Background The impact of alcoholic hepatitis (AH) on health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) remains inadequately described. We aimed to characterize HRQOL in AH and heavy drinkers (HD), and its associations with clinical variables and outcomes. Methods This is a post hoc analysis of participants in the Translational Research and Evolving Alcoholic Hepatitis Treatment 001 study (NCT02172898). HRQOL was measured using Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36). Mean SF‐36 scores were compared in AH and HD with two‐sample t‐tests. Associations among clinical characteristics, 30‐day mortality, and SF‐36 mental and physical component scores (MC, PC) were investigated with generalized linear and logistic multivariate regression models. Trends of MC and PC scores were analyzed using one‐way ANOVA. Results Participants with AH (n = 258) and HD (n = 181) were similar demographically. AH cases had a mean Model for End‐stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 23 (7). AH cases had lower PC scores [37 (10) vs. 48 (11), p < 0.001] but higher MC scores [37 (13) vs. 32 (13), p < 0.001]. MC scores were independently associated with age, male gender, and daily alcohol consumption; PC scores were independently associated with age, BMI, alanine aminotransferase concentration, alkaline phosphatase concentration, white blood cell counts, and the presence of ascites. With each 5‐point decrease in the baseline PC score, the adjusted odds of dying within 30 days increased by 26.7% (95% CI 1% to 46%). Over time, HRQOL in AH improved (day 0 to day 180 delta PC score: 4.5 ± 1.7, p = 0.008; delta MC score: 9.8 ± 2.0, p < 0.001). Participants with a MELD score <15 by day 180 had greater increases in PC scores than those with MELD score ≥15 (delta PC score 7.1 ± 1.8 vs. −0.7 ± 2.3, p = 0.009), while those abstinent by day 180 had greater increases in MC scores than those who were not abstinent (delta MC score 9.1 ± 1.8 vs. 2.8 ± 2.4, p = 0.044). Conclusions HRQOL is poor in AH and HD in a domain‐specific pattern. Independent of MELD score, lower baseline HRQOL is associated with higher 30‐day mortality. Over time, HRQOL improves with greater gains seen in individuals with improved MELD scores and those who were abstinent.

No abstract

Background and Aims: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is increasingly used to measure health-related quality of life, yet, it has not been well-studied in chronic liver disease (CLD). This study compares PROMIS Profile-29 to Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ) in patients with CLD. Approach and Results: In all, 204 adult outpatients with CLD completed PROMIS-29, CLDQ, SF-36 and usability questionnaires. Mean scores were compared between groups, the correlation between domain scores was assessed, and floor/ceiling effects were calculated. Etiologies of CLD were NAFLD (44%), hepatitis C (16%), and alcohol (16%). Fifty-three percent had cirrhosis and 33% were Child-Pugh B/C with a mean model for end-stage liver disease score of 12.0. In all 3 tools, the poorest scores were in physical function and fatigue. The presence of cirrhosis or complications was associated with worse scores in most PROMIS Profile-29 domains, indicating known group validity. Strong correlations (r ≥ 0.7) were present between Profile-29 and SF-36 or CLDQ domains measuring similar concepts, indicating strong convergent validity. Profile-29 was completed faster than SF-36 and CLDQ (5.4 ± 3.0, 6.7 ± 3.3, 6.5 ± 5.2 min, p = 0.003) and rated equally on usability. All CLDQ and SF-36 domains reached the floor or ceiling, while none were noted for Profile-29. These floor/ceiling effects were magnified when assessed in those with and without cirrhosis, indicating the improved depth of measurement by Profile-29. Conclusions: Profile-29 is a valid, more efficient, well-received tool that provides an improved depth of measurement when compared to SF-36 and CLDQ and, therefore, an ideal tool to measure general health-related quality of life in CLD.

Since December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread mortality and adverse economic impact throughout the world. Though predominantly a respiratory disease, concerns regarding cardiovascular effects have been highlighted. Cardiac biomarkers and their elevations in COVID-19 have been associated with higher cardiovascular disease burden and worse prognosis. The mechanism of cardiac enzyme elevation in COVID-19 can be explained under two broad categories- direct injury caused by downregulation of ACE2 and hypoxemia, and indirect injury, which is mediated by the cytokine storm. Cardiac troponin and high sensitivity troponin are the most extensively studied cardiac enzymes in COVID-19. Studies have shown comparable and in some cases better predictive value than traditional markers of inflammation like d-dimer, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase. Natriuretic peptides such as BNP have utility as a robust prognostic marker in COVID-19 when considering outcomes like the need for mechanical ventilation and mortality. Emerging data from studies investigating the role of newer cardiac biomarkers in COVID-19 like mid-regional proadrenomedullin, growth differentiation factor-15 have also yielded promising results. As advances are made in our understanding of the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19, it is evident that investigating the role of cardiac biomarkers in COVID-19 provides vital information.