MILAN — Liver transplantation improves survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), according to interim clinical outcomes of the large, international CHANCE study.
To date, the results show that 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality rates in patients with ACLF grades 2 and 3 were only 9%, which is not significantly different than that of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a mortality of 7%.
“Treatment of ACLF is an unmet medical need,” said Rajiv Jalan, MD, professor of hepatology and honorary consultant in hepatology, University College London Hospitals, London, England.
These findings highlight “the inadequacy of current transplant allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3,” which is leading to excess mortality on the wait list, he added.
Jalan presented the interim results here at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.
If confirmed in the full analysis, these results argue strongly for increasing access to liver transplantation and changing organ allocation for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, he said.
Organ Allocation Principally Based on Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) Scores
ACLF, which occurs in patients with cirrhosis and acutely decompensated liver disease admitted to hospital, carries a high, short-term risk for death. The risk for 28-day mortality for ACLF 2 and 3 is between 30% and 90% and characterized by multiorgan failure.
As seen in previous data, even patients on the transplant waiting list with a low MELD score have a risk for death between 20% and 30% if they are ACLF 2 and 3, Jalan said.
MELD scores do not consider the risk for death due to failure of extrahepatic organs, he added. Existing worldwide organ allocation systems are principally based on patient MELD scores or its variations; therefore, many patients die on the waiting list.
With this in mind, the CHANCE study aimed to compare 1-year graft and patient survival rates after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF 2 or 3 at the time of transplantation with patients with decompensated cirrhosis without ACLF and transplantation-free survival of patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation.
The multicenter observational study comprised 66 liver transplant centers from 21 countries and over 500 investigators. Recruitment was closed after 1000 patients were enrolled.
Patients were aged 54-56 years, 31%-35% were women, 48%-70% had alcohol-related cirrhosis, and 19%-24% had metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis. MELD scores ranged from 25 to 36.
For the interim results, Jalan and colleagues assessed mortality on the waiting list and 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality.
Secondary endpoints included quality of life and cost of care.
Of the 823 patients in the study, they were grouped as follows: 376 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 listed for liver transplantation (group 1), 313 patients with ACLF 0 or 1 and MELD score> 20 listed for liver transplantation (group 2), and 134 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation (group 3).
Overall, patients in group 1 had very severe ACLF; 177 patients with ACLF 3 had three or more organ failures, Jalan noted.
“It is interesting to note that in group 3, there is an over-representation of alcohol-related cirrhosis, and this might reflect a bias in transplantation,” he added.
Jalan highlighted geographical points of difference. Patients in the United States were younger, which could be important when interpreting results of post-transplantation outcomes. In Asia, the majority of the patients were men and primarily from India, where living donor transplantation is commonly performed. In Latin America, only 33% of study participants had alcohol-related cirrhosis in contrast to 67% of those in North America.
However, “comorbidities across the world were similar, and MELD scores were also similar,” Jalan said.
Death or Delisting
Between listing and transplantation, 28% of patients in group 1 either died or were delisted compared with 16% of those in group 2. In group 3, 85% of patients who were not listed for transplantation in the first place died.
Similar to what has been seen in other studies, nearly 50% of patients with ACLF 3 but a MELD score
Geographically, deaths on the wait list were significantly higher in Latin America at 40% than in North America, Europe, and Asia at 20%, 18%, and 13%, respectively.
“This is likely due to low donation rates in Latin America,” Jalan said.
Turning to 3-month post–transplantation mortality, the rates in groups 1 and 2 were 9% and 7%, respectively.
“This demonstrates very nicely the clear benefit of transplant,” Jalan said. “The risk of death post-transplant, even with ACLF 2 or 3, is not significantly different to those patients with decompensated cirrhosis.”
There was a slightly higher risk for death in patients with ACLF 3 than in those with ACLF 2 at 14% vs 7%, but “the risk of death in these patients if they don’t have transportation is 70%-80%,” he said.
Looking at 3-month post–transplantation mortality by continent, Jalan highlighted that Latin America showed 16% risk compared with Asia, Europe, and North America that showed 12%, 7%, and 3% risk, respectively.
“This is probably multifactorial and likely to be influenced by time on the waiting list, quality of organs available, and patient demographics, among other factors,” Jalan said. When very sick people undergo transplantation, “there is a higher risk of death.”
The patients in this study have waited a long time, “which worsens their situation,” said Jalan, reinforcing his argument for changing the international organ allocation system to allow earlier access for these patients.
‘The Landscape of Organ Allocation Is Extremely Complex’
Co-moderator Ana Lleo, MD, PhD, full professor of internal medicine and hepatology, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy, commented that “the number of patients included in this international study is significant,” and that the issue of mortality on the wait list is of great clinical interest.
“The landscape of organ allocation is extremely complex,” she added.
The system for liver transplantation considers a large number of clinical conditions with very diverse benefit profiles, she explained.
“While we would like to offer liver transplantation for all patients with any range of benefit, the current donations are not sufficient to cover the request,” Lleo said. “Therefore, prioritization remains key.”
The findings do illustrate the inadequacy of current transplantation allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, said Debbie Shawcross, MD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College Hospital, London, England, who is also serving as vice-secretary of the EASL Governing Board.
However, “this must be balanced by the recognition that the global donor pool of organs available is a finite resource,” she said, echoing Lleo’s comments.
This calls for wider ethical discussions to avoid disadvantaging more stable, often younger patients with cirrhosis who are listed for transplantation, she added.
Jalan declared he is the inventor: Ornithine Phenylacetate; licensed by UCL to Mallinckrodt Pharma; speaker and grant reviewer for Grifols Research Collaboration: Yaqrit Ltd; and the founder of Yaqrit Ltd., Hepyx Ltd., CyberLiver Ltd., and Gigabiome. Lleo declared that she does not have any conflicts relevant to this work but received lecture fees from Gilead, Advanz Pharma, Alfasigma, GSK, Incyte, Gore, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen and consulted for Advanz Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, GSK, and Dr Falk. Shawcross declared advisory board/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.
>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : Medscape – https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/significant-benefit-liver-transplantation-aclf-chance-study-2024a1000b2t
