What Is the Role of Body Composition Assessment in HCC Management?

In the last decade, body composition (BC) assessment has emerged as an innovative tool that can offer valuable data concerning nutritional status in addition to the information provided by the classical parameters (i.e., body mass index, albumin). Furthermore, published data have revealed that different types of body composition are associated with different outcomes. For example, abnormalities of skeletal muscle, a common finding in cirrhotic and oncologic patients, are associated with poor outcome (i.e., high morbidity and high mortality). The disposition (visceral/subcutaneous adipose tissue) and radiodensity of adipose tissue proved to also be determinant factors for HCC outcome. Despite all the advantages, BC assessment is not part of the standard pre-therapeutic workup. The main reasons are the high heterogeneity of data, the paucity of prospective studies, the lack of a standard assessment method, and the interpopulation variation of BC. This paper aims to review the available evidence regarding the role of BC as a prognostic tool in the HCC population undergoing various therapies

Sarcopenic Obesity and Myosteatosis Are Associated with Higher Mortality in Patients with Cirrhosis

Background and aims Obesity is frequently associated with cirrhosis, and cirrhotic patients may develop simultaneous loss of skeletal muscle and gain of adipose tissue, culminating in the condition of sarcopenic obesity. Additionally, muscle depletion is characterized by both a reduction in muscle size and increased proportion of muscular fat, termed myosteatosis. In this study, we aimed to establish the frequency and clinical significance of sarcopenia, sarcopenic obesity and myosteatosis in cirrhotic patients. Methods We analysed 678 patients with cirrhosis. Sarcopenia, sarcopenic obesity and myosteatosis were analysed by CT scan using the third lumbar vertebrae skeletal muscle and attenuation indexes, using previously validated gender-and body mass index-specific cutoffs. Results Patients were predominately men (n = 457, 67%), and cirrhosis aetiology was hepatitis C virus in 269 patients (40%), alcohol in 153 (23%), non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/cryptogenic in 96 (14%), autoimmune liver disease in 55 (8%), hepatitis B virus in 43 (6%), and others in 5 patients (1%). Sarcopenia was present in 292 (43%), 135 had sarcopenic obesity (20%) and 353 had myosteatosis (52%). Patients with sarcopenia (22 ± 3 vs. 95 ± 22 months, P = 0.04) were associated with mortality. Conclusions Sarcopenia, sarcopenic obesity and myosteatosis are often present in patients with cirrhosis, and sarcopenia and myosteatosis are independently associated with a higher long-term mortality in cirrhosis

A North American Expert Opinion Statement on Sarcopenia in Liver Transplantation

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151960/1/hep30828_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151960/2/hep30828.pd

Frailty in liver transplantation: An expert opinion statement from the American Society of Transplantation Liver and Intestinal Community of Practice

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149699/1/ajt15392_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149699/2/ajt15392.pd

Proceedings from the 2018 Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver Single Topic Conference—Decompensated Cirrhosis : from clinic to transplant

Actes publiés dans le Canadian Liver Journal; vol. 2, no. 4, Fall 2019, p. 137-170

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

Effects of immunosuppressive drugs on COVID-19 severity in patients with autoimmune hepatitis

Background: We investigated associations between baseline use of immunosuppressive drugs and severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). Patients and methods: Data of AIH patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 were retrospectively collected from 15 countries. The outcomes of AIH patients who were on immunosuppression at the time of COVID-19 were compared to patients who were not on AIH medication. The clinical courses of COVID-19 were classified as (i)-no hospitalization, (ii)-hospitalization without oxygen supplementation, (iii)-hospitalization with oxygen supplementation by nasal cannula or mask, (iv)-intensive care unit (ICU) admission with non-invasive mechanical ventilation, (v)-ICU admission with invasive mechanical ventilation or (vi)-death and analysed using ordinal logistic regression. Results: We included 254 AIH patients (79.5%, female) with a median age of 50 (range, 17-85) years. At the onset of COVID-19, 234 patients (92.1%) were on treatment with glucocorticoids (n = 156), thiopurines (n = 151), mycophenolate mofetil (n = 22) or tacrolimus (n = 16), alone or in combinations. Overall, 94 (37%) patients were hospitalized and 18 (7.1%) patients died. Use of systemic glucocorticoids (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.73, 95% CI 1.12-25.89) and thiopurines (aOR 4.78, 95% CI 1.33-23.50) for AIH was associated with worse COVID-19 severity, after adjusting for age-sex, comorbidities and presence of cirrhosis. Baseline treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (aOR 3.56, 95% CI 0.76-20.56) and tacrolimus (aOR 4.09, 95% CI 0.69-27.00) were also associated with more severe COVID-19 courses in a smaller subset of treated patients. Conclusion: Baseline treatment with systemic glucocorticoids or thiopurines prior to the onset of COVID-19 was significantly associated with COVID-19 severity in patients with AIH.Fil: Efe, Cumali. Harran University Hospita; TurquíaFil: Lammert, Craig. University School of Medicine Indianapolis; Estados UnidosFil: Taşçılar, Koray. Universitat Erlangen-Nuremberg; AlemaniaFil: Dhanasekaran, Renumathy. University of Stanford; Estados UnidosFil: Ebik, Berat. Gazi Yasargil Education And Research Hospital; TurquíaFil: Higuera de la Tijera, Fatima. Hospital General de México; MéxicoFil: Calışkan, Ali R.. No especifíca;Fil: Peralta, Mirta. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Infecciosas "Dr. Francisco Javier Muñiz"; ArgentinaFil: Gerussi, Alessio. Università degli Studi di Milano; ItaliaFil: Massoumi, Hatef. No especifíca;Fil: Catana, Andreea M.. Harvard Medical School; Estados UnidosFil: Purnak, Tugrul. University of Texas; Estados UnidosFil: Rigamonti, Cristina. Università del Piemonte Orientale ; ItaliaFil: Aldana, Andres J. G.. Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogota; ColombiaFil: Khakoo, Nidah. Miami University; Estados UnidosFil: Nazal, Leyla. Clinica Las Condes; ChileFil: Frager, Shalom. Montefiore Medical Center; Estados UnidosFil: Demir, Nurhan. Haseki Training And Research Hospital; TurquíaFil: Irak, Kader. Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training And Research Hospital; TurquíaFil: Melekoğlu Ellik, Zeynep. Ankara University Medical Faculty; TurquíaFil: Kacmaz, Hüseyin. Adıyaman University; TurquíaFil: Balaban, Yasemin. Hacettepe University; TurquíaFil: Atay, Kadri. No especifíca;Fil: Eren, Fatih. No especifíca;Fil: Alvares da-Silva, Mario R.. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Cristoferi, Laura. Università degli Studi di Milano; ItaliaFil: Urzua, Álvaro. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Eşkazan, Tuğçe. Cerrahpaşa School of Medicine; TurquíaFil: Magro, Bianca. No especifíca;Fil: Snijders, Romee. No especifíca;Fil: Barutçu, Sezgin. No especifíca;Fil: Lytvyak, Ellina. University of Alberta; CanadáFil: Zazueta, Godolfino M.. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Demirezer Bolat, Aylin. Ankara City Hospital; TurquíaFil: Aydın, Mesut. Van Yuzuncu Yil University; TurquíaFil: Amorós Martín, Alexandra Noemí. No especifíca;Fil: De Martin, Eleonora. No especifíca;Fil: Ekin, Nazım. No especifíca;Fil: Yıldırım, Sümeyra. No especifíca;Fil: Yavuz, Ahmet. No especifíca;Fil: Bıyık, Murat. Necmettin Erbakan University; TurquíaFil: Narro, Graciela C.. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Bıyık, Murat. Uludag University; TurquíaFil: Kıyıcı, Murat. No especifíca;Fil: Kahramanoğlu Aksoy, Evrim. No especifíca;Fil: Vincent, Maria. No especifíca;Fil: Carr, Rotonya M.. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Günşar, Fulya. No especifíca;Fil: Reyes, Eira C.. Hepatology Unit. Hospital Militar Central de México; MéxicoFil: Harputluoğlu, Murat. Inönü University School of Medicine; TurquíaFil: Aloman, Costica. Rush University Medical Center; Estados UnidosFil: Gatselis, Nikolaos K.. University Hospital Of Larissa; GreciaFil: Üstündağ, Yücel. No especifíca;Fil: Brahm, Javier. Clinica Las Condes; ChileFil: Vargas, Nataly C. E.. Hospital Nacional Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo; PerúFil: Güzelbulut, Fatih. No especifíca;Fil: Garcia, Sandro R.. Hospital Iv Víctor Lazarte Echegaray; PerúFil: Aguirre, Jonathan. Hospital Angeles del Pedregal; MéxicoFil: Anders, Margarita. Hospital Alemán; ArgentinaFil: Ratusnu, Natalia. Hospital Regional de Ushuaia; ArgentinaFil: Hatemi, Ibrahim. No especifíca;Fil: Mendizabal, Manuel. Universidad Austral; ArgentinaFil: Floreani, Annarosa. Università di Padova; ItaliaFil: Fagiuoli, Stefano. No especifíca;Fil: Silva, Marcelo. Universidad Austral; ArgentinaFil: Idilman, Ramazan. No especifíca;Fil: Satapathy, Sanjaya K.. No especifíca;Fil: Silveira, Marina. University of Yale. School of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Drenth, Joost P. H.. No especifíca;Fil: Dalekos, George N.. No especifíca;Fil: N.Assis, David. University of Yale. School of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Björnsson, Einar. No especifíca;Fil: Boyer, James L.. University of Yale. School of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Yoshida, Eric M.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Invernizzi, Pietro. Università degli Studi di Milano; ItaliaFil: Levy, Cynthia. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Montano Loza, Aldo J.. University of Alberta; CanadáFil: Schiano, Thomas D.. No especifíca;Fil: Ridruejo, Ezequiel. Universidad Austral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. CEMIC-CONICET. Centro de Educaciones Médicas e Investigaciones Clínicas "Norberto Quirno". CEMIC-CONICET; ArgentinaFil: Wahlin, Staffan. No especifíca

Obeticholic acid for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: interim analysis from a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a common type of chronic liver disease that can lead to cirrhosis. Obeticholic acid, a farnesoid X receptor agonist, has been shown to improve the histological features of NASH. Here we report results from a planned interim analysis of an ongoing, phase 3 study of obeticholic acid for NASH. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adult patients with definite NASH,non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) activity score of at least 4, and fibrosis stages F2–F3, or F1 with at least oneaccompanying comorbidity, were randomly assigned using an interactive web response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive oral placebo, obeticholic acid 10 mg, or obeticholic acid 25 mg daily. Patients were excluded if cirrhosis, other chronic liver disease, elevated alcohol consumption, or confounding conditions were present. The primary endpointsfor the month-18 interim analysis were fibrosis improvement (≥1 stage) with no worsening of NASH, or NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, with the study considered successful if either primary endpoint was met. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat, in patients with fibrosis stage F2–F3 who received at least one dose of treatment and reached, or would have reached, the month 18 visit by the prespecified interim analysis cutoff date. The study also evaluated other histological and biochemical markers of NASH and fibrosis, and safety. This study is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02548351, and EudraCT, 20150-025601-6. Findings Between Dec 9, 2015, and Oct 26, 2018, 1968 patients with stage F1–F3 fibrosis were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment; 931 patients with stage F2–F3 fibrosis were included in the primary analysis (311 in the placebo group, 312 in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 308 in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group). The fibrosis improvement endpoint was achieved by 37 (12%) patients in the placebo group, 55 (18%) in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group (p=0·045), and 71 (23%) in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group (p=0·0002). The NASH resolution endpoint was not met (25 [8%] patients in the placebo group, 35 [11%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group [p=0·18], and 36 [12%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group [p=0·13]). In the safety population (1968 patients with fibrosis stages F1–F3), the most common adverse event was pruritus (123 [19%] in the placebo group, 183 [28%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 336 [51%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group); incidence was generally mild to moderate in severity. The overall safety profile was similar to that in previous studies, and incidence of serious adverse events was similar across treatment groups (75 [11%] patients in the placebo group, 72 [11%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 93 [14%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group). Interpretation Obeticholic acid 25 mg significantly improved fibrosis and key components of NASH disease activity among patients with NASH. The results from this planned interim analysis show clinically significant histological improvement that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. This study is ongoing to assess clinical outcomes