Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology最新文献

Background and objectives

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is associated with high short-term mortality without liver transplantation (LT). The selection criteria for LT in these patients are not well defined. The objective of this study was to determine factors associated with post-transplant survival in ACLF.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective study of patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for ACLF between 2012 and 2022. Out of 1093 transplants, 110 patients had underlying ACLF, based on the European Association for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure Consortium (EASL-CLIF) criteria. We looked at factors associated with 1-year posttransplant survival.

Results

The median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 33.5 (31–38), and the 1-year posttransplant survival was 72%. Six risk factors were associated with posttransplant survival, namely, body mass index > 30 kg/m² [HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.8–10.7], platelet count < 66,000/μl [HR, 2.91; CI,1.2–6.6], poor response to medical treatment [HR, 2.6; CI, 1.1–5.7], drug-resistant bacterial or fungal cultures [HR, 4.2; CI, 1.4–12.4], serum creatinine > 2.5 mg/dl [HR, 3.4; CI, 1.5–7.7], and graft-to-recipient weight ratio < 0.7 [HR, 4.8; CI, 1.4–16.3]. The 1-year post-transplant survival was 84% in patients with 0–2 risk factors (n = 89) and was 6% with 3 risk factors (n = 15) (P < 0.001). For 1-year posttransplant survival, the area under curve (AUC) for the current model was 0.8 (0.69–0.9). The AUC for CLIF-ACLF, Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (CLIF-SOFA), and EASL-CLIF ACLF grades was < 0.5.

Conclusion

In LT for ACLF, acceptable survival can be achieved when less than three high-risk factors are present.

Background and aim

Vitamin E is widely prescribed for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Saroglitazar, a novel dual peroxisome proliferator-activator receptor ɑ/γ agonist, is approved in India for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). No head-to-head comparative study for vitamin E and saroglitazar is available. We studied the efficacy and safety of saroglitazar and vitamin E in NAFLD/NASH.

Materials and methods

We prospectively randomised 175 NAFLD patients into four arms as Saroglitazar 4 mg daily alone (n = 44), vitamin E 800IU daily alone (n = 41), vitamin E and saroglitazar combination (n = 47), and control arm (n = 43). All the baseline variables including liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) were recorded. Reassessment was done after 24 weeks of treatment.

Results

The mean age and body mass index was 45 ± 11 years and 26 ± 3.6 kg/m², respectively. Compared to control, the decrease in alanine amino transferase levels with saroglitazar, vitamin E, and combination therapy was significant (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.27–28.25, P = 0.002, 95% CI: −3.39 to 18.88, P = 0.047 and 95% CI: 8.10–29.54, P = 0.001, respectively). The reduction in CAP was significant with saroglitazar and combination therapy (95% CI: −31.94 to 11.99, P = 0.015 and 95% CI: −10.48 to 30.51, P = 0.026, respectively). Only combination therapy shows significant reduction in LSM (95% CI: 0.41–1.68, P = 0.001). Among glycaemic parameters, both saroglitazar alone and combination therapy significantly improved glycosylated haemoglobin levels (P = 0.001 and P = 0.015, respectively), and only combination therapy significantly improved homoeostasis model assessment–estimated insulin resistance (P = 0.047). Saroglitazar alone showed significant reduction in triglyceride and low-density lipoprotein levels (P = 0.038 and P = 0.018, respectively), and combination therapy showed significant increase in high-density lipoprotein levels (P = 0.024).

Conclusions

Combination of Saroglitazar and vitamin E showed statistically significant reduction of LSM and CAP along with biochemical, glycaemic, and lipid parameters.

Clinical trial registry India no

CTRI/2022/01/039538.

Introduction

Diagnosis of wall-thickening type gallbladder cancer (GBC) is challenging. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are commonly utilized to evaluate gallbladder wall thickening. However, there is a lack of data comparing the performance of CT and MRI for the detection of wall-thickening type GBC.

Aim

We aim to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in diagnosis of wall-thickening type GBC.

Materials and methods

This prospective study comprised consecutive patients suspected of wall-thickening type GBC who underwent preoperative contrast-enhanced CT and MRI. The final diagnosis was based on the histopathology of the resected gallbladder lesion. Two radiologists independently reviewed the characteristics of gallbladder wall thickening at CT and MRI. The association of CT and MRI findings with histological diagnosis and the interobserver agreement of CT and MRI findings were assessed.

Results

Thirty-three patients (malignancy, 13 and benign, 20) were included. None of the CT findings were significantly associated with GBC. However, at MRI, heterogeneous enhancement, indistinct interface with the liver, and diffusion restriction were significantly associated with malignancy (P = 0.006, <0.001, and 0.005, respectively), and intramural cysts were significantly associated with benign lesions (P = 0.012). For all MRI findings, the interobserver agreement was substantial to perfect (kappa = 0.697–1.000). At CT, the interobserver agreement was substantial to perfect (k = 0.631–1.000).

Conclusion

These findings suggest that MRI may be preferred over CT in patients with suspected wall thickening type GBC. However, larger multicenter studies must confirm our findings.

Contrast echo is often used to demonstrate extracardiac shunting for evaluation of hepatopulmonary syndrome. The same can also be performed via transesophageal route with endoscopic ultrasound. We here demonstrate this technique in a 58-year-old woman who underwent gastric variceal obliteration with endoscopic ultrasound. This technique can add another dimension to the “one-stop-shop” endohepatology evaluation of patients with cirrhosis in a single endoscopy appointment.

Non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH) is a well-recognized clinico-pathological entity, which is associated with clinical signs and symptoms, imaging, and endoscopic features of portal hypertension (PHT), in absence of cirrhosis. In patients with NCPH without known risk factors of PHT or extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis, the condition is called idiopathic non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (INCPH). There are multiple infectious, immune related causes, systemic diseases, drug and toxin exposures, haematological disorders, and metabolic risk factors that have been associated with this INCPH. However, the causal pathogenesis is still unclear. The Vascular liver disorders interest group group recently proposed porto-sinusoidal vascular disease (PSVD) as a syndromic entity, which provides definite histopathological criteria for diagnosis of NCPH (table 1). The three classical histo-morphological lesions specific for PSVD include obliterative portal venopathy, nodular regenerative hyperplasia, and incomplete septal fibrosis. The PSVD definition includes patients with portal vein thrombosis, PVT, and even those without PHT, thus broadening the scope of diagnosis to include patients who may have presented early, prior to haemodynamic changes consistent with PHT. However, this new diagnosis has pros and cons. The cons include mandating invasive liver biopsy to assess the PSVD histological triad in all patients with NCPH, an erstwhile clinical diagnosis in Asian patients. In addition, the natural history of the subclinical forms of PSVD without PHT and linear progression to develop PHT is unknown yet. In this review, we discuss the diagnosis and treatment of INCPH/PSVD, fallacies and strengths of the old and new schema, pathobiology of this disease, and clinical correlates in an Asian context. Although formulation of standardised diagnostic criteria is useful for comparison of clinical cohorts with INCPH/PSVD, prospective clinical validation in global cohorts is necessary to avoid misclassification of vascular disorders of the liver.

Hepatitis D virus (HDV) is an RNA subvirus that infects patients with co-existing hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections. HDV burden is estimated to be approximately 15–20 million people worldwide. Despite HDV severity, screening for HDV remains inadequate. HDV screening would benefit from a revamped approach that automatically reflexes testing when individuals are diagnosed with HBV if HBsAg-positive, to total anti-HDV, and then to quantitative HDV-RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) rather than only testing those at high risk sequentially. There are no current treatments in the United States that are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the treatment of HDV; however, bulevirtide (BLV) is approved in the European Union conditionally and is under review with the United States FDA. Current treatment strategies in many countries are centered on the use of pegylated-interferon-alfa-2a (PEG-IFNa-2a). There are other therapies in development globally that have shown promise, including BLV, pegylated-interferon-lambda (PEG-IFN-lambda), and lonafarnib (LNF). LNF has shown substantial response in the LOWR trials. BLV is a well-tolerated drug, but it is not finite therapy and has shown significant on-treatment responses in the MYR clinical trials, and the FDA cited concerns with the manufacturing and patient preparation of the drug that have delayed approval. The PDUFA date for BLV in the United States is mid-2024. Current studies with both BLV and LNF are limited in providing sustained virological response (SVR); future trials will need to demonstrate more substantial SVR with possible triple combination trials as options.