Context For end-stage liver disease (ESLD) patients, care focuses on managing the life-threatening complications of portal hypertension, causing high resource utilization. Objectives To describe the end-of-life trajectory of hospitalized ESLD patients in Medicare. Methods Using a 5% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we performed a retrospective cohort study, identifying hospitalized ESLD and heart failure (HF) patients (2007–2011). Index hospitalization end points included mortality, discharge to hospice, and length of stay. Postdischarge end points included all-cause mortality, rehospitalization, hospice enrollment, and days alive and out of hospital (DAOH). Follow-up was at one and three years after index hospitalization discharge. A reference cohort of decompensated HF patients was used for baseline comparison. Results At one year, the ESLD cohort (n = 22,311) had 209 DAOH; decompensated HF (n = 85,397) had 252 DAOH. Among ESLD patients, inpatient mortality was 13.5%; all-cause mortality was 64.9%. For these outcomes, rates were higher in those with ESLD than HF. In the ESLD group, rehospitalization rate was 59.1% (slightly lower than the HF group), hospice enrollment rate was 36.1%, and there were higher than expected cancer rates. For hospice-enrolled patients, the median length of time spent in hospice was nine days. The HF cohort had lower hospice enrollment, but more days enrolled. Conclusion The results of this study show that morbidity and mortality rates associated with end of life in ESLD are substantial. There is an acute need for alternative approaches to manage the care of ESLD patients.

CAM use, particularly herbs and supplements, is prevalent among US adults with liver disease. Many do not disclose their CAM use to their providers, despite some using potentially hepatotoxic substances.

Goal: The goal of this study was to determine the accuracy of Model of End-stage Liver Disease—Sodium (MELD-Na) in predicting 6-month mortality for patients listed for liver transplantation on the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) waitlist. Background: End-stage liver disease patients underutilize hospice services despite significant morbidity and mortality associated with advanced liver disease. A well-known barrier to hospice referral is clinician uncertainty in identifying patients with an expected survival of <6 months, a requirement for a referral. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis was performed from UNOS data spanning February 27, 2002, to September 30, 2019. Inclusion criteria of patients aged 18 years and above, diagnosis of cirrhosis, liver transplant eligible, and listed in the UNOS database. Exclusion criteria included fulminant hepatic failure, prior history of liver transplantation, diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, receipt of liver transplant in <180 days, or removal from waiting list <180 days for a reason other than death. Measurement: Mortality by 180 days. Results: Of the 93,157 patients that met inclusion criteria, MELD-Na was calculated for all patients with sodium, total bilirubin, international normalized ratio, and creatinine available (N=79,611). The c-statistic with 95% confidence interval for MELD-Na for the predicted 6-month mortality was 0.83 (0.827-0.835). Mean MELD-Na of 28.2 was associated with ≤50% 6-month survival. Conclusion: MELD-Na is an objective, quick measure that can aid providers in identifying patients with increased 6-month mortality in time-constrained settings, and a score of 28 can trigger the discussion for hospice as a means of improving value-based health care.

Introduction: Women have historically been under-represented in medical literature, particularly prominent in authorship of invited commentaries. With the instantaneous change in work environment forcing Americans to adapt to working at home, many theorize that women will be more adversely affected due to traditional concepts of women being more responsible for the home in addition to work responsibilities. Objective: Understand how women contributed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) literature early in the pandemic. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of manuscripts published in three high-impact U.S. medical journals from February to May 2020 was performed. We used log-binomial regression to examine for an association between COVID-19 status and likelihood of having at least one female first author, and evaluated for effect modification according to whether the manuscript was invited. Results: Among 980 manuscripts, 313 (31.9%) listed at least one female first author, 203 were written on COVID-19 (20.7%), and 144 (14.7%) were invited. There was no association between COVID-19 status and having at least one female first author overall (adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72–1.19). The relationship between COVID-19 status and first-author sex was 0.23 (95% CI 0.06–0.92) for invited manuscripts and 1.04 (95% CI 0.81–1.35) for noninvited manuscripts ( p for interaction 0.02). Discussion: We demonstrate that women were not less likely to be first authors on COVID-19 manuscripts but were less likely to be first authors on invited COVID-19 manuscripts. Early career female researchers are the most vulnerable for inability to meet metrics for promotion, accounting for the continued under-representation of women in senior academic roles. COVID-19 has the potential to exacerbate this disparity.