Guidelines on the management of abnormal liver blood tests

These updated guidelines on the management of abnormal liver blood tests have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the liver section of the BSG. The original guidelines, which this document supersedes, were written in 2000 and have undergone extensive revision by members of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG). The GDG comprises representatives from patient/carer groups (British Liver Trust, Liver4life, PBC Foundation and PSC Support), elected members of the BSG liver section (including representatives from Scotland and Wales), British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL), Specialist Advisory Committee in Clinical Biochemistry/Royal College of Pathology and Association for Clinical Biochemistry, British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN), Public Health England (implementation and screening), Royal College of General Practice, British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiologists (BSGAR) and Society of Acute Medicine. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the AGREE II tool. These guidelines deal specifically with the management of abnormal liver blood tests in children and adults in both primary and secondary care under the following subheadings: (1) What constitutes an abnormal liver blood test? (2) What constitutes a standard liver blood test panel? (3) When should liver blood tests be checked? (4) Does the extent and duration of abnormal liver blood tests determine subsequent investigation? (5) Response to abnormal liver blood tests. They are not designed to deal with the management of the underlying liver disease.</p

UK-Wide Multicenter Evaluation of Second-line Therapies in Primary Biliary Cholangitis

Background &amp; aims: thirty-to-forty percent of patients with primary biliary cholangitis inadequately respond to ursodeoxycholic acid. Our aim was to assemble national, real-world data on the effectiveness of obeticholic acid (OCA) as a second-line treatment, alongside non-licensed therapy with fibric acid derivatives (bezafibrate or fenofibrate).Methods: this was a nationwide observational cohort study conducted from August 2017 until June 2021.Results: we accrued data from 457 patients; 349 treated with OCA and 108 with fibric acid derivatives. At baseline/pre-treatment, individuals in the OCA group manifest higher risk features compared with those taking fibric acid derivatives, evidenced by more elevated alkaline phosphatase values, and a larger proportion of individuals with cirrhosis, abnormal bilirubin, prior non-response to ursodeoxycholic acid, and elastography readings &gt;9.6kPa (P &lt; .05 for all). Overall, 259 patients (OCA) and 80 patients (fibric acid derivatives) completed 12 months of second-line therapy, yielding a dropout rate of 25.7% and 25.9%, respectively. At 12 months, the magnitude of alkaline phosphatase reduction was 29.5% and 56.7% in OCA and fibric acid groups (P &lt; .001). Conversely, 55.9% and 36.4% of patients normalized serum alanine transaminase and bilirubin in the OCA group (P &lt; .001). The proportion with normal alanine transaminase or bilirubin values in the fibric acid group was no different at 12 months compared with baseline. Twelve-month biochemical response rates were 70.6% with OCA and 80% under fibric acid treatment (P = .121). Response rates between treatment groups were no different on propensity-score matching or on sub-analysis of high-risk groups defined at baseline.Conclusion: across the population of patients with primary biliary cholangitis in the United Kingdom, rates of biochemical response and drug discontinuation appear similar under fibric acid and OCA treatment.</p

Patient ownership of primary biliary cholangitis long-term management

ObjectivePatient ownership of disease is vital in rare diseases like primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). This survey of UK members of the PBC foundation aimed to assess patients’ perception of their disease management, focusing on key biomarkers and problematic symptoms.DesignRegistered PBC foundation members were surveyed on their experiences on their most recent clinic visit, covering the type of hospital and clinician and whether biochemical response and symptom burden were discussed, including who initiated these conversations. Respondents were also asked about their willingness to initiate these conversations.ResultsAcross 633 respondents, 42% remembered discussing alkaline phosphatase, the key biochemical response measure, and the majority of discussions were initiated by the healthcare provider. 56% of respondents remembered discussing itch, a key PBC symptom. There was no distinction between the grade of healthcare professional, but both patients and clinicians were significantly more likely to discuss symptoms over disease progression. Reassuringly, 84% of respondents felt willing to initiate conversations about their illness, regardless of the grade of managing clinician.ConclusionsThis work lays a positive foundation for patient education and empowerment projects, likely to improve clinical outcomes. Key aspects of management (biochemical response to treatment and symptom burden) should be emphasised as topics of discussion to both patients and clinicians managing PBC. We suggest a simple cue card to prompt patient-led discussion.</jats:sec

Critical shortfalls in the management of PBC: Results of a UK-wide, population-based evaluation of care delivery

Background &amp; Aims: Guidelines for the management of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) were published by the British Society of Gastroenterology in 2018. In this study, we assessed adherence to these guidelines in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Methods: All NHS acute trusts were invited to contribute data between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2022, assessing clinical care delivered to patients with PBC in the UK. Results: We obtained data for 8,968 patients with PBC and identified substantial gaps in care across all guideline domains. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) was used as first-line treatment in 88% of patients (n = 7,864) but was under-dosed in one-third (n = 1,964). Twenty percent of patients who were UDCA-untreated (202/998) and 50% of patients with inadequate UDCA response (1,074/2,102) received second-line treatment. More than one-third of patients were not assessed for fatigue (43%; n = 3,885) or pruritus (38%; n = 3,415) in the previous 2 years. Fifty percent of all patients with evidence of hepatic decompensation were discussed with a liver transplant centre (222/443). Appropriate use of second-line treatment and referral for liver transplantation was significantly better in specialist PBC treatment centres compared with non-specialist centres (p <0.001). Conclusions: Poor adherence to guidelines exists across all domains of PBC care in the NHS. Although specialist PBC treatment centres had greater adherence to guidelines, no single centre met all quality standards. Nationwide improvement in the delivery of PBC-related healthcare is required. Impact and implications: This population-based evaluation of primary biliary cholangitis, spanning four nations of the UK, highlights critical shortfalls in care delivery when measured across all guideline domains. These include the use of liver biopsy in diagnosis; referral practice for second-line treatment and/or liver transplant assessment; and the evaluation of symptoms, extrahepatic manifestations, and complications of cirrhosis. The authors therefore propose implementation of a dedicated primary biliary cholangitis care bundle that aims to minimise heterogeneity in clinical practice and maximise adherence to key guideline standards