Liver cancer disparities in New York City: A neighborhood view of risk and harm reduction factors

© 2018 Kamath, Taioli, Egorova, Llovet, Perumalswami, Weiss, Schwartz, Ewala and Bickell. Introduction: Liver cancer is the fastest increasing cancer in the United States and is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in New York City (NYC), with wide disparities among neighborhoods. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to describe liver cancer incidence by neighborhood and examine its association with risk factors. This information can inform preventive and treatment interventions. Materials and methods: Publicly available data were collected on adult NYC residents (n = 6,407,022). Age-adjusted data on liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer came from the New York State Cancer Registry (1) (2007-2011 average annual incidence); and the NYC Vital Statistics Bureau (2015, mortality). Data on liver cancer risk factors (2012-2015) were sourced from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene: (1) Community Health Survey, (2) A1C registry, and (3) NYC Health Department Hepatitis surveillance data. They included prevalence of obesity, diabetes, diabetic control, alcohol-related hospitalizations or emergency department visits, hepatitis B and C rates, hepatitis B vaccine coverage, and injecting drug use. Results: Liver cancer incidence in NYC was strongly associated with neighborhood poverty after adjusting for race/ethnicity (β = 0.0217, p = 0.013); and with infection risk scores (β = 0.0389, 95% CI = 0.0088-0.069, p = 0.011), particularly in the poorest neighborhoods (β = 0.1207, 95% CI = 0.0147-0.2267, p = 0.026). Some neighborhoods with high hepatitis rates do not have a proportionate number of hepatitis prevention services. Conclusion: High liver cancer incidence is strongly associated with infection risk factors in NYC. There are gaps in hepatitis prevention services like syringe exchange and vaccination that should be addressed. The role of alcohol and metabolic risk factors on liver cancer in NYC warrants further study

Provider Attitudes and Practice Patterns for Direct-Acting Antiviral Therapy for Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background & Aims: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are effective against hepatitis C virus and sustained virologic response is associated with reduced incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there is controversy over the use of DAAs in patients with active or treated HCC and uncertainty about optimal management of these patients. We aimed to characterize attitudes and practice patterns of hepatology practitioners in the United States regarding the use of DAAs in patients with HCC. Methods: We conducted a survey of hepatology providers at 47 tertiary care centers in 25 states. Surveys were sent to 476 providers and we received 279 responses (58.6%). Results: Provider beliefs about risk of HCC recurrence after DAA therapy varied: 48% responded that DAAs reduce risk, 36% responded that DAAs do not change risk, and 16% responded that DAAs increase risk of HCC recurrence. However, most providers believed DAAs to be beneficial to and reduce mortality of patients with complete response to HCC treatment. Accordingly, nearly all providers (94.9%) reported recommending DAA therapy to patients with early-stage HCC who received curative treatment. However, fewer providers recommended DAA therapy for patients with intermediate (72.9%) or advanced (57.5%) HCC undergoing palliative therapies. Timing of DAA initiation varied among providers based on HCC treatment modality: 49.1% of providers reported they would initiate DAA therapy within 3 months of surgical resection whereas 45.9% and 5.0% would delay DAA initiation for 3–12 months and >1 year post-surgery, respectively. For patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), 42.0% of providers would provide DAAs within 3 months of the procedure, 46.7% would delay DAAs until 3–12 months afterward, and 11.3% would delay DAAs more than 1 year after TACE. Conclusions: Based on a survey sent to hepatology providers, there is variation in provider attitudes and practice patterns regarding use and timing of DAAs for patients with HCC. Further studies are needed to characterize the risks and benefits of DAA therapy in this patient population

Provider Attitudes and Practice Patterns for Direct-Acting Antiviral Therapy for Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

© 2020 AGA Institute Background & Aims: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are effective against hepatitis C virus and sustained virologic response is associated with reduced incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there is controversy over the use of DAAs in patients with active or treated HCC and uncertainty about optimal management of these patients. We aimed to characterize attitudes and practice patterns of hepatology practitioners in the United States regarding the use of DAAs in patients with HCC. Methods: We conducted a survey of hepatology providers at 47 tertiary care centers in 25 states. Surveys were sent to 476 providers and we received 279 responses (58.6%). Results: Provider beliefs about risk of HCC recurrence after DAA therapy varied: 48% responded that DAAs reduce risk, 36% responded that DAAs do not change risk, and 16% responded that DAAs increase risk of HCC recurrence. However, most providers believed DAAs to be beneficial to and reduce mortality of patients with complete response to HCC treatment. Accordingly, nearly all providers (94.9%) reported recommending DAA therapy to patients with early-stage HCC who received curative treatment. However, fewer providers recommended DAA therapy for patients with intermediate (72.9%) or advanced (57.5%) HCC undergoing palliative therapies. Timing of DAA initiation varied among providers based on HCC treatment modality: 49.1% of providers reported they would initiate DAA therapy within 3 months of surgical resection whereas 45.9% and 5.0% would delay DAA initiation for 3–12 months and \u3e1 year post-surgery, respectively. For patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), 42.0% of providers would provide DAAs within 3 months of the procedure, 46.7% would delay DAAs until 3–12 months afterward, and 11.3% would delay DAAs more than 1 year after TACE. Conclusions: Based on a survey sent to hepatology providers, there is variation in provider attitudes and practice patterns regarding use and timing of DAAs for patients with HCC. Further studies are needed to characterize the risks and benefits of DAA therapy in this patient population

Liver Injury in Liver Transplant Recipients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19): U.S. Multicenter Experience

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163939/1/hep31574.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163939/2/hep31574-sup-0001-Supinfo.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163939/3/hep31574_am.pd

Liver Injury in Liver Transplant Recipients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19): U.S. Multicenter Experience

Background and aimsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with liver injury, but the prevalence and patterns of liver injury in liver transplantation (LT) recipients with COVID-19 are open for study.Approach and resultsWe conducted a multicenter study in the United States of 112 adult LT recipients with COVID-19. Median age was 61 years (interquartile range, 20), 54.5% (n = 61) were male, and 39.3% (n = 44) Hispanic. Mortality rate was 22.3% (n = 25); 72.3% (n = 81) were hospitalized and 26.8% (n = 30) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Analysis of peak values of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) during COVID-19 showed moderate liver injury (ALT 2-5× upper limit of normal [ULN]) in 22.2% (n = 18) and severe liver injury (ALT > 5× ULN) in 12.3% (n = 10). Compared to age- and sex-matched nontransplant patients with chronic liver disease and COVID-19 (n = 375), incidence of acute liver injury was lower in LT recipients (47.5% vs. 34.6%; P = 0.037). Variables associated with liver injury in LT recipients were younger age (P = 0.009; odds ratio [OR], 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.54), Hispanic ethnicity (P = 0.011; OR, 6.01; 95% CI, 1.51-23.9), metabolic syndrome (P = 0.016; OR, 5.87; 95% CI, 1.38-24.99), vasopressor use (P = 0.018; OR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.39-38.52), and antibiotic use (P = 0.046; OR, 6.93; 95% CI, 1.04-46.26). Reduction in immunosuppression (49.4%) was not associated with liver injury (P = 0.156) or mortality (P = 0.084). Liver injury during COVID-19 was significantly associated with mortality (P = 0.007; OR, 6.91; 95% CI, 1.68-28.48) and ICU admission (P = 0.007; OR, 7.93; 95% CI, 1.75-35.69) in LT recipients.ConclusionsLiver injury is associated with higher mortality and ICU admission in LT recipients with COVID-19. Hence, monitoring liver enzymes closely can help in early identification of patients at risk for adverse outcomes. Reduction of immunosuppression during COVID-19 did not increase risk for mortality or graft failure