Search

Background: Liver diseases are important contributors to the mortality gap between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Australians. Aims: This cohort study examined factors associated with hospital admissions and healthcare outcomes among Indigenous Australians with cirrhosis. Methods: Patient‐reported outcomes were obtained by face‐to‐face interview (Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire and Short Form 36 (SF‐36)). Clinical data were extracted from medical records and through data linkage for 534 patients (25 indigenous). Cumulative overall survival (Kaplan–Meier), rates of hospital admissions and emergency presentations, and costs were assessed by indigenous status. Incidence rate ratios (IRR; Poisson regression) were reported. Results: Indigenous Australians admitted to hospital with cirrhosis had lower educational status compared with non‐indigenous patients (79.2% vs 43.4%; P < 0.001). The two groups had, in general, similar clinical characteristics including disease severity (P = 0.78), presence of cirrhosis complications (P = 0.67), comorbidities (P = 0.62), rates of cirrhosis‐related admissions (P = 0.86) and 5‐year survival (P = 0.30). However, indigenous patients had a lower score in the SF‐36 domain related to bodily pain (P = 0.037), more cirrhosis admissions via the emergency department (IRR = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10–1.83) and fewer planned cirrhosis admissions (IRR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.14–0.72). The total cost for cirrhosis‐related hospital admissions for 534 patients over 6 years (July 2012 to June 2018) was A$13.7 million. The cost of cirrhosis‐related hospital admissions was double for indigenous patients (cost ratio = 2.04, 95% CI 2.04–2.05). Conclusions: Our data highlight the disparities in health service use and patient‐reported outcomes, despite having similar clinical profiles. Integration between primary care, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations and liver specialists is critical for appropriate health service delivery and effective use of resources. Chronic liver disease costs the community dearly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The rate of hospital admissions for cirrhosis increased 1.3‐fold during 2008–2016 in Queensland. Alcohol misuse was a contributing factor for cirrhosis in 55% of admissions and 40% of patients had at least one comorbidity. Aims: To examine the temporal change in aetiology of liver disease and presence of comorbidity in patients admitted with cirrhosis. Methods: Population‐based retrospective cohort study of all people treated in hospital for cirrhosis (10 254 patients) in Queensland during 2008–2016. Data were sourced from Queensland Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection. Results: The commonest aetiology was alcohol (49.5%), followed by cryptogenic (unspecified cirrhosis; 28.5%), hepatitis C virus (19.3%), non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/non‐alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) (4.8%) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) (4.3%). The prevalence of alcohol‐related (P = 0.41) and hepatitis C virus (P = 0.08) remained stable between 2008–2010 and 2014–2016, that of NAFLD/NASH, cryptogenic and HBV‐cirrhosis increased by 67% (P < 0.00001), 27% (P < 0.00001) and 20% (P = 0.00019), respectively; 41.1% of patients had at least one comorbidity. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes nearly doubled (from 13.7% to 25.4%; P < 0.00001) between 2008–2010 and 2014–2016. Conclusions: Alcohol misuse was the most important aetiology. The importance of NAFLD/NASH, cryptogenic and HBV‐cirrhosis and the burden of comorbidity increased during 2008–2016. Ongoing alcohol misuse and the increasing prevalence of NAFLD/NASH, cryptogenic cirrhosis and comorbid type 2 diabetes among admissions for cirrhosis has implications for public health interventions to reduce the burden of unhealthy lifestyle and metabolic disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common cause of incidental liver test abnormalities. General practitioners (GP) have a key role in identifying people with NAFLD at risk of significant liver disease. Recent specialist guidelines emphasise the use of fibrosis algorithms or serum biomarkers rather than routine liver tests, to assess advanced fibrosis. Aim: To evaluate primary care clinicians’ current approach to diagnosis, management and referral of NAFLD. Methods: A cross‐sectional survey of primary care clinicians was undertaken through a structured questionnaire about NAFLD. A convenience sample of general practice clinics and general practice conferences in Metropolitan Brisbane and regional south east Queensland was selected. Results: A total of 108 primary care clinicians completed the survey (participation rate 100%). Fifty‐one percent of respondents considered the prevalence of NAFLD in the general population to be ≤10%. Twenty‐four percent of respondents felt that liver enzymes were sufficiently sensitive to detect underlying NAFLD. Most respondents were unsure whether the Fibrosis 4 score (62.7% unsure) or Enhanced Liver Fibrosis score (63.7% unsure) could help to identify advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. Although 47% of respondents said they would refer a patient to a Gastroenterologist/Hepatologist if they suspect the patient has NAFLD, 44.1% do not make any referrals. Of concern, 70.6% of clinicians said they were unlikely to refer a patient to Hepatology unless liver function tests are abnormal. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that many primary care clinicians underestimate the prevalence of NAFLD and under‐recognise the clinical spectrum of NAFLD and how this is assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]