Meta-analysis of individual patient data of albumin dialysis in acute-on-chronic liver failure:focus on treatment intensity

Background: Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a common complication of cirrhosis characterized by single or multiple organ failures and high short-term mortality. Treatment of ACLF consists of standard medical care (SMC) and organ(s) support. Whether the efficacy of artificial liver support (ALS) depends on the severity of ACLF or on the intensity of this treatment, or both, is unclear. This study aimed to further assess these issues. Methods: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) in ACLF patients enrolled in prior randomized control trials (RCTs). The meta-analysis was designed to assess the effect of patient severity (ACLF grade) and treatment intensity [low-intensity therapy (LIT), SMC alone or SMC plus ⩽ 4 MARS sessions, high-intensity therapy (HIT), SMC plus > 4 MARS sessions] on mortality. Results: Three RCTs suitable for the meta-analysis (n=285, ACLF patients=165) were identified in a systematic review. SMC plus MARS (irrespective of the number of sessions) did not improve survival compared with SMC alone, neither in the complete population nor in the ACLF patients. Survival, however, was significantly improved in the subgroup of patients receiving HIT both in the entire cohort (10-day survival: 98.6% versus 82.8%, p=0.001; 30-day survival: 73.9% versus 64.3%, p=0.032) and within the ACLF patients (10-day survival: 97.8% versus 78.6%, p=0.001; 30-day survival: 73.3% versus 58.5%, p=0.041). Remarkably, HIT increased survival independently of ACLF grade. Independent predictors of survival were age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), ACLF grade, number of MARS sessions received, and intensity of MARS therapy. Conclusion: HIT with albumin dialysis may improve survival in patients with ACLF. Appropriate treatment schedules should be determined in future clinical trials

Etiology and Outcome of Adult and Pediatric Acute Liver Failure in Europe

Acute liver failure (ALF) is rare but life-threatening. Common causes include intoxications, infections, and metabolic disorders. Indeterminate etiology is still frequent. No systematic data on incidence, causes, and outcome of ALF across Europe are available. Via an online survey we reached out to European Reference Network Centers on rare liver diseases. Numbers and etiology of ALF cases during 2020 were retrieved and diagnostic and treatment availabilities assessed. In total, 455 cases (306 adult, 149 pediatric) were reported from 36 centers from 20 countries. Intoxication was the most common cause in adult and pediatric care. The number of cases with indeterminate etiology is low. Diagnostic tools and specific treatment options are broadly available within this network. This is the first approach to report on etiology and outcome of ALF in the pediatric and adult population in Europe. High diagnostic yield and standard of care reflects the expert status of involved centers.</p

Efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus as second-line therapy for patients with autoimmune hepatitis

Background: Predniso(lo)ne, alone or in combination with azathioprine, is the standard of care (SOC) therapy for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). However, the SOC therapy is poorly tolerated or does not control disease activity in up to 20% of patients. We assessed the efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and tacrolimus as second-line therapy for patients with AIH. Patients and methods: We performed a retrospective study of data (from 19 centres in Europe, the United States, Canada, and China) from 201 patients with AIH who received second-line therapy (121 received MMF and 80 received tacrolimus), for a median of 62 months (range, 6–190 months). Patients were categorized according to their response to SOC. Patients in group 1 (n=108) had a complete response to the SOC, but were switched to second line therapy due to side effects of predniso(lo)ne or azathioprine, whereas patients in group 2 (n=93) had not responded to SOC. Results: There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with a complete response to MMF (69.4%) vs tacrolimus (72.5%) (P=.639). In group 1, MMF and tacrolimus maintained a biochemical remission in 91.9% and 94.1% of patients, respectively (P=.682). Significantly more group 2 patients given tacrolimus compared to MMF had a complete response (56.5 % vs. 34%, P=.029) There were similar proportions of liver-related deaths or liver transplantation among patients given MMF (13.2%) vs tacrolimus (10.3%) (log-rank, P=.472). Ten patients receiving MMF (8.3%) and 10 patients receiving tacrolimus (12.5%) developed side effects that required therapy withdrawal. Conclusions: Long-term therapy with MMF or tacrolimus was generally well tolerated by patients with AIH. The agents were equally effective in previous complete responders who did not tolerate SOC therapy. Tacrolimus led to a complete response in a greater proportion of previous non-responder patients compared to MMF