Search

Introduction and Objectives: Autoimmune liver diseases (AILDs) are rare and require precise evaluation, which is often challenging for medical providers. Chatbots are innovative solutions to assist healthcare professionals in clinical management. In our study, ten liver specialists systematically evaluated four chatbots to determine their utility as clinical decision support tools in the field of AILDs., Materials and Methods: We constructed a 56-question questionnaire focusing on AILD evaluation, diagnosis, and management of Autoimmune Hepatitis (AIH), Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC), and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC). Four chatbots -ChatGPT 3.5, Claude, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Bard- were presented with the questions in their free tiers in December 2023. Responses underwent critical evaluation by ten liver specialists using a standardized 1 to 10 Likert scale. The analysis included mean scores, the number of highest-rated replies, and the identification of common shortcomings in chatbots performance., Results: Among the assessed chatbots, specialists rated Claude highest with a mean score of 7.37 (SD = 1.91), followed by ChatGPT (7.17, SD = 1.89), Microsoft Copilot (6.63, SD = 2.10), and Google Bard (6.52, SD = 2.27). Claude also excelled with 27 best-rated replies, outperforming ChatGPT (20), while Microsoft Copilot and Google Bard lagged with only 6 and 9, respectively. Common deficiencies included listing details over specific advice, limited dosing options, inaccuracies for pregnant patients, insufficient recent data, over-reliance on CT and MRI imaging, and inadequate discussion regarding off-label use and fibrates in PBC treatment. Notably, internet access for Microsoft Copilot and Google Bard did not enhance precision compared to pre-trained models., Conclusions: Chatbots hold promise in AILD support, but our study underscores key areas for improvement. Refinement is needed in providing specific advice, accuracy, and focused up-to-date information. Addressing these shortcomings is essential for enhancing the utility of chatbots in AILD management, guiding future development, and ensuring their effectiveness as clinical decision-support tools., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Fundación Clínica Médica Sur, A.C. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Widespread use of direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus infection has been paralleled with increased numbers of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after achieving sustained virologic response (post-SVR HCC) worldwide. Few data compare regional differences in the presentation and prognosis of patients with post-SVR HCC., Methods: We identified patients with advanced fibrosis (F3/F4) who developed incident post-SVR HCC between March 2015 and October 2021 from 30 sites in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. We compared patient demographics, liver dysfunction, and tumor burden by region. We compared overall survival by region using Kaplan-Meier analysis and identified factors associated with survival using multivariable Cox regression analysis., Results: Among 8796 patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis who achieved SVR, 583 (6.6%) developed incident HCC. There was marked regional variation in the proportion of patients detected by surveillance (range: 59.5%-100%), median maximum tumor diameter (range, 1.8-5.0 cm), and the proportion with multinodular HCC (range, 15.4%-60.8%). The prognosis of patients highly varied by region (hazard ratio range, 1.82-9.92), with the highest survival rates in East Asia, North America, and South America, and the lowest survival rates in the Middle East and South Asia. After adjusting for geographic region, HCC surveillance was associated with early stage detection (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/A, 71.0% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and lower mortality rates (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.18-0.46)., Conclusions: Clinical characteristics, including early stage detection, and prognosis of post-SVR HCC differed significantly across geographic regions. Surveillance utilization appears to be a high-yield intervention target to improve prognosis among patients with post-SVR HCC globally., (Copyright © 2024 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Data on number of patients with cirrhosis in Germany are limited. We therefore aimed to estimate prevalence, comorbidities, mortality, utilization of healthcare resources and costs of patients with cirrhosis and incidence of decompensation of cirrhosis in Germany., Methods: This longitudinal observational study was based on an anonymized representative claims database including 4.9 million persons insured by a statutory health insurance (SHI) between 2015-2020. Patients with decompensated and compensated cirrhosis were selected via diagnostic ICD codes and followed for 2 years., Results: Prevalence of cirrhosis in 2015 was 250/100 000, resulting in 201 747 (95% CI: 197 540-206 040) patients extrapolated to the German population. Out of all patients with compensated cirrhosis in 2015 who did not deceased, 16.0% developed a decompensation within 3 years. Overall, 978 patients (Ø-age: 68 years; 60% male) were included in the decompensated, and 5135 patients (Ø-age: 66 years; 59% male) in the compensated cirrhosis cohort. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis had a higher burden of comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index 7.3 vs. 4.4) and 3 times higher costs per quarter (7172 € vs. 2213 €) than patients with compensated cirrhosis. 1-year mortality after decompensation was 51% compared to 8% in compensated cirrhosis. Of note, only few patients with decompensated cirrhosis received a liver transplantation or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) (1% and 5%)., Conclusion: Patients with cirrhosis have a high healthcare burden in especially decompensated stage. Accordingly, 1-year mortality of decompensated cirrhosis in Germany is high. Despite high health resource utilization, only few patients have access to liver transplantation or TIPS., (© 2023 The Authors. Liver International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths and remains a major burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The incidence of HCC continues to rise globally, despite preventative efforts being made., Aims: This study aimed to investigate epidemiological changes observed in the etiology and survival outcomes of HCC patients at Klinikum Klagenfurt am Wörthersee between 2012 and 2023., Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center cohort study. Two time-periods (2012-2017 and 2018-2023) were created to enable comparison between the respective intervals. IBM SPSS was used to analyze statistical data., Results: More patients were diagnosed with HCC during the second time period ( n = 128, n = 148). The median age of diagnosis was 72.5 years (SD 8.6). Patients were on average 2 years younger in the second time period compared to the first ( p = 0.042). Alcohol remained the leading underlying etiology of HCC and no statistically significant change was seen over time ( p = 0.353). Nevertheless, a clear upward trend in the number of NASH cases was evident over time ( n = 15, n = 28, respectively). Nearly half of the patient population had a normal AFP (<7 µg/L) level at the time of diagnosis ( n = 116, 42.6%). The survival time for HCC patients remained similar between time periods, with a median overall survival time of 20.5 months (95% CI 16.8-24.2, p = 0.841), despite improvements in management strategies and the availability of new systemic treatments. More advanced-stage HCC cases were documented in the second period (BCLC-C, n = 23 to n = 46, p = 0.051). An increased number of HCC patients without liver cirrhosis were identified during the second time period ( n = 22, n = 47, respectively, p = 0.005). NASH was the most common underlying etiology in patients without liver cirrhosis (50%) compared to alcohol use in being the primary cause in cirrhotic patients (65%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: HCC continues to be an important health concern in our society. The number of HCC patients without liver cirrhosis is steadily increasing, with NAFLD/NASH, due to underlying lifestyle diseases playing an important etiological role. Continued efforts should be made to prevent HCC and to screen at-risk population groups. Preventative strategies and screening techniques should be adjusted in light of the changing epidemiological landscape of HCC, where more focus will have to be placed on detecting HCC in patients without underlying cirrhosis.

The Billroth IV consensus was developed during a consensus meeting of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ÖGGH) and the Austrian Society of Interventional Radiology (ÖGIR) held on the 26th of November 2022 in Vienna.Based on international recommendations and considering recent landmark studies, the Billroth IV consensus provides guidance regarding the diagnosis and management of portal hypertension in advanced chronic liver disease., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Textbook Outcome (TO) is inclusive of quality indicators and it not been provided for trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Materials and Methods: Data on treatment-naïve HCC patients receiving TACE from 10 centers were reviewed. TO was defined as "no post-TACE grade 3-4 complications, no prolonged hospital stay (defined as a post-procedure stay ≤ 75th percentile of the median values from the total cohort), no 30-day mortality/readmission and the achievement of an objective response (OR) at post-TACE imaging." Grade of adverse event was classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and short-term efficacy was assessed by response. Pooled estimates were calculated to account for hospital's effect and risk-adjustment was applied to allow for diversity of patients in each center., Results: A total of 1124 patients (2014-2018) fulfilling specific inclusion criteria were included. Baseline clinical features showed considerable heterogeneity (I 2  > 0.75) across centers. TACE-related mortality was absent in 97.6%, readmission was not required after 94.9% of procedures, 91.5% of patients had no complication graded 3-4, 71.8% of patients did not require prolonged hospitalization, OR of the target lesion was achieved in 68.5%. Risk-adjustment showed that all indicators were achieved in 43.1% of patients, and this figure was similar across centers. The median overall survival for patients who achieved all indicators was 33.1 months, 11.9 months longer than for patients who did not., Conclusions: A useful benchmark for TACE in HCC patients has been developed, which provides an indication of survival and allows for a comparison of treatment quality across different hospitals., (© 2023. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE).)

Background/aims: Endosonography is associated with a long learning curve. We aimed to assess variables that may influence the diagnostic outcomes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) of solid pancreatic tumors regarding the level of endoscopists' experience., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided puncture of solid pancreatic tumors (eight endosonographers, including six trainees) were prospectively enrolled. An experienced endosonographer was defined as having performed at least 250 EUS examinations, including 75 FNA/Bs. The final diagnosis was determined by cytopathology, histopathology, or clinical follow-up., Results: In total, 283 EUS-FNA/Bs of solid pancreatic tumors (75.6% malignant) in 239 patients (median age 69 years, 57.6% males) were enrolled. Trainees performed 149/283 (52.7%) of the interventions. Accuracy and sensitivity for detecting malignancy were significantly higher in the expert group than in the trainee group (85.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.01 and 82.5% vs 68.4%, p=0.02). Solid lesions evaluated by an expert using FNB needles showed the best odds for a correct diagnosis (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.15 to 8.23; p=0.02). More experienced endoscopists achieved better accuracy in sampling via the transduodenal approach (86.7% vs 68.5%, p<0.001), in the sampling of malignant lesions (82.5 vs 68.4, p=0.02), and in the sampling of lesions located in the pancreatic head (86.1 vs 69.1, p=0.02). In cases involving these factors, we observed a moderate improvement in the diagnostic accuracy after 40 attempts., Conclusions: Transduodenal approach, pancreatic head lesions, and malignancy were recognized as the most important clinical factors affecting the learning curve in EUS-FNA/B of solid pancreatic lesions.

Background & Aims: Interferon(IFN)-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy has been replaced by direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). We assessed temporal trends in patient characteristics, transmission risks, treatment initiation, and cure rates in eras of IFN, restricted DAA-access, and unrestricted DAA-access in Viennese HCV/HIV-coinfected patients (HIV/HCV)., Methods: Consecutive HIV/HCV-coinfected patients starting HCV treatment at the Vienna General Hospital between 2002 and 2020 were retrospectively enrolled., Results: Of all N  = 508 HIV/HCV, 78% (398/508) were male and the mean age was 41.8 ± 9.5 years. 'People-who-inject-drugs' (PWID) accounted for 61% (311/508), while 31% (156/508) were 'men who have sex with men' (MSM). In the IFN-era, restricted DAA-era and unrestricted DAA-era, N  = 152, N  = 129, and N  = 227 HCV treatments were started and 49% (74/152), 95% (122/129), and 88% (200/227) achieved sustained virologic response, respectively. Treatment during the IFN-era was a strong predictor for virologic non-response (aOR 12.69; 6.93-23.24) and loss-to-follow-up (aOR 6.12; 2.99-12.54), while virologic non-response was less common in 'MSM' (aOR 0.28; 0.13-0.62). Ninety three percent (50/54) of the observed HCV reinfections occurred in the unrestricted DAA-era. A substantial increase in 'MSM' transmission was observed since 2010 with 66% (107/161) in the DAA-era versus 15% (49/330) prior to the DAA-era., Conclusions: HCV cure rates in Viennese HIV patients increased from 49% in the IFN-era to 88-95% in the DAA-era. MSM-related risk behaviour and reinfections became the key challenges towards HCV elimination in HIV-coinfected patients.

In 2016, the Hepatitis B and C Public Policy Association (HepBCPPA), gathered all the main stakeholders in the field of hepatitis C virus (HCV) to launch the now landmark HCV Elimination Manifesto, calling for the elimination of HCV in the EU by 2030. Since then, many European countries have made progress towards HCV elimination. Multiple programmes-from the municipality level to the EU level-were launched, resulting in an overall decrease in viremic HCV infections and liver-related mortality. However, as of 2021, most countries are not on track to reach the 2030 HCV elimination targets set by the WHO. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a decrease in HCV diagnoses and fewer direct-acting antiviral treatment initiations in 2020. Diagnostic and therapeutic tools to easily diagnose and treat chronic HCV infection are now well established. Treating all patients with chronic HCV infection is more cost-saving than treating and caring for patients with liver-related complications, decompensated cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. It is more important than ever to reinforce and scale-up action towards HCV elimination. Yet, efforts urgently need the dedicated commitment of policymakers at all governmental and policy levels. Therefore, the third EU Policy Summit, held in March 2021, featured EU parliamentarians and other key decision makers to promote dialogue and take strides towards securing wider EU commitment to advance and achieve HCV elimination by 2030. We have summarized the key action points and reported the 'Call-to-Action' statement supported by all the major relevant European associations in the field., (© 2022 The Authors. Liver International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background & Aims: We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line., Methods: In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events., Results: Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively., Conclusions: ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials., Impact and Implications: Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy., Competing Interests: BS received travel support from AbbVie, Ipsen and Gilead. DR has received advisory fees from Bayer and speakers fees as well as travel grants from Ipsen. He is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Lilly, AstraZeneca and Roche. SP has nothing to disclose. ML has nothing to disclose. KP has nothing to disclose. TP received consulting fees from IQVIA and Bayer; and institutional research funding from Lilly, Roche, Bayer. AC has nothing to disclose. TWF has nothing to disclose. JVF has received advisory board fees from Roche. KS served as consultant for Ipsen and Bayer, and conducts studies for Bayer, Roche, Lilly, MSD, and BMS. VH has nothing to disclose. FF received travel support from Abbvie and Novartis, and speaker fees from Abbvie and MSD. AD has nothing to disclose. ARS has served at advisory boards and received consulting honoraria from AMGEN, AAA, Bayer, BMS, IPSEN, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier. KS has nothing to disclose. PR has nothing to disclose. BiS has nothing to disclose. MPE received consulting honoraria from BMS and MSD. AT received consulting honoraria and/or lecture fees from Bayer, IPSEN, Lilly, BMS, Eisai Novartis, Roche, Intercept, Falk, AbbVie, and Gilead. He received travel grants from IPSEN, AbbVie, and Gilead. He is an investigator for IPSEN and GILEAD. AngD received advisory board fees from Roche and BMS, and travel support from Roche and Ipsen. FH received travel support from Bayer, Abbvie, and Gilead. LB has nothing to disclose. ABP has nothing to disclose. DH received research support from Pfizer. MV received speaker fees from Nordic Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Bayer Vital, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), and Sirtex, advisory board fees from Roche, Ipsen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Eisai, AstraZeneca and Amgen, research grants from Sirtex. FS has nothing to disclose. MT received speaker fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Falk Foundation, Gilead, Intercept and Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD); advisory board fees from Abbvie, Albireo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BiomX, Falk Pharma GmbH, GENFIT, Gilead, Intercept, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Phenex, Regulus and Shire; travel grants from AbbVie, Falk, Gilead, and Intercept; and research grants from Albireo, CymaBay, Falk, Gilead, Intercept, MSD, and Takeda. He is also coinventor of patents on the medical use of norUDCA filed by the Medical University of Graz. ADA received travel support and consultancy fees from Roche. CAMF has nothing to disclose. DJP received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, BMS, Roche, Eisai, Falk Foundation, travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, DaVolterra, Mursla, Exact Sciences and Astra Zeneca; research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS. MPR is advisor/consultant for Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; he served as a speaker for Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, and Roche; he is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Lilly, and Roche. JFD received compensations as a member of scientific advisory boards of Abbvie, Bayer, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Falk, Galapagos, Genfit, Genkyotex, Gilead Sciences, HepaRegenix, Intercept, Lilly, Merck, and Novartis. AW received compensations as a member of scientific advisory boards for BMS, Wako and Sanofi. He served as a speaker for Leo Pharma, Eisai, Ipsen and Roche and received travel support from Merck and Servier. AEK has received consulting fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CymaBay, Escient, FMC, Gilead, GSK, Guidepoint, Intercept, Mirum, Medscape, MSD, Myr, Viofor; lecture fees from Abbvie, AOP Orphan, Bayer, BMS, CMS, CymaBay, Eisai, Falk, Gilead, GSK, Intercept, Janssen, Newbridge, Novartis, Lilly, MSD, Zambon; and institutional research funding from Intercept. AGS served on advisory boards and as a consultant for Genentech, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Bayer, Exelixis, TARGET RWE, FujiFilm Medical Sciences, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, GRAIL, and Freenome. ENDT has served as a paid consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, EISAI, Eli Lilly & Co, MSD, Mallinckrodt, Omega, Pfizer, IPSEN, Terumo and Roche. He has received reimbursement of meeting attendance fees and travel expenses from Arqule, Astrazeneca, BMS, Bayer, Celsion and Roche, and lecture honoraria from BMS and Falk. He has received third-party funding for scientific research from Arqule, AstraZeneca, BMS, Bayer, Eli Lilly, and IPSEN and Roche. LR has received consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; lectures fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi, Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks. MP is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, and Roche; he received speaker honoraria from Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; he is a consultant for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; he received travel support from Bayer, BMS, and Roche. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Introduction: Patients with thrombocytopenia and chronic liver disease are at increased risk of bleeding during invasive procedures due to low platelet counts. Lusutrombopag, an orally active thrombopoietin receptor agonist, increases platelet count and reduces the need for platelet transfusion in chronic liver disease patients with thrombocytopenia undergoing a planned invasive procedure. The safety of lusutrombopag in patients with Child-Pugh class C chronic liver disease is not known. The present analysis was performed to determine the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of lusutrombopag in patients with Child-Pugh class C chronic liver disease., Methods: Data for patients with Child-Pugh class C chronic liver disease were collected from three data sets: a phase 1/2 Child-Pugh class C study (n = 5) (JapicCTI-163289 [Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center]), a phase 3 pivotal study (L-PLUS 2, n = 3) (NCT02389621 [Clinicaltrials.gov]), and ongoing post-marketing surveillance (n = 27) (JapicCTI-163432 [Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center]). Patients received lusutrombopag at 3 mg for up to 7 days. Safety and efficacy assessments were collected from two clinical studies and the post-marketing surveillance; pharmacokinetic data were collected from the phase 1/2 study., Results: Mean C max and AUC 0-τ were lower in Child-Pugh class C patients than Child-Pugh class A and B; individual patients' C max and AUC 0-τ values overlapped among Child-Pugh classes. In lusutrombopag patients who did not receive platelet transfusion (n = 4 in phase 1/2, n = 1 in phase 3, n = 24 in post-marketing surveillance), the median (range) maximum platelet count was 88.5 × 10 9 /L (54-105 × 10 9 /L), 80 × 10 9 /L, and 91 × 10 9 /L (41-186 × 10 9 /L; n = 23), respectively. There were no treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related serious adverse events. One patient from the phase 1/2 study had a non-serious portal vein thrombosis, which was not considered treatment-related., Conclusions: The analysis presented in this study suggests that lusutrombopag increases platelet counts in Child-Pugh class C patients and is safe and well tolerated in this patient population., Trial Registration: L-PLUS 2: NCT02389621 (Clinicaltrials.gov). Phase 1/2: JapicCTI-163289 (Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center [JAPIC]). Post-marketing surveillance: JapicCTI-163432 (JAPIC)., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Lusutrombopag is an oral thrombopoietin receptor agonist (TPO-RA). Clinical trials have shown lusutrombopag's efficacy in reducing need for preoperative platelet transfusion in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) and severe thrombocytopenia. This analysis assessed efficacy and safety of lusutrombopag in patients with severe thrombocytopenia and CLD undergoing planned invasive procedures., Methods: An electronic database search (through 1 December 2020) identified three randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials comparing lusutrombopag with placebo in patients with CLD and platelet count below 50 × 10 9 /L scheduled to undergo a procedure with a perioperative bleeding risk. A random-effects meta-analysis examined treatment effect, with Cochrane Collaboration's tool assessing risk of bias., Results: The meta-analysis included 343 (lusutrombopag 3 mg, n = 173; placebo, n = 170) patients. More patients met the criteria for treatment response (platelet count at least 50 × 10 9 /L and increase of at least 20 × 10 9 /L from baseline anytime during the study) with lusutrombopag versus placebo (risk ratio [RR] 6.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.69, 11.07; p < 0.0001). The primary efficacy outcome, proportion of patients requiring no platelet transfusion and no rescue therapy for bleeding for at least 7 days post procedure, was achieved by more patients treated with lusutrombopag versus placebo (RR 3.42; 95% CI 1.86, 6.26; p = 0.0001). The risk of any bleeding event was significantly lower with lusutrombopag compared to placebo (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.32, 0.95; p = 0.03); conversely, thrombosis event rates were similar between lusutrombopag and placebo (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.19, 3.24; p = 0.74)., Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that treatment of severe thrombocytopenia with lusutrombopag in patients with CLD prior to a planned invasive procedure was efficacious and safe in increasing platelet counts, avoiding the need for platelet transfusions, and reducing risk of bleeding, thereby enhancing the certainty of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of lusutrombopag., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background & Aims: Information about the impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in patients with liver cancer is lacking. This study characterizes the outcomes and mortality risk in this population., Methods: Multicentre retrospective, cross-sectional, international study of liver cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection registered between February and December 2020. Clinical data at SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and outcomes were registered., Results: Two hundred fifty patients from 38 centres were included, 218 with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and 32 with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). The median age was 66.5 and 64.5 years, and 84.9% and 21.9% had cirrhosis in the HCC and iCCA cohorts respectively. Patients had advanced cancer stage at SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in 39.0% of the HCC and 71.9% of the iCCA patients. After a median follow-up of 7.20 (IQR: 1.84-11.24) months, 100 (40%) patients have died, 48% of the deaths were SARS-CoV-2-related. Forty (18.4%) HCC patients died within 30-days. The death rate increase was significantly different according to the BCLC stage (6.10% [95% CI 2.24-12.74], 11.76% [95% CI 4.73-22.30], 20.69% [95% CI 11.35-31.96] and 34.52% [95% CI 17.03-52.78] for BCLC 0/A, B, C and D, respectively; p = .0017). The hazard ratio was 1.45 (95% CI 0.49-4.31; p = .5032) in BCLC-B versus 0/A, and 3.13 (95% CI 1.29-7.62; p = .0118) in BCLC-C versus 0/A in the competing risk Cox regression model. Nineteen out of 32 iCCA (59.4%) died, and 12 deaths were related to SARS-CoV-2 infection., Conclusions: This is the largest cohort of liver cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. It characterizes the 30-day mortality risk of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with HCC during this period., (© 2022 The Authors. Liver International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Using national registries, we investigated the epidemiological trends of hepatobiliary carcinomas in Austria between 2010 and 2018 and compared them to those reported for the periods of 1990-1999 and 2000-2009. In total, 12,577 patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma ( n = 7146), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma ( n = 1858), extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma ( n = 1649), gallbladder carcinoma ( n = 1365), and ampullary carcinoma ( n = 559), between 2010 and 2018, were included. The median overall survival of all patients was 9.0 months. The best median overall survival was observed in patients with ampullary carcinoma (28.5 months) and the worst median overall survival was observed in patients with intrahepatic carcinoma (5.6 months). The overall survival significantly improved in all entities over the period 2010-2018 as compared with over the periods of 2000-2009 and 1990-1999. Age-adjusted incidence and mortality rates remained stable for most entities in both, men and women; only in gallbladder carcinoma, the incidence and mortality rates significantly decreased in women, whereas, in men, the incidence rates remained stable and mortality rates showed a decreasing trend. We showed that age-adjusted incidence and mortality rates were stable in most entities, except in gallbladder carcinoma. The overall survival improved in almost all entities as compared with those during 1990-2009.

Purpose: Portal hypertension (PH)-associated splenomegaly is caused by portal venous congestion and splanchnic hyperemia. This can trigger hypersplenism, which favors the development of cytopenia. We investigated the time-dependent impact of splenectomy on portal pressure and blood cell counts in animal models of non-cirrhotic and cirrhotic PH., Materials and Methods: Ninety-six rats underwent either partial portal vein ligation (PPVL), bile duct ligation (BDL), or sham operation (SO), with subgroups undergoing additional splenectomy. Portal pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, blood cell counts and hemoglobin concentrations were evaluated throughout 5 weeks following surgery., Results: Following PPVL or BDL surgery, the animals presented a progressive rise in portal pressure, paralleled by decreased mean arterial pressure and accelerated heart rate. Splenectomy curbed the development of PH in both models (PPVL: 16.25 vs. 17.93 ​mmHg, p ​= ​0.083; BDL: 13.55 vs. 15.23 ​mmHg, p ​= ​0.028), increased mean arterial pressure (PPVL: +7%; BDL: +9%), and reduced heart rate (PPVL: -10%; BDL: -13%). Accordingly, splenectomized rats had lower von Willebrand factor plasma levels (PPVL: -22%; BDL: -25%). Splenectomy resulted in higher hemoglobin levels in PPVL (14.15 vs. 13.08 ​g/dL, p ​< ​0.001) and BDL (13.20 vs. 12.39 ​g/dL, p ​= ​0.097) animals, and significantly increased mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentrations (PPVL: +9%; BDL: +15%). Thrombocytopenia only developed in the PPVL model and was alleviated in the splenectomized subgroup. Conversely, BDL rats presented with thrombocytosis, which was not affected by splenectomy., Conclusions: Splenectomy improves both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic PH, and ameliorates the hyperdynamic circulation. Hypersplenism related anemia and thrombocytopenia were only significantly improved in the non-cirrhotic PH model., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background & Aims: Immunotherapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic front-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, biomarkers that predict treatment success and survival remain an unmet need., Methods: Patients with HCC put on PD-(L)1-based immunotherapy were included in a training set (n = 190; 6 European centers) and a validation set (n = 102; 8 European centers). We investigated the prognostic value of baseline variables on overall survival using a Cox model in the training set and developed the easily applicable CRAFITY (CRP and AFP in ImmunoTherapY) score. The score was validated in the independent, external cohort, and evaluated in a cohort of patients treated with sorafenib (n = 204)., Results: Baseline serum alpha-fetoprotein ≥100 ng/ml (hazard ratio [HR] 1.7; p = 0.007) and C-reactive protein ≥1 mg/dl (HR, 1.7; p = 0.007) were identified as independent prognostic factors in multivariable analysis and were used to develop the CRAFITY score. Patients who fulfilled no criterion (0 points; CRAFITY-low) had the longest median overall survival (27.6 (95% CI 19.5-35.8) months), followed by those fulfilling 1 criterion (1 point; CRAFITY-intermediate; 11.3 (95% CI 8.0-14.6) months), and patients meeting both criteria (2 points; CRAFITY-high; 6.4 (95% CI 4.8-8.1) months; p <0.001). Additionally, best radiological response (complete response/partial response/stable disease/progressive disease) was significantly better in patients with lower CRAFITY score (CRAFITY-low: 9%/20%/52%/20% vs. CRAFITY-intermediate: 3%/25%/36%/36% vs. CRAFITY-high: 2%/15%/22%/61%; p = 0.003). These results were confirmed in the independent validation set and in different subgroups, including Child-Pugh A and B, performance status 0 and ≥1, and first-line and later lines. In the sorafenib cohort, CRAFITY was associated with survival, but not radiological response., Conclusions: The CRAFITY score is associated with survival and radiological response in patients receiving PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. The score may help with patient counseling but requires prospective validation., Lay Summary: The immunotherapy-based regimen of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic first-line therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Biomarkers to predict treatment outcome are an unmet need in patients undergoing immunotherapy for HCC. We developed and externally validated a score that predicts outcome in patients with HCC undergoing immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockers., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest B.S. received travel support from AbbVie, Ipsen and Gilead. K.P. nothing to disclose. M.K. received honoraria from BMS and AstraZeneca as consultant and is an investigator for AstraZeneca. F.H. received travel support from Bayer, Abbvie, and Gilead. F.F. received travel support from Abbvie and Novartis, and speaker fees from Abbvie and MSD. O.W. served as consultant for Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Servier, and Shire. He served as a speaker for Abbvie, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Falk, Ipsen, Novartis, Roche, and Shire. He received travel support from Abbvie, BMS, Ipsen, Novartis, and Servier. V.H. has nothing to disclose. K.S. Served as consultant for Ipsen and Bayer, and conducts studies for Bayer, Roche, Lilly, MSD, and BMS. J.v.F. has received advisory board fees from Roche. T.W.F. has nothing to disclose. M.S. has nothing to disclose. H.H. received compensations as a member of a scientific advisory board of Lilly. K.S. has nothing to disclose. S.S. has nothing to disclose. P.R. has nothing to disclose. A.R.S. has served at advisory boards and received consulting honoraria from AMGEN, AAA, Bayer, BMS, IPSEN, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier. J.C.M. has received consulting honoraria from Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Intercept, MSD, Sanofi, Vifor for work performed outside the current study. N.N.R. has nothing to disclose. F.K. received speakers' fees from Bayer, Ipsen, MSD, Eisai, Shire, Sirtex and has received travel grants from Eisai, Janssen, Ipsen and Novartis. D.T.W. served as speaker/expert testimony for AstraZeneca, Eisai, BMS, Celgene, Incyte, Ipsen, Falk, Novartis, Roche Pharma AG, Servier, Shire Baxelta, and Sirtex; he received travel support from Bayer Health Pharma, Celgene, Ipsen, Novartis, and SIRTEX, and research grants/funding from Servier. M.P.E. received consulting honoraria from BMS and MSD. A.T. received consulting honoraria and /or lecture fees from Bayer, IPSEN, Lilly, BMS, Eisai Novartis, Roche, Intercept, Falk, AbbVie, and Gilead. He received and travel grants from IPSEN, AbbVie, and Gilead. He is an investigator for IPSEN and GILEAD. S.D.D. received consulting honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, BMS, IPSEN, Lilly, Merck, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier, and travel grants from Amgen, BMS, IPSEN, Roche, and Servier. D.J.P. received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, Falk, BMS, EISAI and Roche; travel expenses from BMS, MSD and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, H3B, Roche, Astra Zeneca, and DaVolterra; research funding (to institution) from MSD, BMS. T.P. received consulting fees from IQVIA and Bayer; and institutional research funding from Lilly, Roche, Bayer. T.M. has nothing to disclose. L.B. has nothing to disclose. C.M. has nothing to disclose. M.M. served as a speaker and/or consultant and/or advisory board member for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Collective Acumen, Gilead, and W. L. Gore & Associates and received travel support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Gilead. T.R. received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, W.L. Gore and MSD, grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Gilead, Guerbet, Abbvie, Phenex Pharmaceuticals, Philips, W.L. Gore, and MSD, served as a consultant for Abbvie, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Intercept and MSD and received travel support from Gilead, Roche, MSD, and Gore. M.T. received speaker fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Falk Foundation, Gilead, Intercept and Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD); advisory board fees from Abbvie, Albireo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BiomX, Falk Pharma GmbH, GENFIT, Gilead, Intercept, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Phenex, Regulus and Shire; travel grants from AbbVie, Falk, Gilead, and Intercept; and research grants from Albireo, CymaBay, Falk, Gilead, Intercept, MSD, and Takeda. He is also coinventor of patents on the medical use of norUDCA filed by the Medical University of Graz. N.P. received consulting fees from Amgen, Merck Serono, Servier; lectures fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Lilly; travel fees from Amgen, ArQule; and institutional research funding from Basilea, Merck Serono, Servier. L.R. has received consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Zymeworks; lectures fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks. M.B. received compensations as a member of scientific advisory boards of Bayer, Bristol–Meyers Squibb, EISAI, IPSEN, and MSD. J.T. served as consultant for Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Ipsen, and Roche, received travel support from BMS and Ipsen, and speaking fees from Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Ipsen, and Roche. He is also an investigator for Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Ipsen, and Roche. A.W. received compensations as a member of scientific advisory boards for BMS, Wako, Sanofi and. He served as a speaker for Leo Pharma, Eisai, Ipsen and Roche and received travel support from Merck and Servier. H.W. served as speaker for Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, and Roche, and as a consultant for Bayer, Eisai, Lilly, BMS, Roche, and Ipsen. He conducts studies for Bayer, Roche, Lilly, MSD, and BMS. J.F.D. received compensations as a member of scientific advisory boards of Abbvie, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Falk, Galapagos, Genfit, Genkyotex, Gilead Sciences, HepaRegenix, Intercept, Lilly, Merck, and Novartis. M.P.R. is advisor/consultant for Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; he served as a speaker for Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, and Roche; he is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Lilly, and Roche. A.V. served as consultant for Roche, Bayer, Lilly, BMS, Eisai, and Ipsen, and received speaking fees form Roche, Bayer, Lilly, BMS, Eisai, and Ipsen. He is also an investigator for Roche, Bayer, Lilly, BMS, Eisai, and Ipsen. M.P. is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Lilly, and Roche, he received speaker honoraria from Bayer, BMS, Eisai, and MSD, he is a consultant for Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Eisai, Lilly, Roche, and MSD, and he received travel support from Bayer, BMS, and Roche. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The aim of the study is to investigate the influence of endosonographer experience and patient-related factors on the dose of sedation and sedation-related complications during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)., Methods: Our retrospective analysis included EUS investigations performed between 2015 and 2018 at our institution. Sedation-related complications were defined as cardiorespiratory instability with oxygen saturation drop below 90% or prolonged low blood pressure or bradycardia., Results: In total, 537 EUS examinations were analyzed (37.3% interventional). The median dose of propofol and midazolam were: 140 (30-570) and 3(1-7) mg, respectively. Sedation-related complications were documented in 1.8% of cases. All patients had transient, nonfatal respiratory insufficiency. Totally, 60% of the patients who developed complications were >75 years and 70% were male. The presence of cardiac and/or pulmonary comorbidities was associated with an OR = 8.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-41.7] and American Society of Anesthesiologists class III with an OR = 7.64 (95% CI, 1.60-36.3) for the occurrence of sedation-related complications. Endosonographer experience did not influence the rate of sedation-related complications. In both diagnostic and interventional EUS, patients with comorbidities and older age received significantly less sedation. Experienced endosonographers used less sedation than trainees., Conclusion: Endosonographer experience, patient age and the presence of comorbidities had a significant influence on sedation dose. Sedation-related complications occurred only in 1.8% of cases., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hepatitis D virus (HDV) coinfection aggravates the course of hepatitis B virus (HBV). The prevalence of HDV in Austria is unknown., Objective: This national study aimed at (i) recording the prevalence of HDV-infection in Austria and (ii) characterizing the "active" HDV cohort in Austria., Methods: A total of 10 hepatitis treatment centers in Austria participated in this multicenter study and retrospectively collected their HDV patients between Q1/2010 and Q4/2020. Positive anti-HDV and/or HDV-RNA-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results were retrieved from local database queries. Disease severity was assessed by individual chart review. Viremic HDV patients with clinical visits in/after Q1/2019 were considered as the "active" HDV cohort., Results: A total of 347 anti-HDV positive patients were identified. In 202 (58.2%) patients, HDV-RNA-PCR test was performed, and 126/202 (62.4%) had confirmed viremia. Hepatocellular carcinoma was diagnosed in 7 (5.6%) patients, 7 (5.6%) patients underwent liver transplantation, and 11 (8.7%) patients died during follow-up. The "active" Austrian HDV cohort included 74 (58.7%) patients: Evidence for advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD, i.e., histological F3/F4 fibrosis, liver stiffness ≥10 kPa, varices, or hepatic venous pressure gradient ≥6 mmHg) was detected in 38 (51.4%) patients, including 2 (5.3%) with decompensation (ascites/hepatic encephalopathy). About 37 (50.0%) patients of the "active" HDV cohort had previously received interferon treatment. Treatment with the sodium-taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide inhibitor bulevirtide was initiated in 20 (27.0%) patients., Conclusion: The number of confirmed HDV viremic cases in Austria is low (<1% of HBV patients) but potentially underestimated. Testing all HBV patients will increase the diagnostic yield. More than half of viremic HDV patients had ACLD. Improved HDV testing and workup strategies will facilitate access to novel antiviral therapies., (© 2021 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Tumor-infiltrating immune cells are relevant prognostic and immunotherapeutic targets in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Mast cells play a key role in allergic response but may also be involved in anticancer immunity. Digital morphometric analysis of patient tissue sections has become increasingly available for clinical routine and provides unbiased quantitative data. Here, we apply morphometric analysis of mast cells to retrospectively evaluate their relevance for HCC recurrence in patients after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). A total of 173 patients underwent OLT for HCC at the Medical University of Vienna (21 women, 152 men; 55.2 ± 7.9 years; 74 beyond Milan criteria, 49 beyond up-to-7 criteria for liver transplantation). Tissue arrays from tumors and corresponding surrounding tissues were immunohistochemically stained for mast cell tryptase. Mast cells were quantified by digital tissue morphometric analysis and correlated with HCC recurrence. Mast cells were detected in 93% of HCC tumors and in all available surrounding liver tissues. Tumor tissues revealed lower mast cell density than corresponding surrounding tissues (P < 0.0001). Patients lacking intratumoral mast cells (iMCs) displayed larger tumors and higher tumor recurrence rates both in the whole cohort (hazard ratio [HR], 2.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-6.93; P = 0.029) and in patients beyond transplant criteria (Milan HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.04-7.62; P = 0.01; up-to-7 HR, 3.58; 95% CI, 1.17-10.92; P = 0.02). Notably, high iMC identified additional patients at low risk classified outside the Milan and up-to-7 criteria, whereas low iMC identified additional patients at high risk classified within the alpha-fetoprotein French and Metroticket criteria. iMCs independently predicted tumor recurrence in a multivariate Cox regression analysis (Milan HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.16-4.91; P = 0.019; up-to-7 HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.05-4.62; P = 0.035). Conclusion: Hepatic mast cells might be implicated in antitumor immunity in HCC. Morphometric analysis of iMCs refines prognosis of HCC recurrence after liver transplantation., (© 2021 The Authors. Hepatology Communications published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background and Aims: The cardiovascular hormones renin/angiotensin/aldosterone (RAA), brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)and arginine-vasopressin (AVP) are key regulators of systemic circulatory homeostasis in portal hypertension (PH). We assessed (i) the activation of renin, BNP and AVP across distinct stages of PH and (ii) whether activation of these hormones correlates with clinical outcomes., Methods: Plasma levels of renin, proBNP and copeptin (AVP biomarker) were determined in 663 patients with advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) undergoing hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement at the Vienna General Hospital between 11/2011 and 02/2019. We stratified for Child stage (A-C), HVPG (6-9 mmHg, 10-15 mmHg, ≥ 16 mmHg) and compensated vs. decompensated ACLD., Results: With increasing PH, hyperdynamic state was indicated by higher heart rates (6-9 mmHg: median 71.0 [IQR 18.0] bpm, 10-15 mmHg: 76.0 [19.0] bpm, ≥ 16 mmHg: 80.0 [22.0] bpm; p < 0.001), lower mean arterial pressure (6-9 mmHg: 103.0 [13.5] mmHg, 10-15 mmHg: 101.0 [19.5] mmHg, ≥ 16 mmHg: 99.0 [21.0] mmHg; p = 0.032) and lower serum sodium (6-9 mmHg: 139.0 [3.0] mmol/L, 10-15 mmHg: 138.0 [4.0] mmol/L, ≥ 16 mmHg: 138.0 [5.0] mmol/L; p < 0.001). Across HVPG strata (6-9 mmHg vs. 10-15 mmHg vs ≥ 16 mmHg), median plasma levels of renin (21.0 [50.5] vs. 25.1 [70.9] vs. 65.4 [219.6] µIU/mL; p < 0.001), proBNP (86.1 [134.0] vs. 63.6 [118.0], vs. 132.2 [208.9] pg/mL; p = 0.002) and copeptin (7.8 [7.7] vs. 5.6 [8.0] vs. 10.7 [18.6] pmol/L; p = 0.024) increased with severity of PH. Elevated renin levels independently predicted first hepatic decompensation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.69; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.07-2.68; p = 0.025) and mortality in compensated patients (aHR: 3.15; 95% CI 1.70-5.84; p < 0.001) and the overall cohort aHR: 1.42; 95% CI 1.01-2.01; p = 0.046). Elevated copeptin levels predicted mortality in decompensated patients (aHR: 5.77; 95% CI 1.27-26.33; p = 0.024) and in the overall cohort (aHR: 3.29; 95% CI 1.36-7.95; p = 0.008). ProBNP levels did not predict clinical outcomes., Conclusions: The cardiovascular hormones renin, proBNP and AVP are activated with progression of ACLD and PH. Renin activation is a risk factor for hepatic decompensation and mortality, especially in compensated patients. Increased plasma copeptin is a risk factor for mortality, in particular in decompensated patients., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Aim: To assess the adherence to treatment, sustained virologic response (SVR) rate, and reinfection rate in hepatitis C patients with and without intravenous drug use., Methods: This retrospective study included hepatitis C patients, evaluated and treated in our hepatology outpatient clinic between January 2014 and October 2019. The following information was extracted from the patient's file: the presence of positive viral load for hepatitis C virus (HCV), active and recent (in the last 6 months) use of i.v. drugs, HCV genotype, treatment regimen, SVR, HCV reinfection rate, coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and ongoing opioid substitution therapy (OST)., Results: We included 431 hepatitis C patients, 234 people who inject drugs (PWID) and 197 non-PWID. Most patients were treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAA) only. The rate of documented SVR by treated patients was significantly higher in the non-PWID cohort (91.5% vs. 61.5%, p < 0.0001), while noncompliance (did not show up to start treatment) rate or refusal of treatment was significantly higher in the PWID cohort (19.4% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.004). In the PWID cohort, younger age and recent (in the last 6 months) or ongoing i.v. drug use was associated with noncompliance: 31.1 ± 8.4 years vs. 35.8 ± 10.6 years (p = 0.02) and 33.3% vs. 12.8% (p = 0.0008), respectively. Ongoing OST was associated with better compliance: 61.1% vs. 46.1% (p = 0.04)., Conclusion: To achieve elimination of hepatitis C better treatment strategies are needed, especially in PWIDs., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature.)

Background & Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems and it may have heavily impacted patients with liver cancer (LC). Herein, we evaluated whether the schedule of LC screening or procedures has been interrupted or delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: An international survey evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice and clinical trials from March 2020 to June 2020, as the first phase of a multicentre, international, and observational project. The focus was on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, cared for around the world during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave., Results: Ninety-one centres expressed interest to participate and 76 were included in the analysis, from Europe, South America, North America, Asia, and Africa (73.7%, 17.1%, 5.3%, 2.6%, and 1.3% per continent, respectively). Eighty-seven percent of the centres modified their clinical practice: 40.8% the diagnostic procedures, 80.9% the screening programme, 50% cancelled curative and/or palliative treatments for LC, and 41.7% modified the liver transplantation programme. Forty-five out of 69 (65.2%) centres in which clinical trials were running modified their treatments in that setting, but 58.1% were able to recruit new patients. The phone call service was modified in 51.4% of centres which had this service before the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 19/37)., Conclusions: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on the routine care of patients with liver cancer. Modifications in screening, diagnostic, and treatment algorithms may have significantly impaired the outcome of patients. Ongoing data collection and future analyses will report the benefits and disadvantages of the strategies implemented, aiding future decision-making., Lay Summary: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems globally. Herein, we assessed the impact of the first wave pandemic on patients with liver cancer and found that routine care for these patients has been majorly disrupted, which could have a significant impact on outcomes., Competing Interests: SM.-M.: Speaker fees from Bayer and travel funding from 10.13039/100004326Bayer and 10.13039/501100014382Eisai. V.S.: Travel grants from 10.13039/100004326Bayer. A.F.: Lecture fees from Bayer, Gilead and MSD; consultancy fees from Bayer, AstraZeneca, Roche and Guerbert. J-C.N.: Received research grant from 10.13039/100004326Bayer for Inserm UMR1138. L.R.: Reports receiving consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi; lectures fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Roche, Sanofi; travel fees from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, 10.13039/100004325AstraZeneca, BeiGene, 10.13039/501100003769Eisai, 10.13039/100010544Exelixis, 10.13039/100006591Fibrogen, Incyte, 10.13039/501100014382Ipsen, 10.13039/100004312Lilly, 10.13039/100007054MSD, 10.13039/100004337Roche. B.S.: Reports consultancy fees from Adaptimmune, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, BTG, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Sirtex Medical, Terumo; and research grants from 10.13039/100002491BMS and Sirtex Medical. J. Bruix: Consultancy: AbbVie, ArQule, Astra, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Kowa, Lilly, Medimune, Novartis, Onxeo, Polaris, Quirem, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Sirtex, Terumo/Grants: 10.13039/100004326Bayer and 10.13039/501100014382Ipsen. M.S.Z.: Received speaker fees and travel grants from 10.13039/100004326Bayer and 10.13039/100014869BTG, 10.13039/100007054MSD. M.B.: Consultant and Advisory Board for: Bayer Pharma, Ipsen, BMS, Eisai, Roche, AstraZeneca, Sirtex Medical. D.J.P.: Received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, and AstraZeneca; received research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS. T.M.: Consultancy: Eisai, Roche, BTG, Ipsen, Bayer, Adaptimmune. Research funding: Bayer, BTG. H.W.: Served as speaker for Bayer, Eisai, and Ipsen, and as a consultant for Bayer, Eisai, Lilly, BMS, Roche, and Ipsen. B.M.: Consultancy: Bayer-Shering Pharma /Speaker fees: Eisai, MSDG. C. Consultancy fees from Bayer, Ipsen. P.R.G.: Bayer, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Adaptimmune, Sirtex, Lilly Ipsen, Roche, Eisai. M.R.A.S.: Has received Research grants, advisory board or speaker fees for 10.13039/100006483AbbVie, 10.13039/100004326Bayer, Biolab, Intercept, 10.13039/501100014382Ipsen, 10.13039/100008799Gilead, 10.13039/100009947MSD, 10.13039/100004336Novartis, and 10.13039/100004337Roche. J.T.: Has received research grants from 10.13039/100004337Roche and 10.13039/501100014382Ipsen. He has received speaker and consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dome, Lilly Imclone, and Roche. J. Bridgewater: Consultancy Bayer, BMS, Incyte, Taiho, Roche, MSD and Merck Serono. Research funding from Incyte. G.C.: Consultancy fees from Bayer, Ipsen. A.L.: Consultancy CAScination, Advisory Board Neuwave and Histosonics. H.T.: Speaker fees from AbbVie, Gilead, MSD, and Bayer. R.V.: Research grant from 10.13039/100006483Abbvie. A.M.M.P.: Speaker honorarium from Bayer, BMS, Boston Scientific and EISAI. Consulting honorarium from Bayer, AstraZeneca and EISAI. Advisory honorarium from Bayer, AstraZeneca and EISAI. Grants from 10.13039/100004326Bayer and 10.13039/100008497Boston Scientific. M.D.: Has received consulting and training fees from Bayer and Eisai. B.B.: Reports Consultancy for GenMab (paid to Institution); Advisory Boards for Roche (paid to Institution), Eisai Europe Limited (paid to Institution), research grant from 10.13039/100006436Celgene Ltd (paid to Institution), Speakers Bureau for Eisai Europe Limited (paid to Institution), Travel and registration for Congress from Bayer. L.d.F.: Lectures fees from BMS, Roche and Bayer. B.M.M.: Advisory/Speaker: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, Roche, Sanoffi Genzyme, Taiho. Expert Testimony: Eisai, Roche. Travel: Eisai, Merck. Research: Sillajen (Individual); AstraZeneca, H3/Eisai, Galera, GSK, Exelixis (Institution). M.S.: Travel/ accommodation/meeting expenses: Bayer. Eisai. Speaker fees: Bayer. C.R.L.: Travel grants from 10.13039/100004326Bayer. M.R-G.: Reports grants from Intercept, grants from 10.13039/100005564Gilead-Sciences, personal fees from Shionogi, personal fees from Alfa-Wasserman, personal fees from Prosciento, personal fees from Kaleido, personal fees from Novonrdisk, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Allergan, personal fees from Boehriger-Ingelheim, personal fees from Zydus, personal fees from Intercept Pharma, personal fees from Gilead-Sciences, outside the submitted work. F.P.: Disclosures: Received speaker honoraria from Bayer, Roche, LKM-Biotoscana, RAFFO. Research Grants from INC Argentinean 10.13039/100013137National Institute of Corrections, 10.13039/100004337Roche. V.M.: Lectures sponsored by Bayer. G.B.: Advisory board Eli-Lilly and Incyte. M. Vergara: Travel grants from 10.13039/100004326Bayer, 10.13039/100008799Gilead, 10.13039/100009947MSD and 10.13039/100006483Abbvie. Lectures sponsored by Gilead, Abbvie, Intercept, and MSD. M.L.: Lectures and educational presentations: Abbvie. Travel/accommodation, meeting expenses covered by Bayer, Gilead, Abbvie. M.I.: Received speaker honoraria from Bayer, Gilead Sciences, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, BTG-Boston Scientific, AbbVie, EISAI, and was consultant for BTG-Boston Scientific, Bayer, and Guerbet. M.R.: Consultancy: Bayer-Schering Pharma, BMS, Roche, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Lilly, BTG/Paid conferences: Bayer-Schering Pharma, BMS, Gilead, Lilly/Research Grants: 10.13039/100004326Bayer-Schering Pharma, 10.13039/501100014382Ipsen. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) set a goal to eliminate hepatitis C (HCV) infection globally by 2030, with specific targets to reduce new viral hepatitis infections by 80% and reduce related deaths by 65%. However, an overlooked aspect that may hinder these efforts is the impact other liver diseases could have by continuing to drive liver disease progression and offset the beneficial impact of DAAs on end-stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In particular, the decrease in HCV prevalence has been countered by a marked increase in the prevalence of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD)., Aims: To review the potential interaction of HCV and MAFLD., Methods: We have reviewed the literature relating to an arrange of interaction of HCV, metabolic dysfunction and MAFLD., Results: In this viewpoint, international experts suggest a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for the management of the growing number of treated HCV patients who achieved SVR, taking into consideration the overlooked impact of MAFLD for reducing morbidity and mortality in people who have had HCV., Conclusions: This will strengthen and improve the continuum of care cascade for patients with liver disease(s) and holds the potential to alleviate the cost burden of disease; and increase quality of life for patients following DAAs treatment., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Aims: Recently published criteria by 2019 Cirrhotic Cardiomyopathy Consortium set a lower threshold for reduced ejection fraction to diagnose systolic dysfunction in cirrhotic patients, and stress testing was replaced by echocardiography strain imaging. The criteria to diagnose diastolic dysfunction are in general concordant with the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines and differ considerably from the 2005 Montreal recommendations. We aimed to assess the prevalence of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy according to different diagnostic criteria., Methods: Cirrhotic patients without another structural heart disease, arterial hypertension, portal vein thrombosis, HCC outside Milan criteria and presence of TIPS were enrolled. Speckle-tracking echocardiography was performed by EACVI certified investigators., Results: A total of 122 patients with cirrhosis fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall prevalence of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy was similar for 2005 Montreal and 2019 CCC: 67.2% vs 55.7% (P = .09); and significantly higher compared to 2009 ASE/EACVI criteria: 67.2% vs 35.2% (P < .0001) and 55.7% vs 35.2% (P = .002) respectively. Significantly more patients had diastolic dysfunction according to the 2005 Montreal compared to the 2009 ASE/EACVI and 2019 CCC criteria: 64.8% vs 32.8% (P < .0001) and 64.8% vs 7.4% (P < .0001). Systolic dysfunction was more frequently diagnosed according to 2019 CCC criteria compared to 2005 Montreal (53.3% vs 16.4%,P < .0001) or ASE/EACVI criteria (53.3% vs 4.9%,P < .0001)., Conclusion: Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy was present in around 60% of cirrhotic patients when applying the hepatological criteria. A considerably higher prevalence of systolic dysfunction according to the 2019 CCC criteria was observed. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to establish the validity of these criteria to predict clinically relevant outcomes., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Portal hypertension (PH) causes severe complications in patients with liver cirrhosis, such as variceal bleeding and ascites; however, data on the knowledge and perceptions on guideline recommendations for the management of varices and the use of albumin is scarce., Methods: We designed two structured surveys on (i) the management of varices and (ii) the use of albumin for Austrian physicians of specialized Gastro-Intestinal (GI) centers. The interviewed physicians were confronted spontaneously and provided ad hoc responses to the questionnaire., Results: In total, 158 surveys were completed. Interestingly, many specialists (30%) would recommend a follow-up gastroscopy after 1 year in patients with compensated cirrhosis without varices (i.e., overtreatment). For small varices, 81.5% would use non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) for primary prophylaxis (PP). For PP in patients with large varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) plus NSBB was preferred by 51.4% (i.e., overtreatment). Knowledge on the indication criteria for early TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt) was reported by 54.3%, but only 20% could report these criteria correctly. The majority (87.1%) correctly indicated a preference to use NSBB and EBL for secondary prophylaxis (SP). The majority of participating gastroenterologists reported no restrictions on the use of albumin (89.8%) in their hospitals. Of the interviewed specialists, 63.6% would use albumin in patients with SBP; however, only 11.4% would use the doses recommended by guidelines. The majority of specialists indicated using albumin at the recommended doses for hepatorenal syndrome (HRS-AKI, 86.4%) and for large volume paracentesis (LVP, 73.3%). The individual responses regarding albumin use for infections/sepsis, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and encephalopathy were heterogeneous., Conclusion: The reported management of PH and varices is mostly adherent to guidelines, but endoscopic surveillance in patients without varices is too intense and EBL is overused in the setting of PP. Knowledge on the correct use of early TIPS must be improved among Austrian specialists. Albumin use is widely unrestricted in Austria; however, albumin is often underdosed in established indications.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can have viral or non-viral causes 1-5 . Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an important driver of HCC. Immunotherapy has been approved for treating HCC, but biomarker-based stratification of patients for optimal response to therapy is an unmet need 6,7 . Here we report the progressive accumulation of exhausted, unconventionally activated CD8 + PD1 + T cells in NASH-affected livers. In preclinical models of NASH-induced HCC, therapeutic immunotherapy targeted at programmed death-1 (PD1) expanded activated CD8 + PD1 + T cells within tumours but did not lead to tumour regression, which indicates that tumour immune surveillance was impaired. When given prophylactically, anti-PD1 treatment led to an increase in the incidence of NASH-HCC and in the number and size of tumour nodules, which correlated with increased hepatic CD8 + PD1 + CXCR6 + , TOX + , and TNF + T cells. The increase in HCC triggered by anti-PD1 treatment was prevented by depletion of CD8 + T cells or TNF neutralization, suggesting that CD8 + T cells help to induce NASH-HCC, rather than invigorating or executing immune surveillance. We found similar phenotypic and functional profiles in hepatic CD8 + PD1 + T cells from humans with NAFLD or NASH. A meta-analysis of three randomized phase III clinical trials that tested inhibitors of PDL1 (programmed death-ligand 1) or PD1 in more than 1,600 patients with advanced HCC revealed that immune therapy did not improve survival in patients with non-viral HCC. In two additional cohorts, patients with NASH-driven HCC who received anti-PD1 or anti-PDL1 treatment showed reduced overall survival compared to patients with other aetiologies. Collectively, these data show that non-viral HCC, and particularly NASH-HCC, might be less responsive to immunotherapy, probably owing to NASH-related aberrant T cell activation causing tissue damage that leads to impaired immune surveillance. Our data provide a rationale for stratification of patients with HCC according to underlying aetiology in studies of immunotherapy as a primary or adjuvant treatment.

For a decade, sorafenib remained the only approved first-line treatment and standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The treatment landscape has been evolving rapidly over the past 2 years with the approval of additional first-and second-line systemic treatments, most of which are targeted therapies. The expected approval of immunotherapies constitutes a paradigm shift: for the first time in years, a checkpoint inhibitor in combination with a VEGF antibody recently outperformed sorafenib with regards to efficacy. The wider availability of systemic therapies increases the chance for longer overall survival but raises new questions concerning the role of local options, treatment choice and sequential treatment. Following an expert discussion at the German Cancer Congress 2020 in Berlin, this article aims to summarize the current evidence on and experience of treatment choice and sequence in first- and second-line therapy.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a very sensitive examination to detect pancreatic masses and can provide useful information in cases where conventional radiologic workup remains inconclusive. We present three cases in which EUS was decisive in establishing the correct diagnosis. Case 1: A 74-year-old female was hospitalized because of acute pancreatitis. Medical history, CT and MRI gave no clue to etiology, but EUS diagnosed a small pancreatic tumor. Case 2: A female patient was admitted because of abdominal pain and weight loss. While MRI suspected a pancreatic tumor, EUS showed typical features of autoimmune pancreatitis. Case 3: A 50-year-old patient was hospitalized with cachexia, ascites and pulmonary embolism. At first, a pancreatic tumor was suspected, but EUS showed a cystic lesion with a solid component (pancreatic pseudocyst).

Background: Although EUS-fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is considered to be safe, there are limited studies on adverse events of fine-needle biopsy (FNB)., Aim: To compare the bleeding rate of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB of solid and cystic pancreatic masses., Methods: Our retrospective study included EUS-FNA/FNB of solid and cystic pancreatic masses performed between 02/2017-03/2019 in Klinikum Klagenfurt and 11/2018-03/2019 in University Hospital St. Pölten, Austria. Minor bleeding was defined as an event with a duration of more than 1 min, no need for intervention, large coagulum on the puncture site, or decrease in hemoglobin ≥1.5 g/dL (but <2 g/dL). Major bleeding was defined as a reduction in hemoglobin level ≥2 g/dL, need for red cell transfusions, or interventional hemostasis., Results: About 202 patients were biopsied in that period (141 solid, 61cystic pancreatic masses). FNA needle was used in 54.6% of cases with solid pancreatic masses and 73.7% of cysts. Bleeding with hemodynamic instability was not observed in our cohort. In pancreatic cysts, minor bleeding was observed in 8.2% of cases and was associated with the use of FNB needles and lower platelet count. In solid tumors, one major bleeding (0.7%) from a duodenal vessel occurred and was immediately treated with hemoclip. In this group, minor bleeding was observed in 15.6% of cases. Overall, the bleeding rate correlates with the use of FNB needles., Conclusion: Use of EUS-FNB needles increases the rate of minor bleeding for both solid and cystic pancreatic tumors, while major bleeding is a rare occurrence, irrespective of the needle type.

Background & Aims: Despite limitations, platelet transfusion has been used to minimise bleeding risk in patients with thrombocytopaenia. Lusutrombopag is an oral, thrombopoietin receptor agonist approved for treatment of thrombocytopaenia associated with chronic liver disease in patients undergoing planned invasive procedures. This post-hoc analysis assessed the magnitude of platelet count change based on the integrated per-protocol population from 2 similar phase III multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials., Methods: Adults with chronic liver disease-induced thrombocytopaenia and platelet count <50 (× 10 9 /L) received lusutrombopag 3 mg or placebo ≤7 days before invasive procedure scheduled 9-14 days after randomisation. Platelet transfusion was required per protocol if the platelet count remained <50 no more than 2 days before the planned invasive procedure. Post-hoc analysis included: proportion of patients with platelet count ≥50, ≥1.5-fold increase, and a doubling of platelet count; maximum and maximum change in platelet count; and platelet count time course., Results: Platelet count ≥50, a platelet count increase ≥1.5-fold, and at least a doubling in platelet count were achieved in 88.3%, 86.9%, and 52.6% of patients in the lusutrombopag group (n = 137) vs. 58.6%, 32.3%, and 6.0% of patients in the placebo group (n = 133), respectively. In the lusutrombopag group, median maximum platelet count across baseline platelet counts of <30, ≥30 to <40, and ≥40 was 46, 76, and 87, respectively. Median maximum change in platelet count by baseline platelet count was +24, +42, and +40, respectively. Patients who received lusutrombopag without platelet transfusion achieved a median platelet count ≥50 for 3 weeks., Conclusions: Patients treated with lusutrombopag experienced a clinically relevant response in platelet count for a substantial duration of time., Lay Summary: Patients with low platelet counts caused by chronic liver disease may not receive planned invasive procedures or surgeries because of an increased risk of bleeding. Lusutrombopag has previously demonstrated efficacy in raising platelet counts and is approved to treat chronic liver disease patients with low platelet counts in advance of a planned surgery. Physicians need to understand more clearly what to expect in terms of platelet count change when using lusutrombopag; this integrated analysis provides data to help guide its clinical application., Competing Interests: Robert S. Brown, Jr: Consultant and research support from AbbVie, Shionogi, Dova, Gilead, Intercept. Michio Imawari: Advisor for Shionogi, Japan Bio Products and EA Pharma. Namiki Izumi: Funding for speakers bureau from AbbVie, Shionogi, Bayer, Gilead, Otsuka, and Eisai. Yukio Osaki: Speaking and teaching for Gilead, Bayer Yakuhin, MSD, Shionogi, AbbVie GK, and Eisai. Roy Bentley: Shionogi employee. Toshimitsu Ochiai: Shionogi employee. Takeshi Kano: Shionogi employee. Markus Peck-Radosavljevic: Personal fees from Shionogi during the conduct of this study. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: The farnesoid X receptor (FXR) influences hepatic metabolism, inflammation and liver fibrosis as key components of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We studied the effects of the non-steroidal FXR agonist cilofexor (formerly GS-9674) on portal pressure and fibrosis in experimental NASH., Methods: NASH was induced in Wistar rats using a choline-deficient high-fat diet plus intraperitoneal sodium nitrite injections. First, a dose-finding study was performed with 10 mg/kg and 30 mg/kg of cilofexor, focusing on histological readouts. Liver fibrosis was assessed by Picro-Sirius-Red, desmin staining and hepatic hydroxyproline content. Gene expression was determined by RT-PCR. In a subsequent hemodynamic study, rats received 30 mg/kg cilofexor with or without propranolol (25 mg/kg). Portal pressure, systemic hemodynamics and splanchnic blood flow were measured., Results: Cilofexor dose-dependently induced FXR target genes shp, cyp7a1 and fgf15 in hepatic and ileal tissues, paralleled by a dose-dependent reduction in liver fibrosis area (Picro-Sirius-Red) of -41% (10 mg/kg) and -69% (30 mg/kg), respectively. The 30 mg/kg cilofexor dose significantly reduced hepatic hydroxyproline content (-41%), expression of col1a1 (-37%) and pdgfr-β (-36%), as well as desmin area (-42%) in NASH rats. Importantly, cilofexor decreased portal pressure (11.9 ± 2.1 vs. 8.9 ± 2.2 mmHg; p = 0.020) without affecting splanchnic blood-flow or systemic hemodynamics. The addition of propranolol to cilofexor additionally reduced splanchnic inflow (-28%) but also mean arterial pressure (-25%) and heart rate (-37%)., Conclusion: The non-steroidal FXR agonist cilofexor decreased portal hypertension and reduced liver fibrosis in NASH rats. While cilofexor seems to primarily decrease sinusoidal resistance in cirrhotic portal hypertension, the combination with propranolol additionally reduced mesenteric hyperperfusion.

Following the success of immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) in different cancer types, a large number of studies are currently investigating ICBs in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), alone or in combination with other treatments. Both nivolumab and pembrolizumab, as well as the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been granted accelerated approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sorafenib-pretreated patients. While nivolumab and pembrolizumab both failed to meet their primary endpoints in phase III trials, the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab eventually improved overall and progression-free survival compared with sorafenib in a front-line phase III trial, and thus, will become the new standard of care in this setting. Despite this breakthrough, there are patient populations with certain underlying conditions that may not be ideal candidates for this new treatment either due to safety concerns or potential lack of efficacy. In this review, we discuss the safety of ICBs in patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease, IBD or a history of solid organ transplantation. Moreover, we summarise emerging preclinical and clinical data suggesting that ICBs may be less efficacious in patients with underlying non-alcoholic steatohepatitis or HCCs with activated Wnt/β-catenin signalling., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MP is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Lilly and Roche; he received speaker honoraria from Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Lilly and MSD; he is a consultant for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD and Roche; he received travel support from Bayer and BMS. BS received travel support from AbbVie and Gilead. MP-R is advisor/consultant for Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly and MSD; he served as a speaker for Bayer, Eisai and Lilly; he is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Exelixis and Lilly., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)