Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-related cirrhosis has become one of the most common indications for liver transplantation (LT), particularly in candidates older than 65 years. Typically, NASH candidates have concurrent obesity, metabolic, and cardiovascular risks, which directly impact patient evaluation and selection, waitlist morbidity and mortality, and eventually posttransplant outcomes. The purpose of these guidelines is to highlight specific features commonly observed in NASH candidates and strategies to optimize pretransplant evaluation and waitlist survival. More specifically, the working group addressed the following clinically relevant questions providing recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system supported by rigorous systematic reviews and consensus: (1) Is the outcome after LT similar to that of other etiologies of liver disease? (2) Is the natural history of NASH-related cirrhosis different from other etiologies of end-stage liver disease? (3) How should cardiovascular risk be assessed in the candidate for LT? Should the assessment differ from that done in other etiologies? (4) How should comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, obesity, renal dysfunction, etc.) be treated in the candidate for LT? Should treatment and monitoring of these comorbidities differ from that applied in other etiologies? (5) What are the therapeutic strategies recommended to improve the cardiovascular and nutritional status of a NASH patient in the waiting list for LT? (6) Is there any circumstance where obesity should contraindicate LT? (7) What is the optimal time for bariatric surgery: before, during, or after LT? (8) How relevant is donor steatosis for LT in NASH patients?

Although liver transplantation (LT) is the best treatment for patients with localized hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), recurrence occurs in 6%–18% of patients. Several factors, particularly morphological criteria combined with dynamic parameters, known before LT modify this risk and combined in prediction models may be used to stratify patients at need of variable surveillance strategies. Additional variables though likely explain differences in recurrence rates in patients with the same pre-LT HCC status. One of these variables is possibly immunosuppression (IS). Once recurrence takes place, management is highly heterogenous. Within the International Liver Transplantation Society Consensus Conference on Liver Transplant Oncology, working group 4 aim was to analyze the data regarding posttransplant management of recipients undergoing LT for HCC. Three areas of research were considered: (1) cancer prediction models and surveillance strategies; (2) tailored IS for cancer recipients; and (3) new adjuvant therapies for HCC recurrence. Following formulation of several questions, a literature search was undertaken with abstract review followed by article retrieval and full-data extraction. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system was used for evidence rating incorporating strength of recommendation and quality of evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Obeticholic acid (OCA) treatment for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) was conditionally approved in the phase 3 POISE trial. The COBALT confirmatory trial assessed whether clinical outcomes in patients with PBC improve with OCA therapy. METHODS: Patients randomized to OCA (5–10 mg) were compared with placebo (randomized controlled trial [RCT]) or external control (EC). The primary composite endpoint was time to death, liver transplant, model for end-stage liver disease score ≥15, uncontrolled ascites, or hospitalization for hepatic decompensation. A prespecified propensity score–weighted EC group was derived from a US healthcare claims database. RESULTS: In the RCT, the primary endpoint occurred in 28.6% of OCA (n = 168) and 28.9% of placebo patients (n = 166; intent-to-treat analysis hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.68–1.51), but functional unblinding and crossover to commercial therapy occurred, especially in the placebo arm. Correcting for these using inverse probability of censoring weighting and as-treated analyses shifted the HR to favor OCA. In the EC (n = 1,051), the weighted primary endpoint occurred in 10.1% of OCA and 21.5% of non-OCA patients (HR = 0.39; 95% confidence interval = 0.22–0.69; P = 0.001). No new safety signals were identified in the RCT. DISCUSSION: Functional unblinding and treatment crossover, particularly in the placebo arm, confounded the intent-to-treat estimate of outcomes associated with OCA in the RCT. Comparison with the real-world EC showed that OCA treatment significantly reduced the risk of negative clinical outcomes. These analyses demonstrate the value of EC data in confirmatory trials and suggest that treatment with OCA improves clinical outcomes in patients with PBC.