Search

Background The optimal strategy to support primary care practitioners (PCPs) to assess fibrosis severity in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and thereby make appropriate management decisions remains unclear. Aims We aimed to examine the feasibility of using a 2-step pathway that combined simple scores (NAFLD Fibrosis Score and Fibrosis-4 Index) with transient elastography (FibroScan®) to streamline NAFLD referrals from a 'routine' primary care population to specialist hepatology management clinics (HMC). Methods The 2-step "Towards Collaborative Management of NAFLD" (TCM-NAFLD) fibrosis risk assessment pathway was implemented at two outer metropolitan primary healthcare practices in Brisbane. Patients aged ≥18 years with a new or established PCP-diagnosis of NAFLD were eligible for assessment. The pathway triaged patients at "high risk" of clinically significant fibrosis to HMC for specialist review, and "low risk" patients to receive ongoing management and longitudinal follow-up in primary care. Results A total of 162 patient assessments between Jun-2019 and Dec-2020 were included. Mean age was 58.7 ± 11.7 years, 30.9% were male, 54.3% had type 2 diabetes or impaired fasting glucose, and mean body mass index was 34.2 ± 6.9 kg/m2 . 122 patients were considered "low risk" for clinically significant fibrosis, two patients had incomplete assessments, and 38 (23.5%) were triaged to HMC. Among 31 completed HMC assessments to date, 45.2% were considered to have clinically significant (or more advanced) fibrosis, representing 9.2% of 153 completed assessments. Conclusion Implementation of the 2-step TCM-NAFLD pathway streamlined hepatology referrals for NAFLD and may facilitate a more cost-effective and targeted use of specialist hepatology resources. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

SUMMARY People with alcohol-associated liver disease often take medicines to manage complications of liver disease and comorbidities. However, patients may be at increased risk of drug-related harm Assessing the severity of liver disease is fundamental to management, as disease staging (steatosis, early fibrosis, cirrhosis) affects medication safety and guides treatment While clinically significant pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes predominantly occur in cirrhosis, people with early alcohol-associated liver disease may still experience adverse events with potentially inappropriate medicines such as proton pump inhibitors, opioids and benzodiazepines Regular medication review is essential to ensure ongoing appropriateness and safety Alcoholic hepatitis and cirrhosis require specialist gastroenterology or hepatology management. However, general practitioners will remain the cornerstone of day-to-day medication management

Patients with cirrhosis have significant physical, psychological, and practical needs. We documented patients’ perceived need for support with these issues and the differences with increasing liver disease severity, etiology, and age. Using the supportive needs assessment tool for cirrhosis (SNAC), we examined the rate of moderate‐to‐high unmet needs (Poisson regression; incidence rate ratio [IRR]) and the correlation between needs and sociodemographic/clinical characteristics (multivariable linear regression) in 458 Australians adults with cirrhosis. Primary liver disease etiology was alcohol in 37.6% of patients, chronic viral hepatitis C in 25.5%, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in 23.8%. A total of 64.6% of patients had Child‐Pugh class A cirrhosis. Most patients (81.2%) had at least one moderate‐to‐high unmet need item; more than 25% reported a moderate‐to‐high need for help with “lack of energy,” “sleep poorly,” “feel unwell,” “worry about … illness getting worse (liver cancer),” “have anxiety/stress,” and “difficulty with daily tasks.” Adjusting for key sociodemographic/clinical factors, patients with Child‐Pugh C had a greater rate of “practical and physical needs” (vs. Child‐Pugh A; IRR = 2.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.57‐3.37), patients with NAFLD/NASH had a greater rate of needs with “lifestyle changes” (vs. alcohol; IRR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.18‐2.77) and “practical and physical needs” (IRR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.23‐1.65), and patients aged ≥65 years had fewer needs overall (vs. 18‐64 years; IRR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.64‐0.76). Higher overall SNAC scores were associated with Child‐Pugh B and C (both P

Background and Aim Health‐related quality‐of‐life measurements are important to understand lived experiences of patients who have cirrhosis. These measures also inform economic evaluations by modelling quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs). We aimed to describe health‐related quality of life, specifically multiattribute utility (scale anchors of death = 0.00 and full health = 1.00), across various stages and etiologies of cirrhosis. Methods Face‐to‐face interviews were used to collect Short Form 36 (SF‐36) questionnaire responses from CirCare study participants with cirrhosis (June 2017 to December 2018). The severity of cirrhosis was assessed using the Child‐Pugh score classified as class A (5–6 points), B (7–9), or C (10–15) and by the absence (“compensated”) versus presence (“decompensated”) of cirrhosis‐related complications. Results Patients (n = 562, average 59.8 years [SD = 11.0], male 69.9%) had a range of primary etiologies (alcohol‐related 35.2%, chronic hepatitis C 25.4%, non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) 25.1%, chronic hepatitis B 5.9%, “other” 8.4%). Significantly lower (all P, Measuring health‐related quality of life is important for understanding patients' experiences living with cirrhosis. Multiattribute utility is a summary measure commonly derived from health‐related quality‐of‐life questionnaires by applying population‐based preference weights with anchors of death (0.00) and perfect health (1.00) and is used in health state modelling, including economic evaluations that incorporate quality‐adjusted life years (known as QALYs). Here, we report health‐related quality‐of‐life and multiattribute utility values for a range of cirrhosis disease stages. These values will inform both clinical and economic research, including cost‐effectiveness modelling that captures benefits to both the quantity and quality of people's lives through the better prevention and management of cirrhosis.

People with chronic disease often have poor comprehension of their disease and medications, which can negatively affect health outcomes. In a randomised‐controlled trial, we found that patients with decompensated cirrhosis who received a pharmacist‐led, patient‐oriented education and medication management intervention (n = 57) had greater knowledge of cirrhosis and key self‐care tasks compared with usual care (n = 59). Intervention patients also experienced improved quality of life. Dedicated resources are needed to support implementation of evidence‐based measures at local centres to improve outcomes.

Background: We report the development and psychometric testing of a Supportive Needs Assessment tool for Cirrhosis (SNAC).Methods: The 50-item SNAC was administered to patients (n=465) diagnosed with cirrhosis recruited from five metropolitan hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Items were assessed for ceiling and floor effects, and exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the factor structure. Identified factors were assessed for internal consistency and convergent validity to validated psychosocial tools.Results: Exploratory factor analysis identified 4 factors (39 items), which together accounted for 49.2% of the total variance. The 39-item SNAC met the requirements of a needs assessment tool and identified a range of needs important to patients with cirrhosis that were grouped in four subscales: "Psychosocial issues", "Practical and physical needs", "Information needs", and "Lifestyle changes". Cronbach's alpha values for the four subscales ranged from 0.64 to 0.92. Convergent validity was supported by a strong correlation between the total SNAC score and that of the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ; Spearman rho -0.68; p

We explored barriers and facilitators to the implementation of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) pathway for people with diabetes to identify determinants of behaviour surrounding the diagnosis, assessment and management of NAFLD.Health practitioners (n = 24) recruited from multidisciplinary diabetes clinics in primary care (n = 3) and hospital (n = 1) settings participated in four focus group discussions, and common themes were identified using thematic analysis.Lack of knowledge and access to resources were key factors that underpinned an inconsistent approach by clinicians to NAFLD diagnosis and risk stratification and impacted their confidence to discuss the diagnosis with patients. Participants often prioritised other medical issues above NAFLD due to lack of concern about liver-related consequences, reluctance to overburden patients with information, lack of time and perceived absence of accessible fibrosis tests. All participants agreed that implementation of a NAFLD pathway would improve patient care and the general practitioners proposed that screening for NAFLD could be incorporated into routine review cycles for type 2 diabetes. A consistent message from participants was that educating patients about their liver disease needs to be implemented in an integrated care pathway.From the perspectives of health practitioners, there is a gap in clinical practice for the implementation of clear, evidence-based guidelines for NAFLD in people with T2D. By focusing on comorbidity prevention and integrating NAFLD as a diabetes complication to be addressed during established cycles of care, many barriers to implementing a NAFLD pathway in primary care could be overcome.

It remains unclear whether screening for advanced fibrosis in the community can identify the subgroup of people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) at higher risk for development of liver-related complications. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of baseline noninvasive fibrosis tests for predicting liver-related outcomes and mortality in patients with NAFLD from type 2 diabetes (T2D) clinics or primary care. Patients (n = 243) who were screened for NAFLD with advanced fibrosis by using NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), fibrosis 4 score (FIB-4), enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) test, and liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) were followed up for clinical outcomes by review of electronic medical records. During a median follow-up of 50 months, decompensated liver disease or primary liver cancer occurred in 6 of 35 (17.1%) patients with baseline LSM 13 kPa, 1 of 17 (5.9%) patients with LSM 9.5-13 kPa, and in no patients with LSM 9.5 kPa. No patient with low-risk NFS developed liver decompensation or liver-related mortality. Following repeat NFSs at the end of follow-up, all patients with a liver-related complication were in the high-risk NFS category. Patients who developed liver-related complications were also more likely to have baseline high-risk FIB-4 scores or ELF test ≥9.8 compared to patients who did not develop liver outcomes. Conclusion: Liver fibrosis risk stratification in non-hepatology settings can identify the subset of patients at risk of liver-related complications. Although the rate of development of a decompensation event or hepatocellular carcinoma was low (2.1% per year) in our patients with compensated cirrhosis (LSM 13 kPa), these events are projected to lead to a substantial increase in NAFLD-related disease burden over the next decade due to the high prevalence of NAFLD in people with obesity and T2D.

ObjectiveThe prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis is often underestimated in healthcare and administrative databases that define disease burden using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. This retrospective audit was conducted to explore the accuracy and limitations of the ICD, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) to detect NAFLD, metabolic risk factors (obesity and diabetes) and other aetiologies of chronic liver disease.Design/MethodICD-10-AM codes in 308 admitted patient encounters at two major Australian tertiary hospitals were compared with data abstracted from patients’ electronic medical records. Accuracy of individual codes and grouped combinations was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ).ResultsThe presence of an ICD-10-AM code accurately predicted the presence of NAFLD/NASH (PPV 91.2%) and obesity (PPV 91.6%) in most instances. However, codes underestimated the prevalence of NAFLD/NASH and obesity by 42.9% and 45.3%, respectively. Overall concordance between clinical documentation and ‘grouped alcohol’ codes (κ 0.75) and hepatitis C codes (κ 0.88) was high. Hepatitis B codes detected false-positive cases in patients with previous exposure (PPV 55.6%). Accuracy of codes to detect diabetes was excellent (sensitivity 95.8%; specificity 97.6%; PPV 94.9%; NPV 98.1%) with almost perfect concordance between codes and documentation in medical records (κ 0.93).ConclusionRecognition of the utility and limitations of ICD-10-AM codes to study the burden of NAFLD/NASH cirrhosis is imperative to inform public health strategies and appropriate investment of resources to manage this burgeoning chronic disease.

ObjectiveThe utility of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes relies on the accuracy of clinical reporting and administrative coding, which may be influenced by country-specific codes and coding rules. This study explores the accuracy and limitations of the Australian Modification of the 10th revision of ICD (ICD-10-AM) to detect the presence of cirrhosis and a subset of key complications for the purpose of future large-scale epidemiological research and healthcare studies.Design/methodICD-10-AM codes in a random sample of 540 admitted patient encounters at a major Australian tertiary hospital were compared with data abstracted from patients’ medical records by four blinded clinicians. Accuracy of individual codes and grouped combinations was determined by calculating sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value and Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ).ResultsThe PPVs for ‘grouped cirrhosis’ codes (0.96), hepatocellular carcinoma (0.97) ascites (0.97) and ‘grouped varices’ (0.95) were good (κ all >0.60). However, codes under-detected the prevalence of cirrhosis, ascites and varices (sensitivity 81.4%, 61.9% and 61.3%, respectively). Overall accuracy was lower for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (‘grouped’ PPV 0.75; κ 0.73) and the poorest for encephalopathy (‘grouped’ PPV 0.55; κ 0.21). To optimise detection of cirrhosis-related encounters, an ICD-10-AM code algorithm was constructed and validated in an independent cohort of 116 patients with known cirrhosis.ConclusionMultiple ICD-10-AM codes should be considered when using administrative databases to study the burden of cirrhosis and its complications in Australia, to avoid underestimation of the prevalence, morbidity, mortality and related resource utilisation from this burgeoning chronic disease.

Noninvasive serum biomarkers (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score [NFS], fibrosis 4 score [FIB-4], or enhanced liver fibrosis [ELF] test) are recommended as first-line tools to determine the risk of advanced fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. We aimed to assess the utility of a pragmatic approach to screening for clinically significant fibrosis in primary care and diabetes clinics. We recruited 252 patients from an endocrine clinic or primary care facility. Anthropometric measurements, ELF test, ultrasound, and liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) were performed. Clinically significant fibrosis was defined as LSM ≥8.2 kPa or ELF ≥9.8. A subgroup of patients underwent liver biopsy (n = 48) or had imaging diagnostic of cirrhosis (n = 14). Patients were 57.3 ± 12.3 years old with a high prevalence of metabolic syndrome (84.5%), type 2 diabetes (82.5%), and body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m2 (21.8%). LSM met quality criteria in 230 (91.3%) patients. NFS and FIB-4 combined had a high negative predictive value (90.0%) for excluding LSM ≥8.2 kPa. However, 84.1% of patients had indeterminate or high NFS or FIB-4 scores requiring further assessment. LSM ≥8.2 kPa and ELF ≥9.8 were present in 31.3% and 28.6% of patients, respectively. Following adjustment for age, BMI, sex, and presence of advanced fibrosis, older age was independently associated with ELF ≥9.8 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.24), whereas increasing BMI was independently associated with LSM ≥8.2 kPa (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30). Concordant LSM

Background Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common cause of incidental liver test abnormalities. General practitioners have a key role in identifying people with NAFLD at risk of significant liver disease. Recent specialist guidelines emphasize the use of fibrosis algorithms or serum biomarkers rather than routine liver tests, to assess advanced fibrosis. This study evaluated 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 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 FIB-4 score (62.7% unsure) or ELF 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. Conclusions 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.

Background: Many patients with cirrhosis follow complex medication and dietary regimens, and those with decompensated cirrhosis suffer debilitating complications. These factors impact activities of daily living and quality of life. Aims: To explore the concerns and challenges of people with cirrhosis and their use of support services and to also describe health professionals’ (HP) perspectives of patients’ concerns. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study at a tertiary liver clinic involving 50 patients and 54 HP. Data were collected using structured questionnaires. The study includes patients’ report of their challenges/problems now that they have cirrhosis (‘patient-volunteered concerns’) and HP’ report of patients’ concerns. Both also ranked a list of 10 potential concerns. Results: Patients were, on average, 58 years old (SD = 10.2), mostly male (78%), Caucasian (86%) and with compensated cirrhosis (60%). The patients’ most common volunteered concerns related to managing symptoms, emotional issues and disease. Most ranked ‘developing liver cancer’ (79%), ‘losing ability to do daily tasks for yourself’ (76%), ‘fear of dying’ (64%) and ‘fear of the unknown’ (64%) as priority concerns. Regarding the use of support services, 24% of patients had accessed a dietician, 20% a pharmacist and 18% a psychologist. From the HP’ perspective, the patients’ most significant challenges related to managing disease (65%) and symptoms (48%), access to healthcare (56%) and information/knowledge (48%). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that cirrhosis (its symptoms, complications and treatment) is associated with significant concerns for patients. The discrepancies between the views of HP and patients suggest that we may not be measuring or addressing patients’ needs appropriately.

Contains fulltext : 218240.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Introduction: The global burden of cirrhosis is rising, and clinicians increasingly face the challenge of safely prescribing medicines for complications of hepatic disease and comorbidities. Prescribing in patients with cirrhosis is complicated by alterations that can occur in the pharmacology of medicines.Areas covered: This paper provides an overview of current knowledge on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of medicines in patients with cirrhosis. We describe the pathophysiological changes that occur and their consequences on pharmacokinetic parameters. We explain that the influence of cirrhosis on the pharmacokinetics depends on several drug and patient characteristics. Patients with cirrhosis also have an increased susceptibility to some toxicological effects of medicines, such as renal impairment and hematological toxicity, which we describe in detail. In addition, we discuss approaches to apply this knowledge in practice and improve safe medication use in patients with cirrhosis.Expert opinion: Tailored pharmacotherapy is needed to ensure safe and appropriate use of medicines in patients with cirrhosis. Clinicians are supported by freely available recommendations on safe drug use in cirrhosis published on a website. In addition, a regular evaluation of medication use in patients with cirrhosis could resolve and prevent medication-related problems.

Background & Aims There is limited knowledge regarding the longitudinal utility of biomarkers of fibrosis, such as the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) fibrosis score (NFS) or the fibrosis-4 score (FIB-4) score. We examined longitudinal changes in the NFS and the FIB-4 score in patients with NAFLD, with and without clinically significant fibrosis (CSF). Methods We performed a retrospective study of 230 patients with NAFLD, collecting clinical and laboratory records to calculate NFS and FIB-4 scores at 6 monthly intervals for 5 years before hepatology assessment of fibrosis. Linear mixed models with random intercept and slope and adjusted for age at baseline were used to assess the progression of NFS and log-transformed FIB-4 scores over time in subjects with and without CSF, determined by liver stiffness measurements of 8.2 kPa or greater. Results Patients had a median of 11 (minimum, 10; maximum, 11) retrospective observations over a median time period of 5 years (minimum, 4.5 y; maximum, 5 y). Of patients with low baseline NFS and FIB-4 scores, 31.11% and 37.76%, respectively, had CSF at the time of hepatology assessment. There was a correlation between NFS and log10 FIB-4 over time (repeated measure r = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52–0.59). The rate of increase in NFS and log10 FIB-4 was significantly higher in patients with than without CSF (both P Conclusions Noninvasively measured fibrosis scores increase progressively in patients with NAFLD and CSF. Further studies are needed to determine whether repeated measurements can identify patients at risk for CSF.

Aims To examine the relationship between steatosis quantified by controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) values and glycaemic/metabolic control. Methods 230 patients, recruited from an Endocrine clinic or primary care underwent routine Hepatology assessment, with liver stiffness measurements and simultaneous CAP. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify potential predictors of Metabolic Syndrome (MetS), HbA1c ≥ 7%, use of insulin, hypertriglyceridaemia and CAP ≥ 300 dB/m. Results Patients were 56.7 ± 12.3 years of age with a high prevalence of MetS (83.5%), T2DM (81.3%), and BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 (18%). Median CAP score was 344 dB/m, ranging from 128 to 400 dB/m. BMI (aOR 1.140 95% CI 1.068–1.216), requirement for insulin (aOR 2.599 95% CI 1.212–5.575), and serum ALT (aOR 1.018 95% CI 1.004–1.033) were independently associated with CAP ≥ 300 dB/m. Patients with CAP interquartile range Conclusions Our data demonstrate that an elevated CAP reflects suboptimal metabolic control. In diabetic patients with NAFLD, CAP may be a useful point-of-care test to identify patients at risk of poorly controlled metabolic comorbidities or advanced diabetes.

Although 60 years have passed since it became widely available on the therapeutic market, paracetamol dosage in patients with liver disease remains a controversial subject. Fulminant hepatic failure has been a well documented consequence of paracetamol overdose since its introduction, while short and long term use have both been associated with elevation of liver transaminases, a surrogate marker for acute liver injury. From these reports it has been assumed that paracetamol use should be restricted or the dosage reduced in patients with chronic liver disease. We review the factors that have been purported to increase risk of hepatocellular injury from paracetamol and the pharmacokinetic alterations in different pathologies of chronic liver disease which may affect this risk. We postulate that inadvertent under-dosing may result in concentrations too low to enable efficacy. Specific research to improve the evidence base for prescribing paracetamol in patients with different aetiologies of chronic liver disease is needed.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, An observational study describing the number and type of chronic conditions and medications taken by diabetic patients with NAFLD and identifying characteristics that may impact liver disease severity or clinical management. Adults with type 2 diabetes have a high prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and increased risk of developing advanced liver disease. Appropriate management should consider the characteristics of the diabetic NAFLD population, as comorbid conditions and medications may increase the complexity of treatment strategies. Diabetic patients with NAFLD at risk of clinically significant liver disease (as assessed by the FIB-4 or NAFLD fibrosis scores) were recruited consecutively from the Endocrine clinic or primary care. Medical conditions, medication history, anthropometric measurements, and laboratory tests were obtained during assessment. NAFLD severity was classified by transient elastography and liver ultrasound into “no advanced disease” (LSM < 8.2 kPa) or “clinically significant liver disease” (LSM ≥ 8.2 kPa). The most common coexistent chronic conditions were metabolic syndrome (94%), self-reported “depression” (44%), ischaemic heart disease (32%), and obstructive sleep apnoea (32%). Polypharmacy or hyperpolypharmacy was present in 59% and 31% of patients respectively. Elevated LSM (≥ 8.2 kPa) suggesting significant liver disease was present in 37% of this at-risk cohort. Increasing obesity and abdominal girth were both independently associated with likelihood of having significant liver disease. There is a high burden of multimorbidity and polypharmacy in diabetic NAFLD patients, highlighting the importance of multidisciplinary management to address their complex health care needs and ensure optimal medical treatment.

Background Cirrhosis patients are prescribed multiple medications for their liver disease and comorbidities. Discrepancies between medicines consumed by patients and those documented in the medical record may contribute to patient harm and impair disease management. The aim of the present study was to assess the magnitude and types of discrepancies among patient-reported and medical record-documented medications in patients with cirrhosis, and examine factors associated with such discrepancies. Methods Fifty patients who attended a hospital hepatology outpatient clinic were interviewed using a questionnaire composed of mixed short-response and multiple-choice questions. Patients’ reported medication use was compared with documentation in the hospital medical records and pharmacy database. Medication adherence was assessed using the 8-question ©Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). The multivariate logistic regression model was constructed using clinically relevant and/or statistically significant variables as determined by univariate analysis. All p-values were 2-sided (α = 0.05). Results Twenty-seven patients (54.0 %) had ≥1 discrepancy between reported and documented medicines. Patients with ≥1 discrepancy were older (p = 0.04) and multivariate analysis identified taking ≥5 conventional medicines or having a ‘low’ or ‘medium’ adherence ranking as independent predictors of discrepancy (adjusted OR 11.0 (95 % CI 1.8–67.4), 20.7 (95 % CI 1.3–337.7) and 49.0 (95 % CI 3.3–718.5) respectively). Concordance was highest for liver disease medicines (71.9 %) and lowest for complementary and alternative medicines (14.5 %) and respiratory medicines (0 %). Conclusion There is significant discrepancy between sources of patient medication information within the hepatology clinic. Medication reconciliation and medicines-management intervention may address the complex relationship between medication discrepancies, number of medications and patient adherence identified in this study.

Although 60 years have passed since it became widely available on the therapeutic market, paracetamol dosage in patients with liver disease remains a controversial subject. Fulminant hepatic failure has been a well documented consequence of paracetamol overdose since its introduction, while short and long term use have both been associated with elevation of liver transaminases, a surrogate marker for acute liver injury. From these reports it has been assumed that paracetamol use should be restricted or the dosage reduced in patients with chronic liver disease. We review the factors that have been purported to increase risk of hepatocellular injury from paracetamol and the pharmacokinetic alterations in different pathologies of chronic liver disease which may affect this risk. We postulate that inadvertent under‐dosing may result in concentrations too low to enable efficacy. Specific research to improve the evidence base for prescribing paracetamol in patients with different aetiologies of chronic liver disease is needed.