Physical Function, Physical Activity, and Quality of Life After Liver Transplantation.

Robust physical activity after liver transplantation is an important determinant of longterm health, similar in its importance to the value of pretransplant activity for withstanding the immediate stress of transplantation. Although transplantation normally enables rapid recovery of liver synthetic and metabolic functions, the recovery of physical capacity and performance to normal levels is delayed and often incomplete. Anatomic measurements of sarcopenia and the physical performance indicators of frailty both tend to improve slowly, and they may, in fact, decrease further in the posttransplant period, especially when the common extrahepatic drivers of muscle loss, such as the elements of the metabolic syndrome, persist or intensify after transplantation. Posttransplant exercise improves fitness, which is a conclusion based on 2 observational studies and 3 randomized trials that assessed endpoints of strength testing, energy expenditure in metabolic equivalents, and peak or maximal oxygen uptake. Importantly, 1 controlled trial found that exercise also improved quality of life (QOL) measured by the Short Form 36 survey, consistent with multiple reports of the value of social support and engagement in sports activity for improving posttransplant QOL. Developing evidence-based standards for post-liver transplant physical activity baseline testing and sustainment of intensity and quality is a key unmet need in transplant hepatology. At present, it is reasonable for transplant teams to assess fitness and design a tailored exercise program when a recipient is first discharged, to record and reinforce progress at all posttransplant visits, and to set realistic longterm performance goals that will often achieve recommended standards for the healthy general population.

Impact of Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment on Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite the significant medical and economic consequences of coexisting alcohol use disorder (AUD) in patients with cirrhosis, little is known about AUD treatment patterns and their impact on clinical outcomes in this population. We aimed to characterize the use of and outcomes associated with AUD treatment in patients with cirrhosis. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study included Veterans with cirrhosis who received Veterans Health Administration care and had an index diagnosis of AUD between 2011 and 2015. We assessed the baseline factors associated with AUD treatment (pharmacotherapy or behavioral therapy) and clinical outcomes for 180 days following the first AUD diagnosis code within the study time frame. Among 93,612 Veterans with cirrhosis, we identified 35,682 with AUD, after excluding 2,671 who had prior diagnoses of AUD and recent treatment. Over 180 days following the index diagnosis of AUD, 5,088 (14%) received AUD treatment, including 4,461 (12%) who received behavioral therapy alone, 159 (0.4%) who received pharmacotherapy alone, and 468 (1%) who received both behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy. In adjusted analyses, behavioral and/or pharmacotherapy-based AUD treatment was associated with a significant reduction in incident hepatic decompensation (6.5% vs. 11.6%, adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52, 0.76), a nonsignificant decrease in short-term all-cause mortality (2.6% vs. 3.9%, AOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.57, 1.08), and a significant decrease in long-term all-cause mortality (51% vs. 58%, AOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80, 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Most Veterans with cirrhosis and coexisting AUD did not receive behavioral therapy or pharmacotherapy treatment for AUD over a 6-month follow-up. The reductions in hepatic decompensation and mortality suggest that future studies should focus on delivering evidence-based AUD treatments to patients with coexisting AUD and cirrhosis.

Cost-effectiveness of new antiviral regimens for treatment-naïve U.S. veterans with hepatitis C.

UNLABELLED: Recently approved, interferon-free medication regimens for treating hepatitis C are highly effective, but extremely costly. We aimed to identify cost-effective strategies for managing treatment-naïve U.S. veterans with new hepatitis C medication regimens. We developed a Markov model with 1-year cycle length for a cohort of 60-year-old veterans with untreated genotype 1 hepatitis C seeking treatment in a typical year. We compared using sofosbuvir/ledipasvir or ombitasvir/ritonavir/paritaprevir/dasabuvir to treat: (1) any patient seeking treatment; (2) only patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis; or (3) patients with advanced disease first and healthier patients 1 year later. The previous standard of care, sofosbuvir/simeprevir or sofosbuvir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin, was included for comparison. Patients could develop progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma, undergo transplantation, or die. Complications were less likely after sustained virological response. We calculated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and varied model inputs in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We used the Veterans Health Administration perspective with a lifetime time horizon and 3% annual discounting. Treating any patient with ombitasvir-based therapy was the preferred strategy ($35,560; 14.0 QALYs). All other strategies were dominated (greater costs/QALY gained than more effective strategies). Varying treatment efficacy, price, and/or duration changed the preferred strategy. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, treating any patient with ombitasvir-based therapy was cost-effective in 70% of iterations at a $50,000/QALY threshold and 65% of iterations at a $100,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Managing any treatment-naïve genotype 1 hepatitis C patient with ombitasvir-based therapy is the most economically efficient strategy, although price and efficacy can impact cost-effectiveness. It is economically unfavorable to restrict treatment to patients with advanced disease or use a staged treatment strategy. (Hepatology 2016;63:428-436).

Effect of addition of statins to antiviral therapy in hepatitis C virus-infected persons: Results from ERCHIVES.

UNLABELLED: 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) have been variably noted to affect hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment response, fibrosis progression, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence, with some having a more potent effect than others. We sought to determine the impact of adding statins to antiviral therapy upon sustained virological response (SVR) rates, fibrosis progression, and HCC development among HCV-infected persons using the Electronically Retrieved Cohort of HCV Infected Veterans (ERCHIVES), an established, longitudinal, national cohort of HCV-infected veterans. Within ERCHIVES, we identified those who received HCV treatment and a follow-up of >24 months after treatment completion. We excluded those with human immunodeficiency virus coinfection, hepatitis B surface antigen positivity, cirrhosis, and HCC at baseline. Our main outcomes were liver fibrosis progression measured by FIB-4 scores, SVR rates, and incident HCC (iHCC). Among 7,248 eligible subjects, 46% received statin therapy. Statin use was significantly associated with attaining SVR (39.2% vs. 33.3%; P < 0.01), decreased cirrhosis development (17.3% vs. 25.2%; P < 0.001), and decreased iHCC (1.2% vs. 2.6%; P < 0.01). Statins remained significantly associated with increased odds of SVR (odds ratio = 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.29, 1.61), but lower fibrosis progression rate, lower risk of progression to cirrhosis (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.56; 95% CI = -0.50, 0.63), and of incident HCC (HR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.34, 0.76) after adjusting for other relevant clinical factors. CONCLUSIONS: Statin use was associated with improved virological response (VR) rates to antiviral therapy and decreased progression of liver fibrosis and incidence of HCC among a large cohort of HCV-positive Veterans. These data support the use of statins in patients with HCV.