Current clinical understanding and effectiveness of portopulmonary hypertension treatment

Portopulmonary hypertension (PoPH) is a rare subtype of Group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) with a poor prognosis. According to the most up-to-date definition, PoPH is characterized by a mean pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP) of >20 mmHg at rest, a pulmonary artery wedge pressure of ≤15 mmHg, and a pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) of >2 Wood units with portal hypertension. Like PAH, PoPH is underpinned by an imbalance in vasoactive substances. Therefore, current guidelines recommend PAH-specific therapies for PoPH treatment; however, descriptions of the actual treatment approaches are inconsistent. Given the small patient population, PoPH is often studied in combination with idiopathic PAH; however, recent evidence suggests important differences between PoPH and idiopathic PAH in terms of hemodynamic parameters, treatment approaches, survival, socioeconomic status, and healthcare utilization. Therefore, large, multi-center registry studies are needed to examine PoPH in isolation while obtaining statistically meaningful results. PoPH has conventionally been excluded from clinical drug trials because of concerns over hepatotoxicity. Nevertheless, newer-generation endothelin receptor antagonists have shown great promise in the treatment of PoPH, reducing PVR, PAP, and World Health Organization functional class without causing hepatotoxicity. The role of liver transplantation as a treatment option for PoPH has also been controversial; however, recent evidence shows that this procedure may be beneficial in this patient population. In the future, given the shortage of liver donors, predictors of a favorable response to liver transplantation should be determined to select the most eligible patients. Collectively, advances in these three areas could help to standardize PoPH treatment in the clinic

Real Life Study of Lenvatinib Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: RELEVANT Study

Introduction: In the REFLECT trial, lenvatinib was found to be noninferior compared to sorafenib in terms of overall survival. Here, we analyze the effects of lenvatinib in the real-life experience of several centers across the world and identify clinical factors that could be significantly associated with survival outcomes. Methods: The study population was derived from retrospectively collected data of HCC patients treated with lenvatinib. The overall cohort included western and eastern populations from 23 center in five countries. Results: We included 1,325 patients with HCC and treated with lenvatinib in our analysis. Median OS was 16.1 months. Overall response rate was 38.5%. Multivariate analysis for OS highlighted that HBsAg positive, NLR >3, and AST >38 were independently associated with poor prognosis in all models. Conversely, NAFLD/NASH-related etiology was independently associated with good prognosis. Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Multivariate analysis for progression-free survival revealed that NAFLD/NASH, BCLC, NLR, and AST were independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. A proportion of 75.2% of patients suffered from at least one adverse effect during the study period. Multivariate analysis exhibited the appearance of decreased appetite grade ≥2 versus grade 0-1 as an independent prognostic factor for worse progression-free survival. 924 patients of 1,325 progressed during lenvatinib (69.7%), and 827 of them had a follow-up over 2 months from the beginning of second-line treatment. From first-line therapy, the longest median OS was obtained with the sequence lenvatinib and immunotherapy (47.0 months), followed by TACE (24.7 months), ramucirumab (21.2 months), sorafenib (15.7 months), regorafenib (12.7 months), and best supportive care (10.8 months). Conclusions: Our study confirms in a large and global population of patients with advanced HCC, not candidates for locoregional treatment the OS reported in the registration study and a high response rate with lenvatinib

Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Introduction: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.Materials and methods: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line.Results: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6 months) and atezolizumab plus bev-acizumab first-line (15.7 months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who under-went trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8 months, p < 0.01; HR = 0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0 months) and those who under-went TACE (15.9 months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2 months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR = 0.45, and p < 0.05; HR = 0.46).Conclusion: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy

Regional differences in clinical presentation and prognosis of patients with post-sustained virologic response (SVR) hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background& Amis: Widespread use of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has resulted in increased numbers of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after achieving sustained virologic response ('post-SVR HCC') worldwide. Few data compare regional differences in presentation and prognosis of patients with post-SVR HCC.MethodsWe identified patients with advanced fibrosis (F3/F4) who developed incident post-SVR HCC between March, 2015 and October, 2021 from 30 sites in Europe, North America, South America, Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. We compared patient demographics, liver dysfunction, and tumor burden by region. We compared overall survival by region using Kaplan-Meier analysis and identified factors associated with survival using multivariable Cox regression analysis.ResultsAmong 8,796 patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis who achieved SVR, 583 (6.6%) developed incident HCC. There was marked regional variation in the proportion of detection by surveillance (range: 59.5-100%), median maximum tumor diameter (range: 1.8-5.0 cm), and proportion with multinodular HCC (range: 15.4-60.8%). Prognosis of patients highly varied by region (HR range: 1.82-9.92), with the highest survival in East Asia, North America, and South America, and lowest in the Middle East and South Asia. After adjusting for geographic region, HCC surveillance was associated with early-stage detection (BCLC stage 0/A: 71.0% vs. 21.3%, pConclusionsClinical characteristics, including early-stage detection, and prognosis of post-SVR HCC significantly differed across geographic regions. Surveillance utilization appears to be a high-yield intervention target to improve prognosis among patients with post-SVR HCC globally