are higher than expected based on the characteristics of their patients.

Even if the proposal is approved, it would not mean CMS would stop regulating transplant programs. Last year, for example, CMS cut off funding to the Medical University Hospital in Charleston, South Carolina, after the program failed to perform the minimum number of heart transplants required by CMS to maintain certification. That provision, also added during the reforms of 2007, would not be affected by the changes proposed Sept. 17.

The Charleston hospital, South Carolina’s only heart transplant program, made necessary changes and regained Medicare certification this year.

Alexander Aussi, a San Antonio–based consultant who specializes in helping transplant programs satisfy regulatory requirements, said he understands the desire to reduce the number of rules and regulations that transplant centers must follow. But he said he fears that the CMS proposal would return the transplant field to an earlier era when “some programs were cowboyish about their outcomes.”

“I cannot tell you in good conscience that if you remove those guidelines and metrics … that you’re going to have better outcomes,” Mr. Aussi said. “On the contrary, I believe you’re going to have a lot of transplant programs reversing course.”

Ms. Aguiar, the Arizona-based consultant, shares those concerns. Even without strict CMS oversight, she said, many transplant programs will continue providing high-quality care; but some won’t.

“There will be others that will take the removal of these requirements as a blessing to go back to the bad old days,” she said, “and it is patients who will end up paying the price for it.”
 

Mike Hixenbaugh is an investigative reporter at the Houston Chronicle. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter at @Mike_Hixenbaugh. Charles Ornstein is a senior editor at ProPublica, overseeing the Local Reporting Network. Follow him on Twitter at @charlesornstein.

This article was produced in collaboration with the Houston Chronicle.

The Trump administration on Sept. 17 proposed eliminating a decade-old regulation that puts hospitals at risk of losing their Medicare funding if too many of their patients die or suffer organ failure after receiving transplants.

The rule the government is proposing to scrap is the same one that led the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cut off funding in August for heart transplants at Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center in Houston after an investigation by ProPublica and the Houston Chronicle revealed an outsized number of patient deaths and complications in recent years.

The proposal was unveiled Sept. 17 as part of the White House’s push to “cut the red tape” and do away with “burdensome regulation” that officials said put paperwork ahead of patients. In a speech announcing the proposed changes, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said the agency’s existing policies have “put lives in danger.”

“We are proposing to remove those inefficiencies to reduce the amount of time patients have to wait, so that they can begin healing,” Ms. Verma said.

The proposal, now subject to public comment and revision before it is finalized, surprised many transplant physicians who have long called for relaxed federal oversight. They’ve argued that the rules requiring that hospitals meet certain survival thresholds for transplants discourage them from taking on risky patients or accepting less-than-perfect organs, lengthening the time patients spend on the waiting list.

Some experts, however, said the proposal would not help patients because it would weaken the government’s authority to hold transplant programs accountable if they fail to provide safe patient care. The regulation was put in place in 2007 after a series of scandals at transplant programs revealed lax federal oversight. Several transplant programs had compiled abysmal patient survival statistics for years while continuing to receive Medicare funding.

Even though it has the authority to do so, Medicare rarely terminates programs for poor outcomes. It is far more common for the government to force underperforming programs into systems-improvement agreements, in which hospitals agree to make certain changes and be subject to stepped-up oversight.

Medicare bypassed that process and cut off funding for heart transplants at St. Luke’s in August after the hospital’s 1-year patient survival rate fell below national norms from 2014 to mid-2016. A few St. Luke’s cardiologists grew so concerned that they started sending some of their patients to other hospitals for transplants.

St. Luke’s has appealed its Medicare termination, saying, “we do not believe CMS’ recent decisions reflect our ongoing progress and accomplishments to improve the quality of our care.” A spokeswoman said officials are still reviewing the Medicare proposal and declined to comment.

In a statement to reporters Sept. 21, CMS said it would continue to monitoring transplant programs and is strengthening its process for inspecting transplant programs to ensure they provide safe, quality care.

“CMS will continue to collect the data on each transplant program’s performance with regards to patient and graft survival,” the agency said in the statement. “These data, rather than being a stand-alone measure, will be used as a component of the survey process to further inform and direct the survey.”

If the proposed regulatory change had been in place previously, it’s not clear whether St. Luke’s would have faced punitive action from Medicare.

“I am probably in the minority in the transplant community, but I think, based on what is proposed, this is a bad idea,” said Laura J. Aguiar, an Arizona-based transplant consultant who has spent years helping programs improve their outcomes to stave off Medicare penalties. “I have been around long enough to remember that there were very valid reasons why CMS, in the George W. Bush administration, took the steps they took in implementing all of this.”

Since the rules were put in place 11 years ago, the percentage of patients who survive at least 1 year after receiving heart, kidney, lung, and other organ transplants has increased nationally. But some experts say those gains have come at a cost.

Jesse D. Schold, PhD, a researcher in quantitative health sciences at the Cleveland Clinic, has spent years chronicling what he calls the “unintended consequences” of holding transplant programs accountable for poor outcomes. Even though CMS relies on data that has been adjusted to ensure that programs aren’t punished for treating sicker patients or accepting riskier donor organs, Dr. Schold said the rules have created a perception that programs need to turn away some ailing patients and reject less-than-ideal organs in order to meet outcome targets.

As a result, Dr. Schold said, some potentially viable donor organs are discarded while thousands of patients die on waiting lists each year. Dr. Schold said he was surprised to learn a study he coauthored was among the research cited by CMS as justification for the policy change, which he said would be a “significant net positive” for patients.

“I don’t want anything to in any way imply that I’m a fan of the current administration,” Dr. Schold said, referencing the Trump administration’s aggressive and often controversial efforts to slash regulations. “However, in this case, I think it is something that is beneficial.”

Joel Adler, MD, a liver surgeon at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, whose research also was cited by CMS, said a major weakness of the current regulation is that it focuses only on the survival of patients fortunate enough to have received a transplant. Medicare, he said, does not take into account the percentage of patients who die awaiting a transplant. That can discourage programs from accepting organs for patients who might be less likely to survive afterward.

Despite identifying problems with the current rules, Dr. Adler and his coauthor did not propose eliminating Medicare’s standards, but they instead suggested ways to improve outcome measures and create incentives for programs to perform more, not fewer, transplants.

“Should we get rid of (the regulation) entirely?” Dr. Adler asked. “I don’t know. I suspect we’ll swing back to somewhere in the middle, because there has to be some mechanism of capturing things when they are really, really bad. That has to exist.”

Medicare isn’t the only organization that oversees transplant centers. The United Network for Organ Sharing, a federal contractor that operates the national waiting list for organs, can put programs on probation or even revoke their good standing for continued poor results, though it rarely takes such actions. Similarly, another federal contractor, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, analyzes transplant outcomes and publicly reports which centers have mortality rates that are higher than expected based on the characteristics of their patients.

Even if the proposal is approved, it would not mean CMS would stop regulating transplant programs. Last year, for example, CMS cut off funding to the Medical University Hospital in Charleston, South Carolina, after the program failed to perform the minimum number of heart transplants required by CMS to maintain certification. That provision, also added during the reforms of 2007, would not be affected by the changes proposed Sept. 17.

The Charleston hospital, South Carolina’s only heart transplant program, made necessary changes and regained Medicare certification this year.

Alexander Aussi, a San Antonio–based consultant who specializes in helping transplant programs satisfy regulatory requirements, said he understands the desire to reduce the number of rules and regulations that transplant centers must follow. But he said he fears that the CMS proposal would return the transplant field to an earlier era when “some programs were cowboyish about their outcomes.”

“I cannot tell you in good conscience that if you remove those guidelines and metrics … that you’re going to have better outcomes,” Mr. Aussi said. “On the contrary, I believe you’re going to have a lot of transplant programs reversing course.”

Ms. Aguiar, the Arizona-based consultant, shares those concerns. Even without strict CMS oversight, she said, many transplant programs will continue providing high-quality care; but some won’t.

“There will be others that will take the removal of these requirements as a blessing to go back to the bad old days,” she said, “and it is patients who will end up paying the price for it.”
 

Mike Hixenbaugh is an investigative reporter at the Houston Chronicle. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter at @Mike_Hixenbaugh. Charles Ornstein is a senior editor at ProPublica, overseeing the Local Reporting Network. Follow him on Twitter at @charlesornstein.

This article was produced in collaboration with the Houston Chronicle.

The Trump administration on Sept. 17 proposed eliminating a decade-old regulation that puts hospitals at risk of losing their Medicare funding if too many of their patients die or suffer organ failure after receiving transplants.

The rule the government is proposing to scrap is the same one that led the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cut off funding in August for heart transplants at Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center in Houston after an investigation by ProPublica and the Houston Chronicle revealed an outsized number of patient deaths and complications in recent years.

The proposal was unveiled Sept. 17 as part of the White House’s push to “cut the red tape” and do away with “burdensome regulation” that officials said put paperwork ahead of patients. In a speech announcing the proposed changes, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said the agency’s existing policies have “put lives in danger.”

“We are proposing to remove those inefficiencies to reduce the amount of time patients have to wait, so that they can begin healing,” Ms. Verma said.

The proposal, now subject to public comment and revision before it is finalized, surprised many transplant physicians who have long called for relaxed federal oversight. They’ve argued that the rules requiring that hospitals meet certain survival thresholds for transplants discourage them from taking on risky patients or accepting less-than-perfect organs, lengthening the time patients spend on the waiting list.

Some experts, however, said the proposal would not help patients because it would weaken the government’s authority to hold transplant programs accountable if they fail to provide safe patient care. The regulation was put in place in 2007 after a series of scandals at transplant programs revealed lax federal oversight. Several transplant programs had compiled abysmal patient survival statistics for years while continuing to receive Medicare funding.

Even though it has the authority to do so, Medicare rarely terminates programs for poor outcomes. It is far more common for the government to force underperforming programs into systems-improvement agreements, in which hospitals agree to make certain changes and be subject to stepped-up oversight.

Medicare bypassed that process and cut off funding for heart transplants at St. Luke’s in August after the hospital’s 1-year patient survival rate fell below national norms from 2014 to mid-2016. A few St. Luke’s cardiologists grew so concerned that they started sending some of their patients to other hospitals for transplants.

St. Luke’s has appealed its Medicare termination, saying, “we do not believe CMS’ recent decisions reflect our ongoing progress and accomplishments to improve the quality of our care.” A spokeswoman said officials are still reviewing the Medicare proposal and declined to comment.

In a statement to reporters Sept. 21, CMS said it would continue to monitoring transplant programs and is strengthening its process for inspecting transplant programs to ensure they provide safe, quality care.

“CMS will continue to collect the data on each transplant program’s performance with regards to patient and graft survival,” the agency said in the statement. “These data, rather than being a stand-alone measure, will be used as a component of the survey process to further inform and direct the survey.”

If the proposed regulatory change had been in place previously, it’s not clear whether St. Luke’s would have faced punitive action from Medicare.

“I am probably in the minority in the transplant community, but I think, based on what is proposed, this is a bad idea,” said Laura J. Aguiar, an Arizona-based transplant consultant who has spent years helping programs improve their outcomes to stave off Medicare penalties. “I have been around long enough to remember that there were very valid reasons why CMS, in the George W. Bush administration, took the steps they took in implementing all of this.”

Since the rules were put in place 11 years ago, the percentage of patients who survive at least 1 year after receiving heart, kidney, lung, and other organ transplants has increased nationally. But some experts say those gains have come at a cost.

Jesse D. Schold, PhD, a researcher in quantitative health sciences at the Cleveland Clinic, has spent years chronicling what he calls the “unintended consequences” of holding transplant programs accountable for poor outcomes. Even though CMS relies on data that has been adjusted to ensure that programs aren’t punished for treating sicker patients or accepting riskier donor organs, Dr. Schold said the rules have created a perception that programs need to turn away some ailing patients and reject less-than-ideal organs in order to meet outcome targets.

As a result, Dr. Schold said, some potentially viable donor organs are discarded while thousands of patients die on waiting lists each year. Dr. Schold said he was surprised to learn a study he coauthored was among the research cited by CMS as justification for the policy change, which he said would be a “significant net positive” for patients.

“I don’t want anything to in any way imply that I’m a fan of the current administration,” Dr. Schold said, referencing the Trump administration’s aggressive and often controversial efforts to slash regulations. “However, in this case, I think it is something that is beneficial.”

Joel Adler, MD, a liver surgeon at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, whose research also was cited by CMS, said a major weakness of the current regulation is that it focuses only on the survival of patients fortunate enough to have received a transplant. Medicare, he said, does not take into account the percentage of patients who die awaiting a transplant. That can discourage programs from accepting organs for patients who might be less likely to survive afterward.

Despite identifying problems with the current rules, Dr. Adler and his coauthor did not propose eliminating Medicare’s standards, but they instead suggested ways to improve outcome measures and create incentives for programs to perform more, not fewer, transplants.

“Should we get rid of (the regulation) entirely?” Dr. Adler asked. “I don’t know. I suspect we’ll swing back to somewhere in the middle, because there has to be some mechanism of capturing things when they are really, really bad. That has to exist.”

Medicare isn’t the only organization that oversees transplant centers. The United Network for Organ Sharing, a federal contractor that operates the national waiting list for organs, can put programs on probation or even revoke their good standing for continued poor results, though it rarely takes such actions. Similarly, another federal contractor, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, analyzes transplant outcomes and publicly reports which centers have mortality rates that are higher than expected based on the characteristics of their patients.

Even if the proposal is approved, it would not mean CMS would stop regulating transplant programs. Last year, for example, CMS cut off funding to the Medical University Hospital in Charleston, South Carolina, after the program failed to perform the minimum number of heart transplants required by CMS to maintain certification. That provision, also added during the reforms of 2007, would not be affected by the changes proposed Sept. 17.

The Charleston hospital, South Carolina’s only heart transplant program, made necessary changes and regained Medicare certification this year.

Alexander Aussi, a San Antonio–based consultant who specializes in helping transplant programs satisfy regulatory requirements, said he understands the desire to reduce the number of rules and regulations that transplant centers must follow. But he said he fears that the CMS proposal would return the transplant field to an earlier era when “some programs were cowboyish about their outcomes.”

“I cannot tell you in good conscience that if you remove those guidelines and metrics … that you’re going to have better outcomes,” Mr. Aussi said. “On the contrary, I believe you’re going to have a lot of transplant programs reversing course.”

Ms. Aguiar, the Arizona-based consultant, shares those concerns. Even without strict CMS oversight, she said, many transplant programs will continue providing high-quality care; but some won’t.

“There will be others that will take the removal of these requirements as a blessing to go back to the bad old days,” she said, “and it is patients who will end up paying the price for it.”
 

Mike Hixenbaugh is an investigative reporter at the Houston Chronicle. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter at @Mike_Hixenbaugh. Charles Ornstein is a senior editor at ProPublica, overseeing the Local Reporting Network. Follow him on Twitter at @charlesornstein.

Liver transplantation led to “excellent outcomes” when performed after downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma using the UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) Region 5 protocol, investigators reported.

Downstaging succeeded for 58% of patients, and an estimated 87% of transplantation recipients were alive and recurrence free at 5 years, said Neil Mehta, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and his associates. The findings support expanding priority access to liver transplantation to include patients whose hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been successfully downstaged, they said. “In the meantime, UNOS has recently approved the Region 5 downstaging protocol for receiving automatic HCC-MELD exception listing,” they wrote. The report was published in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.037).

This is the first multicenter study of HCC downstaging according to a uniform protocol, the researchers noted. In multivariable analyses, downstaging was significantly more likely to fail in the setting of moderate to severe (Child Pugh B or C) hepatic impairment (hazard ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.0 to 3.6; P less than .001) or baseline alpha-fetoprotein level above 1,000 ng/mL (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9; P less than .001).

The incidence of HCC in the United States is expected to keep rising for at least another decade because of epidemic levels of fatty liver disease and chronic hepatitis C, the investigators noted. Downstaging HCC with local-regional therapy is a common bridge to transplantation, and successful treatment tends to reflect favorable tumor biology, which bodes well for transplantation. However, no multicenter study had evaluated these associations. Therefore, the investigators retrospectively studied 187 patients with HCC from three centers in California who underwent downstaging according to the UNOS Region 5 protocol between 2002 and 2012.

A total of 156 patients (83%) were successfully downstaged to within Milan criteria after a median of 2.7 months (interquartile range, 1.4 to 4.9 months), said the researchers. Among patients who were successfully downstaged but did not undergo transplantation, 37 patients had tumor progression or died from liver-related causes after a median of 6 months, while 10 patients remained on the transplant list. Among the 109 patients who underwent transplantation after a median of 13 months (interquartile range 6 to 19 months), median follow-up time was 4.3 years and estimated 5-year survival was 80%, and estimated recurrence-free survival was 87%.

Fully 68% of successfully downstaged patients required only one local-regional treatment, the researchers said. The Region 5 protocol considers patients eligible for downstaging if they have a single HCC lesion measuring up to 8 cm or multiple lesions whose combined diameters do not exceed 8 cm, and no evidence of extrahepatic disease or vascular invasion on multiphase computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.

The protocol considers downstaging successful if it results in one lesion measuring up to 5 cm or no more than three lesions of up to 3 cm each. Thus, patients who start out with four or five lesions must have complete necrosis of at least one to two tumors. Successfully downstaged patients must remain free of acute hepatic decompensation for at least 3 consecutive months before undergoing transplantation, according to the protocol.

SOURCE: Mehta N, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Nov 23. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.037.

Liver transplantation led to “excellent outcomes” when performed after downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma using the UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) Region 5 protocol, investigators reported.

Downstaging succeeded for 58% of patients, and an estimated 87% of transplantation recipients were alive and recurrence free at 5 years, said Neil Mehta, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and his associates. The findings support expanding priority access to liver transplantation to include patients whose hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been successfully downstaged, they said. “In the meantime, UNOS has recently approved the Region 5 downstaging protocol for receiving automatic HCC-MELD exception listing,” they wrote. The report was published in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.037).

This is the first multicenter study of HCC downstaging according to a uniform protocol, the researchers noted. In multivariable analyses, downstaging was significantly more likely to fail in the setting of moderate to severe (Child Pugh B or C) hepatic impairment (hazard ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.0 to 3.6; P less than .001) or baseline alpha-fetoprotein level above 1,000 ng/mL (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9; P less than .001).

The incidence of HCC in the United States is expected to keep rising for at least another decade because of epidemic levels of fatty liver disease and chronic hepatitis C, the investigators noted. Downstaging HCC with local-regional therapy is a common bridge to transplantation, and successful treatment tends to reflect favorable tumor biology, which bodes well for transplantation. However, no multicenter study had evaluated these associations. Therefore, the investigators retrospectively studied 187 patients with HCC from three centers in California who underwent downstaging according to the UNOS Region 5 protocol between 2002 and 2012.

A total of 156 patients (83%) were successfully downstaged to within Milan criteria after a median of 2.7 months (interquartile range, 1.4 to 4.9 months), said the researchers. Among patients who were successfully downstaged but did not undergo transplantation, 37 patients had tumor progression or died from liver-related causes after a median of 6 months, while 10 patients remained on the transplant list. Among the 109 patients who underwent transplantation after a median of 13 months (interquartile range 6 to 19 months), median follow-up time was 4.3 years and estimated 5-year survival was 80%, and estimated recurrence-free survival was 87%.

Fully 68% of successfully downstaged patients required only one local-regional treatment, the researchers said. The Region 5 protocol considers patients eligible for downstaging if they have a single HCC lesion measuring up to 8 cm or multiple lesions whose combined diameters do not exceed 8 cm, and no evidence of extrahepatic disease or vascular invasion on multiphase computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.

The protocol considers downstaging successful if it results in one lesion measuring up to 5 cm or no more than three lesions of up to 3 cm each. Thus, patients who start out with four or five lesions must have complete necrosis of at least one to two tumors. Successfully downstaged patients must remain free of acute hepatic decompensation for at least 3 consecutive months before undergoing transplantation, according to the protocol.

SOURCE: Mehta N, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Nov 23. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.037.

Liver transplantation led to “excellent outcomes” when performed after downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma using the UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) Region 5 protocol, investigators reported.

Downstaging succeeded for 58% of patients, and an estimated 87% of transplantation recipients were alive and recurrence free at 5 years, said Neil Mehta, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and his associates. The findings support expanding priority access to liver transplantation to include patients whose hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been successfully downstaged, they said. “In the meantime, UNOS has recently approved the Region 5 downstaging protocol for receiving automatic HCC-MELD exception listing,” they wrote. The report was published in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.037).

This is the first multicenter study of HCC downstaging according to a uniform protocol, the researchers noted. In multivariable analyses, downstaging was significantly more likely to fail in the setting of moderate to severe (Child Pugh B or C) hepatic impairment (hazard ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.0 to 3.6; P less than .001) or baseline alpha-fetoprotein level above 1,000 ng/mL (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9; P less than .001).

The incidence of HCC in the United States is expected to keep rising for at least another decade because of epidemic levels of fatty liver disease and chronic hepatitis C, the investigators noted. Downstaging HCC with local-regional therapy is a common bridge to transplantation, and successful treatment tends to reflect favorable tumor biology, which bodes well for transplantation. However, no multicenter study had evaluated these associations. Therefore, the investigators retrospectively studied 187 patients with HCC from three centers in California who underwent downstaging according to the UNOS Region 5 protocol between 2002 and 2012.

A total of 156 patients (83%) were successfully downstaged to within Milan criteria after a median of 2.7 months (interquartile range, 1.4 to 4.9 months), said the researchers. Among patients who were successfully downstaged but did not undergo transplantation, 37 patients had tumor progression or died from liver-related causes after a median of 6 months, while 10 patients remained on the transplant list. Among the 109 patients who underwent transplantation after a median of 13 months (interquartile range 6 to 19 months), median follow-up time was 4.3 years and estimated 5-year survival was 80%, and estimated recurrence-free survival was 87%.

Fully 68% of successfully downstaged patients required only one local-regional treatment, the researchers said. The Region 5 protocol considers patients eligible for downstaging if they have a single HCC lesion measuring up to 8 cm or multiple lesions whose combined diameters do not exceed 8 cm, and no evidence of extrahepatic disease or vascular invasion on multiphase computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.

The protocol considers downstaging successful if it results in one lesion measuring up to 5 cm or no more than three lesions of up to 3 cm each. Thus, patients who start out with four or five lesions must have complete necrosis of at least one to two tumors. Successfully downstaged patients must remain free of acute hepatic decompensation for at least 3 consecutive months before undergoing transplantation, according to the protocol.

SOURCE: Mehta N, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Nov 23. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.037.