Shuen Sung

Background: Fibrosis 4 (FIB-4) is widely used to triage patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. Given that age is part of FIB-4, higher scores may be expected in the elderly population. This led to the proposal of using a higher threshold of FIB-4 to triage patients aged ≥65. Our main objective is to evaluate how age modifies the association between the FIB-4 index and disease severity based on the vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) “rule of 5s.” Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we prospectively analyzed data from a primary care referral pathway. We used liver stiffness measurement by VCTE as a reference standard for liver risk. We modeled with ordinal regression the exceedance probabilities of finding different liver stiffness measurement thresholds according to FIB-4, and how age modifies FIB-4 predictions. Results: Nine hundred eighty-five participants with complete data were used for modeling. Participants aged ≥65 had a higher prevalence of advanced liver disease estimated by VCTE and higher FIB-4 values than those <65 (85.9% vs. 20.2% for FIB-4 ≥1.3, and 46.5% vs. 6.5% for FIB-4 ≥2.0). In participants age ≥65, the negative predictive value for VCTE ≥10 kPa of FIB-4 <1.3 was 100% versus FIB-4 <2.0 was 83%. Age significantly modified FIB-4–based prediction of fibrosis, but predictions at a threshold of 1.3 or 2 were only minimally altered. For higher FIB-4 threshold (ie, 2.7), age strongly modified FIB-4 predictions of liver stiffness measurement. Conclusions: Age does not relevantly modify FIB-4 predictions when using the common threshold of 1.3. Our data suggest no rationale for increasing the FIB-4 threshold to 2 for undergoing further testing in patients aged ≥65. However, the meaning of a FIB-4 of 2.7 strongly changes with age. This cutoff for ages over 65 is not enough to define high-risk and would not warrant direct referral.

Background: It has been suggested that a relevant proportion of patients do not respond to nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB)s, which raises questions regarding the need for individualized therapy. The existence of potential heterogeneity in the treatment response can be assessed using the variability ratio (VR) of the outcome measurement (in this case, HVPG) between the treated and placebo groups. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the potential heterogeneity in the portal pressure response to NSBBs. Methods: After a systematic search, we quantified the heterogeneity of treatment response with the VR between the treatment and control groups, with VR > 1 indicating potential heterogeneity. We used a similar approach to compare carvedilol with propranolol and statins with placebo. Results: We identified 18 studies that included 965 patients. A comparison between beta-blockers and placebo showed a pooled VR of 0.99 (95% CI:0.87–1.14), which suggests a homogeneous HVPG response to NSBB at the individual patient level (ie, no evidence to support that some patients responded to beta-blockers and others did not). For the comparison between carvedilol and propranolol, pooled VR was 0.97 (95% CI 0.82–1.14), suggesting that carvedilol achieves a greater average response (rather than an increase in the proportion of responders). There was no evidence of a heterogeneous response to statins. Conclusion: Our analysis did not support the existence of a heterogeneous patient-by-patient response to NSBBs in cirrhosis. These findings challenge the concept of personalized therapy based on portal pressure response and indicate that routine portal pressure measurement may not be necessary to guide NSBB therapy. Export

Background and Aims: Portal hypertension (PH) is a major driver for cirrhosis complications. Portal pressure is estimated in practice by the HVPG. The assessment of HVPG changes has been used for drug development in PH. This study aimed at quantifying the test–retest reliability and consistency of HVPG in the specific context of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of PH in cirrhosis and its impact on power calculations for trial design. Approach and Results: We conducted a search of published RCTs in patients with cirrhosis reporting individual patient‐level data of HVPG at baseline and after an intervention, which included a placebo or an untreated control arm. Baseline and follow‐up HVPGs in the control groups were extracted after digitizing the plots. We assessed reliability and consistency and the potential impact of study characteristics. We retrieved a total of 289 before and after HVPG measurements in the placebo/untreated groups from 20 RCTs. The time span between the two HVPG measurements ranged between 20 minutes and 730 days. Pre‐/post‐HVPG variability was lower in studies including only compensated patients; therefore, modeled sample size calculations for trials in compensated cirrhosis were lower than for decompensated cirrhosis. A higher proportion of alcohol‐associated cirrhosis and unicentric trials was associated with lower differences between baseline and follow‐up measurements. The smallest detectable difference in an individual was 26% and 30% in compensated and decompensated patients, respectively. Conclusions: The test–retest reliability of HVPG is overall excellent. Within‐individual variance was higher in studies including higher proportions of decompensated patients. These findings should be taken into account when performing power analysis for trials based on the effects on HVPG or when considering HVPG as a tool to guide therapy of PH.

Background/Aims: There is increased interest in the therapeutic use of statins in cirrhosis, but preferred statin and safety outcomes are still not well known. In this systematic review we aimed to address pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and effects on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of statins in cirrhosis. Methods: Our systematic search in several electronic databases and repositories of two regulatory bodies up to 2020-06-11 yielded 22 articles and 2 drug monographs with relevant data. Results: Rosuvastatin and pitavastatin showed minimal PK changes in Child–Pugh A cirrhosis. Only rosuvastatin was assessed in a repeated dosing PK study. Atorvastatin showed pronounced PK changes in cirrhosis. No PK data was found for simvastatin, the most commonly used statin in cirrhosis trials. There was insufficient data to assess CV effects of statins in cirrhosis. Clinical trials in cirrhosis were limited to simvastatin, atorvastatin, and pravastatin. In patients taking simvastatin 40 mg, pooled frequency of rhabdomyolysis was 2%, an incidence 40-fold higher than that reported in non-cirrhosis patients, while this was no rhabdomyolysis observed in patients on simvastatin 20 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or pravastatin 40 mg. Drug-induced liver injury was of difficult interpretation due to co-existence of muscle damage. No overt liver failure was reported. Conclusions: Simvastatin 40 mg should be avoided in decompensated cirrhosis. Safety data on simvastatin 20 mg or other statins are based on small study sample size. This rarity of evidence combined with lack of data in dose adjustment methods in cirrhosis is a barrier for using statins for CV indications or for investigational use for liver indications.