Liver Disease

The addition of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with a nearly one third lower incidence of serious liver events in individuals with cirrhosis who were receiving diuretic therapy, a large cohort study of more than 10,000 patients found.

Reporting in JAMA Network Open, Dian J. Chiang, MD, MPH, a section head of Hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland looked at the impact of these antihyperglycemic agents, also known as gliflozins, used in diabetes and kidney disease to block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidneys and causing more glucose to be excreted in the urine.

“Patients with cirrhosis were previously not included in SGLT2 inhibition clinical trials, and there is no large real-world evidence on the safety and effectiveness of this class of medication in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we decided to conduct the study to assess its safety and effectiveness,” Chiang told GI & Hepatology News.

The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of serious hepatic events, defined as ascites, varices, hyponatremia, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included variceal bleeding, paracentesis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, liver carcinoma, hypoglycemia, and all-cause hospitalizations.

The cohort consisted of 10,660 propensity-matched adult patients with cirrhosis from more than 120 healthcare organizations in the TriNetX database who were receiving furosemide and spironolactone from January 2013 to July 2021. Those also receiving SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 5330) were compared with a matched control group receiving diuretics only (n = 5330). The mean age of participants was 63.8 years, 57.8% were men, 66.3% were White individuals, and all were followed for 3 years.

The SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 32% lower incidence of serious liver events than the control group, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71; P < .001).

Secondary risk reductions in the intervention group were as follows:

• Hepatorenal syndrome: HR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56)
• Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65)
• Paracentesis: HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.50-0.60)
• Variceal bleeding: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84)
• Hypoglycemia: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62-0.91)
• All-cause hospitalizations: HR, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71)

The authors conjectured that SGLT2 inhibition might also benefit patients with other stages of liver disease. They pointed to a 2020 study in patients with diabetes, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and high baseline fibrosis that revealed a significant reduction in fibrosis after 12 months’ SGLT2 inhibition.

The study findings also align with those of another large propensity-matched cohort in which patients with type 2 diabetes and cirrhosis receiving metformin plus SGLT2 inhibition showed significantly lower 5-year mortality, decreased incidence of decompensated cirrhosis, and reduced hepatocellular carcinoma incidence compared with those taking metformin alone.

Prospective trials are needed to further evaluate safety and efficacy, however, the authors stressed. Future studies should specifically examine changes in sodium levels following SGLT2 inhibitor initiation, as well as the incidence of recurrent urinary tract infections and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, given that these are known adverse effects of this drug class. Additionally, research comparing different types and dosing regimens would provide valuable insights into optimizing treatment.

Commenting on the analysis but not participating in it, Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, a hepatologist at College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Phoenix, said the study was interesting but did not show the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality separately from other serious liver events, “so we do not know if SGLT2 inhibitor group was associated with lower mortality.”

It would be premature to conclude that using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis and ascites and on diuretics will decrease the need for liver transplant or significantly improve liver-related outcomes based on this study, Wijarnpreecha told GI & Hepatology News. “Moreover, we do not know the dose of diuretics or specific drugs and doses for SGLT2 inhibitors that were used in the study. Indications for using SGLT2 inhibitors are mainly from diabetes and heart failure, so this may not apply to those with cirrhosis without these two conditions as well.”

In addition, the etiology of cirrhosis in this database study is unknown. “Is it mainly from MASLD or alcohol or other conditions such as viral hepatitis or autoimmmunity? We need more thorough study to answer this question.” He also pointed out that the authors urged caution in using SGLT2 inhibitors in the context of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), which could be worsened with these agents. “This should be taken into consideration before starting medication in decompensated cirrhosis with HE,” Wijarnpreecha said.

In an accompanying commentary, Mohamed I. Elsaid, PhD, MPH, a biomedical informatics researcher and assistant professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, said that if confirmed, the findings could substantially improve cirrhosis care. “The signal is exciting but needs strong confirmation from large observational studies and prospective trials,” he wrote. “To turn promise into practice, the next wave of observational studies must embrace the target-trial emulation framework for bolstering firm causal conclusions and doubly robust learners that tease apart who benefits, who does not, and why.”

He added that head-to-head comparisons with the type 2 diabetes drugs known as incretin mimetics will clarify the best antihyperglycemic agents for different patient phenotypes. “With these advanced causal-inference approaches, repurposed type 2 diabetes therapies could shift cirrhosis management from reactive to proactive, improving quality of life and bending the mortality curve,” Elsaid wrote.

For Wijarnpreecha, important pending questions include the benefits of SGLT2 inhibition in cirrhosis without diabetes or heart failure “Can it be used to prevent cirrhosis in MASLD if we start at the early fibrosis stage in F0-F3?”

Chiang conceded that the study had limitations as it relied on 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases codes to define outcomes, which may not have captured the complexity of cirrhotic complications. “And the retrospective design may have introduced confounding, selection, and information bias, which could have impacted the results,” he said. “Future prospective studies may help confirm our findings.”

No specific funding was reported for this study. The study authors and Wijarnpreecha had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. Elsaid reported receiving research funding from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The addition of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with a nearly one third lower incidence of serious liver events in individuals with cirrhosis who were receiving diuretic therapy, a large cohort study of more than 10,000 patients found.

Reporting in JAMA Network Open, Dian J. Chiang, MD, MPH, a section head of Hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland looked at the impact of these antihyperglycemic agents, also known as gliflozins, used in diabetes and kidney disease to block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidneys and causing more glucose to be excreted in the urine.

“Patients with cirrhosis were previously not included in SGLT2 inhibition clinical trials, and there is no large real-world evidence on the safety and effectiveness of this class of medication in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we decided to conduct the study to assess its safety and effectiveness,” Chiang told GI & Hepatology News.

The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of serious hepatic events, defined as ascites, varices, hyponatremia, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included variceal bleeding, paracentesis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, liver carcinoma, hypoglycemia, and all-cause hospitalizations.

The cohort consisted of 10,660 propensity-matched adult patients with cirrhosis from more than 120 healthcare organizations in the TriNetX database who were receiving furosemide and spironolactone from January 2013 to July 2021. Those also receiving SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 5330) were compared with a matched control group receiving diuretics only (n = 5330). The mean age of participants was 63.8 years, 57.8% were men, 66.3% were White individuals, and all were followed for 3 years.

The SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 32% lower incidence of serious liver events than the control group, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71; P < .001).

Secondary risk reductions in the intervention group were as follows:

• Hepatorenal syndrome: HR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56)
• Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65)
• Paracentesis: HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.50-0.60)
• Variceal bleeding: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84)
• Hypoglycemia: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62-0.91)
• All-cause hospitalizations: HR, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71)

The authors conjectured that SGLT2 inhibition might also benefit patients with other stages of liver disease. They pointed to a 2020 study in patients with diabetes, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and high baseline fibrosis that revealed a significant reduction in fibrosis after 12 months’ SGLT2 inhibition.

The study findings also align with those of another large propensity-matched cohort in which patients with type 2 diabetes and cirrhosis receiving metformin plus SGLT2 inhibition showed significantly lower 5-year mortality, decreased incidence of decompensated cirrhosis, and reduced hepatocellular carcinoma incidence compared with those taking metformin alone.

Prospective trials are needed to further evaluate safety and efficacy, however, the authors stressed. Future studies should specifically examine changes in sodium levels following SGLT2 inhibitor initiation, as well as the incidence of recurrent urinary tract infections and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, given that these are known adverse effects of this drug class. Additionally, research comparing different types and dosing regimens would provide valuable insights into optimizing treatment.

Commenting on the analysis but not participating in it, Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, a hepatologist at College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Phoenix, said the study was interesting but did not show the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality separately from other serious liver events, “so we do not know if SGLT2 inhibitor group was associated with lower mortality.”

It would be premature to conclude that using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis and ascites and on diuretics will decrease the need for liver transplant or significantly improve liver-related outcomes based on this study, Wijarnpreecha told GI & Hepatology News. “Moreover, we do not know the dose of diuretics or specific drugs and doses for SGLT2 inhibitors that were used in the study. Indications for using SGLT2 inhibitors are mainly from diabetes and heart failure, so this may not apply to those with cirrhosis without these two conditions as well.”

In addition, the etiology of cirrhosis in this database study is unknown. “Is it mainly from MASLD or alcohol or other conditions such as viral hepatitis or autoimmmunity? We need more thorough study to answer this question.” He also pointed out that the authors urged caution in using SGLT2 inhibitors in the context of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), which could be worsened with these agents. “This should be taken into consideration before starting medication in decompensated cirrhosis with HE,” Wijarnpreecha said.

In an accompanying commentary, Mohamed I. Elsaid, PhD, MPH, a biomedical informatics researcher and assistant professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, said that if confirmed, the findings could substantially improve cirrhosis care. “The signal is exciting but needs strong confirmation from large observational studies and prospective trials,” he wrote. “To turn promise into practice, the next wave of observational studies must embrace the target-trial emulation framework for bolstering firm causal conclusions and doubly robust learners that tease apart who benefits, who does not, and why.”

He added that head-to-head comparisons with the type 2 diabetes drugs known as incretin mimetics will clarify the best antihyperglycemic agents for different patient phenotypes. “With these advanced causal-inference approaches, repurposed type 2 diabetes therapies could shift cirrhosis management from reactive to proactive, improving quality of life and bending the mortality curve,” Elsaid wrote.

For Wijarnpreecha, important pending questions include the benefits of SGLT2 inhibition in cirrhosis without diabetes or heart failure “Can it be used to prevent cirrhosis in MASLD if we start at the early fibrosis stage in F0-F3?”

Chiang conceded that the study had limitations as it relied on 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases codes to define outcomes, which may not have captured the complexity of cirrhotic complications. “And the retrospective design may have introduced confounding, selection, and information bias, which could have impacted the results,” he said. “Future prospective studies may help confirm our findings.”

No specific funding was reported for this study. The study authors and Wijarnpreecha had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. Elsaid reported receiving research funding from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The addition of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with a nearly one third lower incidence of serious liver events in individuals with cirrhosis who were receiving diuretic therapy, a large cohort study of more than 10,000 patients found.

Reporting in JAMA Network Open, Dian J. Chiang, MD, MPH, a section head of Hepatology at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland looked at the impact of these antihyperglycemic agents, also known as gliflozins, used in diabetes and kidney disease to block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidneys and causing more glucose to be excreted in the urine.

“Patients with cirrhosis were previously not included in SGLT2 inhibition clinical trials, and there is no large real-world evidence on the safety and effectiveness of this class of medication in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we decided to conduct the study to assess its safety and effectiveness,” Chiang told GI & Hepatology News.

The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of serious hepatic events, defined as ascites, varices, hyponatremia, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included variceal bleeding, paracentesis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, liver carcinoma, hypoglycemia, and all-cause hospitalizations.

The cohort consisted of 10,660 propensity-matched adult patients with cirrhosis from more than 120 healthcare organizations in the TriNetX database who were receiving furosemide and spironolactone from January 2013 to July 2021. Those also receiving SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 5330) were compared with a matched control group receiving diuretics only (n = 5330). The mean age of participants was 63.8 years, 57.8% were men, 66.3% were White individuals, and all were followed for 3 years.

The SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 32% lower incidence of serious liver events than the control group, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71; P < .001).

Secondary risk reductions in the intervention group were as follows:

• Hepatorenal syndrome: HR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.40-0.56)
• Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.65)
• Paracentesis: HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.50-0.60)
• Variceal bleeding: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84)
• Hypoglycemia: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62-0.91)
• All-cause hospitalizations: HR, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71)

The authors conjectured that SGLT2 inhibition might also benefit patients with other stages of liver disease. They pointed to a 2020 study in patients with diabetes, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), and high baseline fibrosis that revealed a significant reduction in fibrosis after 12 months’ SGLT2 inhibition.

The study findings also align with those of another large propensity-matched cohort in which patients with type 2 diabetes and cirrhosis receiving metformin plus SGLT2 inhibition showed significantly lower 5-year mortality, decreased incidence of decompensated cirrhosis, and reduced hepatocellular carcinoma incidence compared with those taking metformin alone.

Prospective trials are needed to further evaluate safety and efficacy, however, the authors stressed. Future studies should specifically examine changes in sodium levels following SGLT2 inhibitor initiation, as well as the incidence of recurrent urinary tract infections and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, given that these are known adverse effects of this drug class. Additionally, research comparing different types and dosing regimens would provide valuable insights into optimizing treatment.

Commenting on the analysis but not participating in it, Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, a hepatologist at College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Phoenix, said the study was interesting but did not show the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality separately from other serious liver events, “so we do not know if SGLT2 inhibitor group was associated with lower mortality.”

It would be premature to conclude that using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis and ascites and on diuretics will decrease the need for liver transplant or significantly improve liver-related outcomes based on this study, Wijarnpreecha told GI & Hepatology News. “Moreover, we do not know the dose of diuretics or specific drugs and doses for SGLT2 inhibitors that were used in the study. Indications for using SGLT2 inhibitors are mainly from diabetes and heart failure, so this may not apply to those with cirrhosis without these two conditions as well.”

In addition, the etiology of cirrhosis in this database study is unknown. “Is it mainly from MASLD or alcohol or other conditions such as viral hepatitis or autoimmmunity? We need more thorough study to answer this question.” He also pointed out that the authors urged caution in using SGLT2 inhibitors in the context of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), which could be worsened with these agents. “This should be taken into consideration before starting medication in decompensated cirrhosis with HE,” Wijarnpreecha said.

In an accompanying commentary, Mohamed I. Elsaid, PhD, MPH, a biomedical informatics researcher and assistant professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, said that if confirmed, the findings could substantially improve cirrhosis care. “The signal is exciting but needs strong confirmation from large observational studies and prospective trials,” he wrote. “To turn promise into practice, the next wave of observational studies must embrace the target-trial emulation framework for bolstering firm causal conclusions and doubly robust learners that tease apart who benefits, who does not, and why.”

He added that head-to-head comparisons with the type 2 diabetes drugs known as incretin mimetics will clarify the best antihyperglycemic agents for different patient phenotypes. “With these advanced causal-inference approaches, repurposed type 2 diabetes therapies could shift cirrhosis management from reactive to proactive, improving quality of life and bending the mortality curve,” Elsaid wrote.

For Wijarnpreecha, important pending questions include the benefits of SGLT2 inhibition in cirrhosis without diabetes or heart failure “Can it be used to prevent cirrhosis in MASLD if we start at the early fibrosis stage in F0-F3?”

Chiang conceded that the study had limitations as it relied on 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases codes to define outcomes, which may not have captured the complexity of cirrhotic complications. “And the retrospective design may have introduced confounding, selection, and information bias, which could have impacted the results,” he said. “Future prospective studies may help confirm our findings.”

No specific funding was reported for this study. The study authors and Wijarnpreecha had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. Elsaid reported receiving research funding from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The FDA has granted accelerated approval to Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy for the treatment of metabolic-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) in adults with moderate-to-advanced fibrosis but without cirrhosis.

The once-weekly 2.4 mg semaglutide subcutaneous injection is given in conjunction with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity.

Among people living with overweight or obesity globally, 1 in 3 also have MASH.

The accelerated approval was based on part-one results from the ongoing two-part, phase-3 ESSENCE trial, in which Wegovy demonstrated a significant improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis, as well as resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of liver fibrosis, compared with placebo at week 72. Those results were published online in April in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, 800 participants were randomly assigned to either Wegovy (534 participants) or placebo (266 participants) in addition to lifestyle changes. The mean age was 56 years and the mean BMI was 34. Most patients were white individuals (67.5%) and women (57.1%), and 55.9% of the patients had type 2 diabetes; 250 patients (31.3%) had stage II fibrosis and 550 (68.8%) had stage III fibrosis. Participants were on stable doses of lipid-lowering, glucose-management, and weight-loss medications.

At week 72, the first primary endpoint showed 63% of the 534 people treated with Wegovy achieved resolution of steatohepatitis and no worsening of liver fibrosis compared with 34% of 266 individuals treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference.

The second primary endpoint showed 37% of people treated with Wegovy achieved improvement in liver fibrosis and no worsening of steatohepatitis compared with 22% of those treated with placebo, also a significant difference.

A confirmatory secondary endpoint at week 72 showed 33% of patients treated with Wegovy achieved both resolution of steatohepatitis and improvement in liver fibrosis compared with 16% of those treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference in response rate of 17%.

In addition, 83.5% of the patients in the semaglutide group maintained the target dose of 2.4 mg until week 72.

Wegovy is also indicated, along with diet and physical activity, to reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events in adults with known heart disease and with either obesity or overweight. It is also indicated for adults and children aged 12 years or older with obesity, and some adults with overweight who also have weight-related medical problems, to help them lose excess body weight and keep the weight off.

 

What’s Next for Wegovy?

In February 2025, Novo Nordisk filed for regulatory approval in the EU, followed by regulatory submission in Japan in May 2025. Also in May, the FDA accepted a filing application for oral semaglutide 25 mg.

Furthermore, “There’s an expected readout of part 2 of ESSENCE in 2029, which aims to demonstrate treatment with Wegovy lowers the risk of liver-related clinical events, compared to placebo, in patients with MASH and F2 or F3 fibrosis at week 240,” a Novo Nordisk spokesperson told GI & Hepatology News.

Although the company has the technology to produce semaglutide as a pill or tablet, she said, “the US launch of oral semaglutide for obesity will be contingent on portfolio prioritization and manufacturing capacity.” The company has not yet submitted the 50 mg oral semaglutide to regulatory authorities.

“The oral form requires more active pharmaceutical ingredient (API),” she noted. “Given that we have a fixed amount of API, the injectable form enables us to treat more patients. We are currently expanding our oral and injectable production capacities globally with the aim of serving as many patients as possible. It requires time to build, install, validate, and ramp-up these production processes.”

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The FDA has granted accelerated approval to Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy for the treatment of metabolic-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) in adults with moderate-to-advanced fibrosis but without cirrhosis.

The once-weekly 2.4 mg semaglutide subcutaneous injection is given in conjunction with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity.

Among people living with overweight or obesity globally, 1 in 3 also have MASH.

The accelerated approval was based on part-one results from the ongoing two-part, phase-3 ESSENCE trial, in which Wegovy demonstrated a significant improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis, as well as resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of liver fibrosis, compared with placebo at week 72. Those results were published online in April in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, 800 participants were randomly assigned to either Wegovy (534 participants) or placebo (266 participants) in addition to lifestyle changes. The mean age was 56 years and the mean BMI was 34. Most patients were white individuals (67.5%) and women (57.1%), and 55.9% of the patients had type 2 diabetes; 250 patients (31.3%) had stage II fibrosis and 550 (68.8%) had stage III fibrosis. Participants were on stable doses of lipid-lowering, glucose-management, and weight-loss medications.

At week 72, the first primary endpoint showed 63% of the 534 people treated with Wegovy achieved resolution of steatohepatitis and no worsening of liver fibrosis compared with 34% of 266 individuals treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference.

The second primary endpoint showed 37% of people treated with Wegovy achieved improvement in liver fibrosis and no worsening of steatohepatitis compared with 22% of those treated with placebo, also a significant difference.

A confirmatory secondary endpoint at week 72 showed 33% of patients treated with Wegovy achieved both resolution of steatohepatitis and improvement in liver fibrosis compared with 16% of those treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference in response rate of 17%.

In addition, 83.5% of the patients in the semaglutide group maintained the target dose of 2.4 mg until week 72.

Wegovy is also indicated, along with diet and physical activity, to reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events in adults with known heart disease and with either obesity or overweight. It is also indicated for adults and children aged 12 years or older with obesity, and some adults with overweight who also have weight-related medical problems, to help them lose excess body weight and keep the weight off.

 

What’s Next for Wegovy?

In February 2025, Novo Nordisk filed for regulatory approval in the EU, followed by regulatory submission in Japan in May 2025. Also in May, the FDA accepted a filing application for oral semaglutide 25 mg.

Furthermore, “There’s an expected readout of part 2 of ESSENCE in 2029, which aims to demonstrate treatment with Wegovy lowers the risk of liver-related clinical events, compared to placebo, in patients with MASH and F2 or F3 fibrosis at week 240,” a Novo Nordisk spokesperson told GI & Hepatology News.

Although the company has the technology to produce semaglutide as a pill or tablet, she said, “the US launch of oral semaglutide for obesity will be contingent on portfolio prioritization and manufacturing capacity.” The company has not yet submitted the 50 mg oral semaglutide to regulatory authorities.

“The oral form requires more active pharmaceutical ingredient (API),” she noted. “Given that we have a fixed amount of API, the injectable form enables us to treat more patients. We are currently expanding our oral and injectable production capacities globally with the aim of serving as many patients as possible. It requires time to build, install, validate, and ramp-up these production processes.”

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The FDA has granted accelerated approval to Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy for the treatment of metabolic-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) in adults with moderate-to-advanced fibrosis but without cirrhosis.

The once-weekly 2.4 mg semaglutide subcutaneous injection is given in conjunction with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity.

Among people living with overweight or obesity globally, 1 in 3 also have MASH.

The accelerated approval was based on part-one results from the ongoing two-part, phase-3 ESSENCE trial, in which Wegovy demonstrated a significant improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis, as well as resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of liver fibrosis, compared with placebo at week 72. Those results were published online in April in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, 800 participants were randomly assigned to either Wegovy (534 participants) or placebo (266 participants) in addition to lifestyle changes. The mean age was 56 years and the mean BMI was 34. Most patients were white individuals (67.5%) and women (57.1%), and 55.9% of the patients had type 2 diabetes; 250 patients (31.3%) had stage II fibrosis and 550 (68.8%) had stage III fibrosis. Participants were on stable doses of lipid-lowering, glucose-management, and weight-loss medications.

At week 72, the first primary endpoint showed 63% of the 534 people treated with Wegovy achieved resolution of steatohepatitis and no worsening of liver fibrosis compared with 34% of 266 individuals treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference.

The second primary endpoint showed 37% of people treated with Wegovy achieved improvement in liver fibrosis and no worsening of steatohepatitis compared with 22% of those treated with placebo, also a significant difference.

A confirmatory secondary endpoint at week 72 showed 33% of patients treated with Wegovy achieved both resolution of steatohepatitis and improvement in liver fibrosis compared with 16% of those treated with placebo — a statistically significant difference in response rate of 17%.

In addition, 83.5% of the patients in the semaglutide group maintained the target dose of 2.4 mg until week 72.

Wegovy is also indicated, along with diet and physical activity, to reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events in adults with known heart disease and with either obesity or overweight. It is also indicated for adults and children aged 12 years or older with obesity, and some adults with overweight who also have weight-related medical problems, to help them lose excess body weight and keep the weight off.

 

What’s Next for Wegovy?

In February 2025, Novo Nordisk filed for regulatory approval in the EU, followed by regulatory submission in Japan in May 2025. Also in May, the FDA accepted a filing application for oral semaglutide 25 mg.

Furthermore, “There’s an expected readout of part 2 of ESSENCE in 2029, which aims to demonstrate treatment with Wegovy lowers the risk of liver-related clinical events, compared to placebo, in patients with MASH and F2 or F3 fibrosis at week 240,” a Novo Nordisk spokesperson told GI & Hepatology News.

Although the company has the technology to produce semaglutide as a pill or tablet, she said, “the US launch of oral semaglutide for obesity will be contingent on portfolio prioritization and manufacturing capacity.” The company has not yet submitted the 50 mg oral semaglutide to regulatory authorities.

“The oral form requires more active pharmaceutical ingredient (API),” she noted. “Given that we have a fixed amount of API, the injectable form enables us to treat more patients. We are currently expanding our oral and injectable production capacities globally with the aim of serving as many patients as possible. It requires time to build, install, validate, and ramp-up these production processes.”

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study casts doubt on international guidelines advising up to a week of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

Pooled data from 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a high probability that no or shorter durations of antibiotic prophylaxis are not worse than longer durations in preventing death from any cause in these patients.

The findings suggest that recommendations for routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding “should be reassessed,” the authors said.

They acknowledged, however, that the studies were of low-to-moderate quality and higher quality randomized clinical trial data are needed.

The study, with first author Connor Prosty, MD, of McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

 

Questionable Benefit?

Antibiotic prophylaxis became standard decades ago, when up to 60% of variceal bleeds were complicated by infections, which were thought to increase the risk for rebleeding and death. 

Yet, the evidence to support the recommendation remains limited, and a recent RCT called into question the necessity of prophylaxis. The study showed no statistically significant difference in mortality or infection among patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis randomized to receive no prophylaxis compared to third-generation cephalosporin.

While generally perceived as safe, antibiotics have potential adverse effects and can select for resistant superinfections, Prosty and colleagues pointed out.

They also noted that shorter courses of antibiotics have been proven to be as good, if not better, than longer courses across numerous other infectious indications. Recommendations for primary and secondary antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis are being reassessed due to a weak evidence base, lack of mortality benefit, and potential for harm.

To revisit antibiotic prophylaxis for upper GI bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, Prosty and colleagues did a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 RCTs involving 1322 patients.

Two of the trials compared longer (5-7 days) with shorter (2-3 days) antibiotics, and 12 compared any antibiotic prophylaxis (1-10 days) to none.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 5% on the risk difference (RD) scale. Secondary outcomes included early rebleeding and bacterial infections.

Overall, shorter antibiotic durations (including none) had a 97.3% probability of noninferiority to longer durations for all-cause mortality (RD, 0.9%; 95% credible interval [CrI], -2.6% to 4.9%).

Shorter durations had a 73.8% probability of noninferiority for early rebleeding (RD, 2.9%; 95% CrI, -4.2% to 10.0%) but were associated with more study-defined bacterial infections (RD, 15.2%; 95% CrI, 5.0%-25.9%). However, the authors cited methodological concerns about the definitions of these infections in the included studies.

The probabilities of noninferiority of shorter durations for mortality, early rebleeding, and bacterial infections were higher in studies published after 2004.

 

Change Practice Now?

“Our findings re-open the discussion surrounding the long-standing and firmly held belief that antibiotic prophylaxis has a mortality benefit in patients with cirrhosis presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeds,” Prosty and colleagues wrote.

They cautioned, however, that the study quality was “low to moderate, bacterial infections were heterogeneously defined, and no studies reported adverse events. Higher-quality RCTs are needed to determine the benefit and optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in the modern era of advanced interventions.”

The authors of a commentary published with the study noted that management of upper GI bleeding in cirrhosis patients has “greatly improved” since the 1990s, when some of the trials included in the analysis were conducted.

Hepatologists Catherine Mezzacappa, MD, MPH, and Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, both at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, agree that it “may be time to revisit whether prophylactic antibiotics continue to provide benefit in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding, and if so, in which patients.”

They caution, however, that the current level of evidence is “inadequate to answer whether it is time to stop this practice, which has become the standard of care.

New trials for shorter duration and no antibiotic prophylaxis “should be designed in specific patient populations to compare sequelae of antibiotic prophylaxis, including subsequent infections and all-cause mortality,” Mezzacappa and Garcia-Tsao concluded.

The study received no specific funding. The authors and commentary writers had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study casts doubt on international guidelines advising up to a week of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

Pooled data from 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a high probability that no or shorter durations of antibiotic prophylaxis are not worse than longer durations in preventing death from any cause in these patients.

The findings suggest that recommendations for routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding “should be reassessed,” the authors said.

They acknowledged, however, that the studies were of low-to-moderate quality and higher quality randomized clinical trial data are needed.

The study, with first author Connor Prosty, MD, of McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

 

Questionable Benefit?

Antibiotic prophylaxis became standard decades ago, when up to 60% of variceal bleeds were complicated by infections, which were thought to increase the risk for rebleeding and death. 

Yet, the evidence to support the recommendation remains limited, and a recent RCT called into question the necessity of prophylaxis. The study showed no statistically significant difference in mortality or infection among patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis randomized to receive no prophylaxis compared to third-generation cephalosporin.

While generally perceived as safe, antibiotics have potential adverse effects and can select for resistant superinfections, Prosty and colleagues pointed out.

They also noted that shorter courses of antibiotics have been proven to be as good, if not better, than longer courses across numerous other infectious indications. Recommendations for primary and secondary antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis are being reassessed due to a weak evidence base, lack of mortality benefit, and potential for harm.

To revisit antibiotic prophylaxis for upper GI bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, Prosty and colleagues did a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 RCTs involving 1322 patients.

Two of the trials compared longer (5-7 days) with shorter (2-3 days) antibiotics, and 12 compared any antibiotic prophylaxis (1-10 days) to none.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 5% on the risk difference (RD) scale. Secondary outcomes included early rebleeding and bacterial infections.

Overall, shorter antibiotic durations (including none) had a 97.3% probability of noninferiority to longer durations for all-cause mortality (RD, 0.9%; 95% credible interval [CrI], -2.6% to 4.9%).

Shorter durations had a 73.8% probability of noninferiority for early rebleeding (RD, 2.9%; 95% CrI, -4.2% to 10.0%) but were associated with more study-defined bacterial infections (RD, 15.2%; 95% CrI, 5.0%-25.9%). However, the authors cited methodological concerns about the definitions of these infections in the included studies.

The probabilities of noninferiority of shorter durations for mortality, early rebleeding, and bacterial infections were higher in studies published after 2004.

 

Change Practice Now?

“Our findings re-open the discussion surrounding the long-standing and firmly held belief that antibiotic prophylaxis has a mortality benefit in patients with cirrhosis presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeds,” Prosty and colleagues wrote.

They cautioned, however, that the study quality was “low to moderate, bacterial infections were heterogeneously defined, and no studies reported adverse events. Higher-quality RCTs are needed to determine the benefit and optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in the modern era of advanced interventions.”

The authors of a commentary published with the study noted that management of upper GI bleeding in cirrhosis patients has “greatly improved” since the 1990s, when some of the trials included in the analysis were conducted.

Hepatologists Catherine Mezzacappa, MD, MPH, and Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, both at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, agree that it “may be time to revisit whether prophylactic antibiotics continue to provide benefit in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding, and if so, in which patients.”

They caution, however, that the current level of evidence is “inadequate to answer whether it is time to stop this practice, which has become the standard of care.

New trials for shorter duration and no antibiotic prophylaxis “should be designed in specific patient populations to compare sequelae of antibiotic prophylaxis, including subsequent infections and all-cause mortality,” Mezzacappa and Garcia-Tsao concluded.

The study received no specific funding. The authors and commentary writers had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study casts doubt on international guidelines advising up to a week of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.

Pooled data from 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a high probability that no or shorter durations of antibiotic prophylaxis are not worse than longer durations in preventing death from any cause in these patients.

The findings suggest that recommendations for routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding “should be reassessed,” the authors said.

They acknowledged, however, that the studies were of low-to-moderate quality and higher quality randomized clinical trial data are needed.

The study, with first author Connor Prosty, MD, of McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

 

Questionable Benefit?

Antibiotic prophylaxis became standard decades ago, when up to 60% of variceal bleeds were complicated by infections, which were thought to increase the risk for rebleeding and death. 

Yet, the evidence to support the recommendation remains limited, and a recent RCT called into question the necessity of prophylaxis. The study showed no statistically significant difference in mortality or infection among patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis randomized to receive no prophylaxis compared to third-generation cephalosporin.

While generally perceived as safe, antibiotics have potential adverse effects and can select for resistant superinfections, Prosty and colleagues pointed out.

They also noted that shorter courses of antibiotics have been proven to be as good, if not better, than longer courses across numerous other infectious indications. Recommendations for primary and secondary antibiotic prophylaxis for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis are being reassessed due to a weak evidence base, lack of mortality benefit, and potential for harm.

To revisit antibiotic prophylaxis for upper GI bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, Prosty and colleagues did a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 RCTs involving 1322 patients.

Two of the trials compared longer (5-7 days) with shorter (2-3 days) antibiotics, and 12 compared any antibiotic prophylaxis (1-10 days) to none.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 5% on the risk difference (RD) scale. Secondary outcomes included early rebleeding and bacterial infections.

Overall, shorter antibiotic durations (including none) had a 97.3% probability of noninferiority to longer durations for all-cause mortality (RD, 0.9%; 95% credible interval [CrI], -2.6% to 4.9%).

Shorter durations had a 73.8% probability of noninferiority for early rebleeding (RD, 2.9%; 95% CrI, -4.2% to 10.0%) but were associated with more study-defined bacterial infections (RD, 15.2%; 95% CrI, 5.0%-25.9%). However, the authors cited methodological concerns about the definitions of these infections in the included studies.

The probabilities of noninferiority of shorter durations for mortality, early rebleeding, and bacterial infections were higher in studies published after 2004.

 

Change Practice Now?

“Our findings re-open the discussion surrounding the long-standing and firmly held belief that antibiotic prophylaxis has a mortality benefit in patients with cirrhosis presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeds,” Prosty and colleagues wrote.

They cautioned, however, that the study quality was “low to moderate, bacterial infections were heterogeneously defined, and no studies reported adverse events. Higher-quality RCTs are needed to determine the benefit and optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in the modern era of advanced interventions.”

The authors of a commentary published with the study noted that management of upper GI bleeding in cirrhosis patients has “greatly improved” since the 1990s, when some of the trials included in the analysis were conducted.

Hepatologists Catherine Mezzacappa, MD, MPH, and Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, MD, both at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, agree that it “may be time to revisit whether prophylactic antibiotics continue to provide benefit in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleeding, and if so, in which patients.”

They caution, however, that the current level of evidence is “inadequate to answer whether it is time to stop this practice, which has become the standard of care.

New trials for shorter duration and no antibiotic prophylaxis “should be designed in specific patient populations to compare sequelae of antibiotic prophylaxis, including subsequent infections and all-cause mortality,” Mezzacappa and Garcia-Tsao concluded.

The study received no specific funding. The authors and commentary writers had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most GI service chiefs in the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system support point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training, but fewer than half have the technology in their facility, according to a national survey.

Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.

“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”

To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.

Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.

Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.

Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.

Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds. 

Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them. 

Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.

“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway. 

They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

Most GI service chiefs in the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system support point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training, but fewer than half have the technology in their facility, according to a national survey.

Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.

“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”

To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.

Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.

Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.

Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.

Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds. 

Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them. 

Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.

“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway. 

They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

Most GI service chiefs in the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system support point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training, but fewer than half have the technology in their facility, according to a national survey.

Low POCUS uptake may be explained by substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of trained instructors, necessary equipment, and support staff, lead author Keerthi Thallapureddy, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio, and colleagues, reported.

“POCUS is being increasingly used by gastroenterologists due to its portability and real-time diagnostic ability,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, but “there is limited understanding of how gastroenterologists use POCUS.”

To learn more, the investigators conducted a nationwide survey of the VA healthcare system. Separate questionnaires were sent to chiefs of staff (n = 130) and GI service chiefs (n = 117), yielding response rates of 100% and 79%, respectively.

Respondents represented a wide distribution of geographic regions and institutional complexity levels, with 80% of GI groups based at high-complexity centers and 92% in urban locations. A minority (8%) reported the presence of a liver transplant program.

Data collection focused on the prevalence of POCUS use, types of clinical applications, institutional policies and training processes, and perceived or actual barriers to wider adoption. Barriers were sorted into three categories: training, equipment, and infrastructure.

Of the 93 GI service chiefs who participated in the survey, 44% reported that at least 1 gastroenterologist at their facility currently uses POCUS. Most common procedural uses were paracentesis (23%) and liver biopsy (13%), while ascites assessment (19%) and biliary visualization (7%) were the most common diagnostic uses.

Among the same respondents, 69% said they would support sending clinicians to a POCUS training course, and 37% said their teams had expressed an active interest in pursuing such training. Only 17% of facilities had a formal process in place to obtain POCUS training, and an equal proportion had implemented a facility-wide policy to guide its use.

Barriers to implementation were widespread and often multifactorial. 

Most challenges related to training: 48% of sites reported a lack of trained providers, 28% cited insufficient funding for training, 24% noted a lack of training opportunities, and 14% reported difficulty securing travel funds. 

Equipment limitations were also common, with 41% of sites lacking ultrasound machines and 27% lacking funding to purchase them. 

Institutional infrastructure posed further hurdles. Nearly a quarter of GI chiefs (23%) reported lacking a clinician champion to lead implementation, while others cited a lack of support staff, simulation space, privileging criteria, image archiving capabilities, or standardized reporting forms.

“Our findings on current POCUS use, training, barriers, and infrastructure can guide expansion of POCUS use and training among GI groups,” Dr. Thallapureddy and colleagues wrote, noting that early efforts to expand access to GI-specific POCUS training are already underway. 

They cited growing interest from national organizations such as the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the latter of which piloted training workshops at the 2024 Liver Meeting. Similarly, the International Bowel Ultrasound Group now offers a 3-part certification program in intestinal ultrasound and is developing additional online and interactive modules to improve training accessibility.

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Partnered Evaluation Initiative Grant, and the VA National Center for Patient Safety. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

Among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, a machine learning (ML) model enhanced mortality prediction compared with traditional methods and was consistent across country income levels in a large global study.

“This highly inclusive, representative, and globally derived model has been externally validated,” Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a crystal ball. It helps hospital teams, transplant centers, gastroenterology and intensive care unit services triage and prioritize patients more effectively.”

The study supporting the model, which Bajaj said “could be used at this stage,” was published online in Gastroenterology. The model is available for downloading at https://silveys.shinyapps.io/app_cleared/.

 

CLEARED Cohort Analyzed

Wide variations across the world regarding available resources, outpatient services, reasons for admission, and etiologies of cirrhosis can influence patient outcomes, according to Bajaj and colleagues. Therefore, they sought to use ML approaches to improve prognostication for all countries.

They analyzed admission-day data from the prospective Chronic Liver Disease Evolution And Registry for Events and Decompensation (CLEARED) consortium, which includes inpatients with cirrhosis enrolled from six continents. The analysis compared ML approaches with logistical regression to predict inpatient mortality.

The researchers performed internal validation (75/25 split) and subdivision using World-Bank income status: low/low-middle (L-LMIC), upper middle (UMIC), and high (HIC). They determined that the ML model with the best area-under-the-curve (AUC) would be externally validated in a US-Veteran cirrhosis inpatient population.

The CLEARED cohort included 7239 cirrhosis inpatients (mean age, 56 years; 64% men; median MELD-Na, 25) from 115 centers globally; 22.5% of centers belonged to LMICs, 41% to UMICs, and 34% to HICs.

A total of 808 patients (11.1%) died in the hospital.

Random-Forest analysis showed the best AUC (0.815) with high calibration. This was significantly better than parametric logistic regression (AUC, 0.774) and LASSO (AUC, 0.787) models.

Random-Forest also was better than logistic regression regardless of country income-level: HIC (AUC,0.806), UMIC (AUC, 0.867), and L-LMICs (AUC, 0.768).

Of the top 15 important variables selected from Random-Forest, admission for acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, high MELD-Na/white blood count, and not being in high income country were variables most predictive of mortality.

In contrast, higher albumin, hemoglobin, diuretic use on admission, viral etiology, and being in a high-income country were most protective.

The Random-Forest model was validated in 28,670 veterans (mean age, 67 years; 96% men; median MELD-Na,15), with an inpatient mortality of 4% (1158 patients).

The final Random-Forest model, using 48 of the 67 original covariates, attained a strong AUC of 0.859. A refit version using only the top 15 variables achieved a comparable AUC of 0.851.

 

Clinical Relevance

“Cirrhosis and resultant organ failures remain a dynamic and multidisciplinary problem,” Bajaj noted. “Machine learning techniques are one part of multi-faceted management strategy that is required in this population.”

If patients fall into the high-risk category, he said, “careful consultation with patients, families, and clinical teams is needed before providing information, including where this model was derived from. The results of these discussions could be instructive regarding decisions for transfer, more aggressive monitoring/ICU transfer, palliative care or transplant assessments.”

Meena B. Bansal, MD, system chief, Division of Liver Diseases, Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, called the tool “very promising.” However, she told GI & Hepatology News, “it was validated on a VA [Veterans Affairs] cohort, which is a bit different than the cohort of patients seen at Mount Sinai. Therefore, validation in more academic tertiary care medical centers with high volume liver transplant would be helpful.”

 

Furthermore, said Bansal, who was not involved in the study, “they excluded those that receiving a liver transplant, and while only a small number, this is an important limitation.”

Nevertheless, she added, “Artificial intelligence has great potential in predictive risk models and will likely be a tool that assists for risk stratification, clinical management, and hopefully improved clinical outcomes.”

This study was partly supported by a VA Merit review to Bajaj and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were reported by any author.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, a machine learning (ML) model enhanced mortality prediction compared with traditional methods and was consistent across country income levels in a large global study.

“This highly inclusive, representative, and globally derived model has been externally validated,” Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a crystal ball. It helps hospital teams, transplant centers, gastroenterology and intensive care unit services triage and prioritize patients more effectively.”

The study supporting the model, which Bajaj said “could be used at this stage,” was published online in Gastroenterology. The model is available for downloading at https://silveys.shinyapps.io/app_cleared/.

 

CLEARED Cohort Analyzed

Wide variations across the world regarding available resources, outpatient services, reasons for admission, and etiologies of cirrhosis can influence patient outcomes, according to Bajaj and colleagues. Therefore, they sought to use ML approaches to improve prognostication for all countries.

They analyzed admission-day data from the prospective Chronic Liver Disease Evolution And Registry for Events and Decompensation (CLEARED) consortium, which includes inpatients with cirrhosis enrolled from six continents. The analysis compared ML approaches with logistical regression to predict inpatient mortality.

The researchers performed internal validation (75/25 split) and subdivision using World-Bank income status: low/low-middle (L-LMIC), upper middle (UMIC), and high (HIC). They determined that the ML model with the best area-under-the-curve (AUC) would be externally validated in a US-Veteran cirrhosis inpatient population.

The CLEARED cohort included 7239 cirrhosis inpatients (mean age, 56 years; 64% men; median MELD-Na, 25) from 115 centers globally; 22.5% of centers belonged to LMICs, 41% to UMICs, and 34% to HICs.

A total of 808 patients (11.1%) died in the hospital.

Random-Forest analysis showed the best AUC (0.815) with high calibration. This was significantly better than parametric logistic regression (AUC, 0.774) and LASSO (AUC, 0.787) models.

Random-Forest also was better than logistic regression regardless of country income-level: HIC (AUC,0.806), UMIC (AUC, 0.867), and L-LMICs (AUC, 0.768).

Of the top 15 important variables selected from Random-Forest, admission for acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, high MELD-Na/white blood count, and not being in high income country were variables most predictive of mortality.

In contrast, higher albumin, hemoglobin, diuretic use on admission, viral etiology, and being in a high-income country were most protective.

The Random-Forest model was validated in 28,670 veterans (mean age, 67 years; 96% men; median MELD-Na,15), with an inpatient mortality of 4% (1158 patients).

The final Random-Forest model, using 48 of the 67 original covariates, attained a strong AUC of 0.859. A refit version using only the top 15 variables achieved a comparable AUC of 0.851.

 

Clinical Relevance

“Cirrhosis and resultant organ failures remain a dynamic and multidisciplinary problem,” Bajaj noted. “Machine learning techniques are one part of multi-faceted management strategy that is required in this population.”

If patients fall into the high-risk category, he said, “careful consultation with patients, families, and clinical teams is needed before providing information, including where this model was derived from. The results of these discussions could be instructive regarding decisions for transfer, more aggressive monitoring/ICU transfer, palliative care or transplant assessments.”

Meena B. Bansal, MD, system chief, Division of Liver Diseases, Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, called the tool “very promising.” However, she told GI & Hepatology News, “it was validated on a VA [Veterans Affairs] cohort, which is a bit different than the cohort of patients seen at Mount Sinai. Therefore, validation in more academic tertiary care medical centers with high volume liver transplant would be helpful.”

 

Furthermore, said Bansal, who was not involved in the study, “they excluded those that receiving a liver transplant, and while only a small number, this is an important limitation.”

Nevertheless, she added, “Artificial intelligence has great potential in predictive risk models and will likely be a tool that assists for risk stratification, clinical management, and hopefully improved clinical outcomes.”

This study was partly supported by a VA Merit review to Bajaj and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were reported by any author.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, a machine learning (ML) model enhanced mortality prediction compared with traditional methods and was consistent across country income levels in a large global study.

“This highly inclusive, representative, and globally derived model has been externally validated,” Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, told GI & Hepatology News. “This gives us a crystal ball. It helps hospital teams, transplant centers, gastroenterology and intensive care unit services triage and prioritize patients more effectively.”

The study supporting the model, which Bajaj said “could be used at this stage,” was published online in Gastroenterology. The model is available for downloading at https://silveys.shinyapps.io/app_cleared/.

 

CLEARED Cohort Analyzed

Wide variations across the world regarding available resources, outpatient services, reasons for admission, and etiologies of cirrhosis can influence patient outcomes, according to Bajaj and colleagues. Therefore, they sought to use ML approaches to improve prognostication for all countries.

They analyzed admission-day data from the prospective Chronic Liver Disease Evolution And Registry for Events and Decompensation (CLEARED) consortium, which includes inpatients with cirrhosis enrolled from six continents. The analysis compared ML approaches with logistical regression to predict inpatient mortality.

The researchers performed internal validation (75/25 split) and subdivision using World-Bank income status: low/low-middle (L-LMIC), upper middle (UMIC), and high (HIC). They determined that the ML model with the best area-under-the-curve (AUC) would be externally validated in a US-Veteran cirrhosis inpatient population.

The CLEARED cohort included 7239 cirrhosis inpatients (mean age, 56 years; 64% men; median MELD-Na, 25) from 115 centers globally; 22.5% of centers belonged to LMICs, 41% to UMICs, and 34% to HICs.

A total of 808 patients (11.1%) died in the hospital.

Random-Forest analysis showed the best AUC (0.815) with high calibration. This was significantly better than parametric logistic regression (AUC, 0.774) and LASSO (AUC, 0.787) models.

Random-Forest also was better than logistic regression regardless of country income-level: HIC (AUC,0.806), UMIC (AUC, 0.867), and L-LMICs (AUC, 0.768).

Of the top 15 important variables selected from Random-Forest, admission for acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, high MELD-Na/white blood count, and not being in high income country were variables most predictive of mortality.

In contrast, higher albumin, hemoglobin, diuretic use on admission, viral etiology, and being in a high-income country were most protective.

The Random-Forest model was validated in 28,670 veterans (mean age, 67 years; 96% men; median MELD-Na,15), with an inpatient mortality of 4% (1158 patients).

The final Random-Forest model, using 48 of the 67 original covariates, attained a strong AUC of 0.859. A refit version using only the top 15 variables achieved a comparable AUC of 0.851.

 

Clinical Relevance

“Cirrhosis and resultant organ failures remain a dynamic and multidisciplinary problem,” Bajaj noted. “Machine learning techniques are one part of multi-faceted management strategy that is required in this population.”

If patients fall into the high-risk category, he said, “careful consultation with patients, families, and clinical teams is needed before providing information, including where this model was derived from. The results of these discussions could be instructive regarding decisions for transfer, more aggressive monitoring/ICU transfer, palliative care or transplant assessments.”

Meena B. Bansal, MD, system chief, Division of Liver Diseases, Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, called the tool “very promising.” However, she told GI & Hepatology News, “it was validated on a VA [Veterans Affairs] cohort, which is a bit different than the cohort of patients seen at Mount Sinai. Therefore, validation in more academic tertiary care medical centers with high volume liver transplant would be helpful.”

 

Furthermore, said Bansal, who was not involved in the study, “they excluded those that receiving a liver transplant, and while only a small number, this is an important limitation.”

Nevertheless, she added, “Artificial intelligence has great potential in predictive risk models and will likely be a tool that assists for risk stratification, clinical management, and hopefully improved clinical outcomes.”

This study was partly supported by a VA Merit review to Bajaj and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were reported by any author.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) are associated with the burden, comorbidities, and mortality of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic disease (MASLD). These health mediators should be considered along with individual SDOH in clinical care and healthcare quality and equity improvement, a large retrospective study of adults with MASLD at a multi-state healthcare institution concluded.

Across quartiles, patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (according to home addresses) vs the least disadvantaged had worse outcomes and were also disproportionately Hispanic, Black, and Native American/Alaska Native, more often Spanish-speaking in primary language, and more often uninsured or on Medicaid, according to Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at University of Arizona College of Medicine–Phoenix, and colleagues writing in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Even after adjustment for measures in the Social Deprivation Index (SDI), the incidence of death, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus (DM), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was higher in Native American/Alaska Native patients compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. The SDI is a composite measure of seven demographic characteristics from the American Community Survey, with scores ranging from 1 to 100 and weighted based on characteristics from national percentile rankings.

Aligning with the growing prevalence of obesity and DM, MASLD has increased substantially over the past three decades, and is now the leading cause of chronic liver disease in this country and the world. 

This rise in prevalence has underscored health disparities in MASLD and prompted research into linkd between liver disease and SDOH, defined as the conditions under which people are born, grow, live, work, and age. These are fundamental drivers of health disparities, including those in MASLD.
 

Study Details

Primary outcomes were MASLD burden, mortality, and comorbidities by neighborhood SDOH, assessed using the SDI in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.

A total of 69,191 adult patients (more than 50% female) diagnosed with MASLD were included, 45,003 of whom had at least 365 days of follow-up. They were treated from July 2012 to June 2023 in Banner Health Systems, a network that includes primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-care centers in Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, Nebraska, and California.

The median follow-up time was 48 months. Among patients across SDI quartiles (age range 49 to 62 years), 1390 patients (3.1%) died, 902 (2.0%) developed cirrhosis, 1087 (2.4%) developed LRE, 6537 (14.5%) developed DM, 2057 (4.6%) developed cancer, and 5409 (12.0%) developed MACE.

Those living in the most disadvantaged quartile of neighborhoods compared with the least had the following higher odds:

• cirrhosis, adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42 (P < .001)
• any cardiovascular (CVD) disease, aOR, 1.20 (P < .001),
• coronary artery disease, aOR, 1.17 (P < .001)
• congestive heart failure, aOR, 1.43 (P < .001)
• cerebrovascular accident, aOR, 1.19 (P = .001)
• DM, aOR, 1.57 (P < .001)
• hypertension, aOR, 1.38 (P < .001).

They also had increased incidence of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.47; P < .001), LRE (aHR, 1.31; P = .012), DM (aHR, 1.47; P < .001), and MACE (aHR, 1.24; P < .001). 

The study expands upon previous SDOH-related research in liver disease and is the largest analysis of neighborhood-level SDOH in patients with MASLD to date. “Our findings are consistent with a recent study by Chen et al of over 15,900 patients with MASLD in Michigan that found neighborhood-level social disadvantage was associated with increased mortality and incident LREs and CVD,” Wijarnpreecha and colleagues wrote. 

“Beyond screening patients for individual-level SDOH, neighborhood-level determinants of health should also be considered, as they are important mediators between the environment and the individual,” they added, calling for studies to better understand the specific neighborhood SDOH that drive the disparate outcomes. In practice, integration of these measures into medical records might inform clinicians which patients would benefit from social services or help guide quality improvement projects and community partnerships.

Wijarnpreecha had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Several coauthors reported research support, consulting/advisory work, or stock ownership for various private-sector companies.
 

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) are associated with the burden, comorbidities, and mortality of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic disease (MASLD). These health mediators should be considered along with individual SDOH in clinical care and healthcare quality and equity improvement, a large retrospective study of adults with MASLD at a multi-state healthcare institution concluded.

Across quartiles, patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (according to home addresses) vs the least disadvantaged had worse outcomes and were also disproportionately Hispanic, Black, and Native American/Alaska Native, more often Spanish-speaking in primary language, and more often uninsured or on Medicaid, according to Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at University of Arizona College of Medicine–Phoenix, and colleagues writing in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Even after adjustment for measures in the Social Deprivation Index (SDI), the incidence of death, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus (DM), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was higher in Native American/Alaska Native patients compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. The SDI is a composite measure of seven demographic characteristics from the American Community Survey, with scores ranging from 1 to 100 and weighted based on characteristics from national percentile rankings.

Aligning with the growing prevalence of obesity and DM, MASLD has increased substantially over the past three decades, and is now the leading cause of chronic liver disease in this country and the world. 

This rise in prevalence has underscored health disparities in MASLD and prompted research into linkd between liver disease and SDOH, defined as the conditions under which people are born, grow, live, work, and age. These are fundamental drivers of health disparities, including those in MASLD.
 

Study Details

Primary outcomes were MASLD burden, mortality, and comorbidities by neighborhood SDOH, assessed using the SDI in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.

A total of 69,191 adult patients (more than 50% female) diagnosed with MASLD were included, 45,003 of whom had at least 365 days of follow-up. They were treated from July 2012 to June 2023 in Banner Health Systems, a network that includes primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-care centers in Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, Nebraska, and California.

The median follow-up time was 48 months. Among patients across SDI quartiles (age range 49 to 62 years), 1390 patients (3.1%) died, 902 (2.0%) developed cirrhosis, 1087 (2.4%) developed LRE, 6537 (14.5%) developed DM, 2057 (4.6%) developed cancer, and 5409 (12.0%) developed MACE.

Those living in the most disadvantaged quartile of neighborhoods compared with the least had the following higher odds:

• cirrhosis, adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42 (P < .001)
• any cardiovascular (CVD) disease, aOR, 1.20 (P < .001),
• coronary artery disease, aOR, 1.17 (P < .001)
• congestive heart failure, aOR, 1.43 (P < .001)
• cerebrovascular accident, aOR, 1.19 (P = .001)
• DM, aOR, 1.57 (P < .001)
• hypertension, aOR, 1.38 (P < .001).

They also had increased incidence of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.47; P < .001), LRE (aHR, 1.31; P = .012), DM (aHR, 1.47; P < .001), and MACE (aHR, 1.24; P < .001). 

The study expands upon previous SDOH-related research in liver disease and is the largest analysis of neighborhood-level SDOH in patients with MASLD to date. “Our findings are consistent with a recent study by Chen et al of over 15,900 patients with MASLD in Michigan that found neighborhood-level social disadvantage was associated with increased mortality and incident LREs and CVD,” Wijarnpreecha and colleagues wrote. 

“Beyond screening patients for individual-level SDOH, neighborhood-level determinants of health should also be considered, as they are important mediators between the environment and the individual,” they added, calling for studies to better understand the specific neighborhood SDOH that drive the disparate outcomes. In practice, integration of these measures into medical records might inform clinicians which patients would benefit from social services or help guide quality improvement projects and community partnerships.

Wijarnpreecha had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Several coauthors reported research support, consulting/advisory work, or stock ownership for various private-sector companies.
 

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) are associated with the burden, comorbidities, and mortality of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic disease (MASLD). These health mediators should be considered along with individual SDOH in clinical care and healthcare quality and equity improvement, a large retrospective study of adults with MASLD at a multi-state healthcare institution concluded.

Across quartiles, patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (according to home addresses) vs the least disadvantaged had worse outcomes and were also disproportionately Hispanic, Black, and Native American/Alaska Native, more often Spanish-speaking in primary language, and more often uninsured or on Medicaid, according to Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at University of Arizona College of Medicine–Phoenix, and colleagues writing in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Even after adjustment for measures in the Social Deprivation Index (SDI), the incidence of death, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus (DM), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was higher in Native American/Alaska Native patients compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. The SDI is a composite measure of seven demographic characteristics from the American Community Survey, with scores ranging from 1 to 100 and weighted based on characteristics from national percentile rankings.

Aligning with the growing prevalence of obesity and DM, MASLD has increased substantially over the past three decades, and is now the leading cause of chronic liver disease in this country and the world. 

This rise in prevalence has underscored health disparities in MASLD and prompted research into linkd between liver disease and SDOH, defined as the conditions under which people are born, grow, live, work, and age. These are fundamental drivers of health disparities, including those in MASLD.
 

Study Details

Primary outcomes were MASLD burden, mortality, and comorbidities by neighborhood SDOH, assessed using the SDI in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.

A total of 69,191 adult patients (more than 50% female) diagnosed with MASLD were included, 45,003 of whom had at least 365 days of follow-up. They were treated from July 2012 to June 2023 in Banner Health Systems, a network that includes primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-care centers in Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, Nebraska, and California.

The median follow-up time was 48 months. Among patients across SDI quartiles (age range 49 to 62 years), 1390 patients (3.1%) died, 902 (2.0%) developed cirrhosis, 1087 (2.4%) developed LRE, 6537 (14.5%) developed DM, 2057 (4.6%) developed cancer, and 5409 (12.0%) developed MACE.

Those living in the most disadvantaged quartile of neighborhoods compared with the least had the following higher odds:

• cirrhosis, adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42 (P < .001)
• any cardiovascular (CVD) disease, aOR, 1.20 (P < .001),
• coronary artery disease, aOR, 1.17 (P < .001)
• congestive heart failure, aOR, 1.43 (P < .001)
• cerebrovascular accident, aOR, 1.19 (P = .001)
• DM, aOR, 1.57 (P < .001)
• hypertension, aOR, 1.38 (P < .001).

They also had increased incidence of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.47; P < .001), LRE (aHR, 1.31; P = .012), DM (aHR, 1.47; P < .001), and MACE (aHR, 1.24; P < .001). 

The study expands upon previous SDOH-related research in liver disease and is the largest analysis of neighborhood-level SDOH in patients with MASLD to date. “Our findings are consistent with a recent study by Chen et al of over 15,900 patients with MASLD in Michigan that found neighborhood-level social disadvantage was associated with increased mortality and incident LREs and CVD,” Wijarnpreecha and colleagues wrote. 

“Beyond screening patients for individual-level SDOH, neighborhood-level determinants of health should also be considered, as they are important mediators between the environment and the individual,” they added, calling for studies to better understand the specific neighborhood SDOH that drive the disparate outcomes. In practice, integration of these measures into medical records might inform clinicians which patients would benefit from social services or help guide quality improvement projects and community partnerships.

Wijarnpreecha had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Several coauthors reported research support, consulting/advisory work, or stock ownership for various private-sector companies.