Accepted Manuscript. Controversies in Hepatology. Controversies in Clinical Trials for Alcoholic Hepatitis

Transcription

1 Accepted Manuscript Controversies in Hepatology Controversies in Clinical Trials for Alcoholic Hepatitis Sarah R. Lieber, John P. Rice, Michael R. Lucey, Ramon Bataller PII: S (17) DOI: Reference: JHEPAT 6684 To appear in: Journal of Hepatology Received Date: 20 January 2017 Revised Date: 18 August 2017 Accepted Date: 20 September 2017 Please cite this article as: Lieber, S.R., Rice, J.P., Lucey, M.R., Bataller, R., Controversies in Clinical Trials for Alcoholic Hepatitis, Journal of Hepatology (2017), doi: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

2 Controversies in Clinical Trials for Alcoholic Hepatitis Sarah R. Lieber M.D. 1, John P. Rice M.D. 2, Michael R. Lucey M.D. 2, Ramon Bataller M.D. 3 1 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and 3 Biochemistry Departments of Medicine and Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Departments of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, WI, USA. 3 Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutririon, Pittsburgh Liver Research Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Corresponding Authors: Dr. Michael Lucey, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Wisconsin, WI, USA (mrl@medicine.wisc.edu) and Dr. Ramon Bataller, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutririon, Pittsburgh Liver Research Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (Bataller@pitt.edu). Keywords: alcoholic liver disease, alcohol use disorder, ethics of placebo-controlled trials, prednisolone. Manuscript qinformation: 3298 words, 3 Tables Abbreviations: alcoholic hepatitis (AH), alcoholic liver disease (ALD), Maddrey Discriminant Function (MDF), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) Conflict of interest The authors declare that they do not have anything to disclose regarding conflict of interest with respect to this manuscript. 1

3 Author Contributions All authors were involved in the manuscript conception, design, drafting and revising, and final approval of the submitted version. 2

4 Abstract: Alcoholic hepatitis (AH) is the most severe form of alcoholic liver disease, contributing to significant morbidity and mortality. Yet, the only available therapies that improve survival are corticosteroids and liver transplantation with no new drugs successfully developed for decades. This article describes briefly the current state of affairs in AH therapy and examines the practical and ethical challenges to conducting controlled trials in patients with severe AH. While prednisolone is considered to be standard of care in severe AH, this recommendation remains controversial given the marginal benefits and questionable longterm safety of steroids. Placebo controlled trials without steroids may be necessary and ethically justified in certain populations of AH who have not been adequately investigated. Ultimately, we suggest the field will advance with the development of a plausible animal model of true AH, a consensus on a composite clinical end-point that does not rely solely on mortality for use in future RCTs, and the adoption of the recommendations of the NIAAA Alcoholic Hepatitis Consortia regarding standard definitions and when to require a liver biopsy prior to study entry. 3

5 I. Introduction Alcoholic hepatitis (AH) represents one of the deadliest diseases in clinical hepatology contributing to significant morbidity and mortality among patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) [1]. Patients with severe AH often show signs of systemic inflammation and are prone to infections, kidney injury, and ultimately multiorgan dysfunction. Mortality rates range from 20 to 50% at 3 months [2,3]. Few advances have been made in the management of patients with AH [4,5]. To date, the only therapies that improve survival in AH are corticosteroids alone and liver transplantation [6 8]. The landscape for treatment of severe AH has remained relatively static since the early 1970s, at which time the use of corticosteroids was proposed to treat severe AH, which is in sharp contrast to the landmark developments in treatment of chronic viral hepatitis [9]. The lack of advances in the field of AH have been due to intrinsic difficulties in performing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with active addiction and advanced clinical illness as is the case in patients with severe AH. Furthermore, the lack of experimental models of advanced ALD has held back the discovery of treatments based on basic mechanisms, and hampered proof of concept therapeutic interventions [1,5,9,10]. Undoubtedly, there is an urgent need to develop novel therapies to treat AH. There is a burgeoning list of potential therapies, and an optimistic assessment would be that we are on the crest of a new wave of therapies for AH. The challenge remains, however, how to conduct phase 2 and phase 3 studies using new AH therapies wherein the studies are both practically and ethically sound. In this review article, we will discuss RCTs to study novel therapies for AH. We will review the evidence surrounding the use of corticosteroids, the current mainstay or standard of care therapy. With this as our backdrop, we will focus on practical and ethical challenges to advancing therapy for patients with severe AH. II. Current State of AH Treatment 4

6 All studies of AH treatment start with the notion that research subjects should abstain from all alcohol. Although this is a concept that could be studied, there have been no well-conducted studies aimed at enhancing sobriety in severe AH, either with motivational interventions or by pharmacologic interventions to reduce craving or enhancement after drinking has begun. Corticosteroid therapy in AH has been studied in numerous RCTs spanning several decades (see Table 1). These studies have been limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneity in study design and patient population, variability in steroid dosing and duration, and a high risk of bias [11]. Furthermore, the definition of severe alcoholic hepatitis, and thus the population at risk, has changed over time encompassing the presence of hepatic encephalopathy and the widely adopted Maddrey s discriminant function. Regardless, prednisolone is widely considered the first line therapy for severe AH. Both the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) and European Association for the Study of Liver (EASL) practice guidelines recommend the use of corticosteroids (i.e. prednisolone 40 mg daily for 4 weeks) for patients with severe AH, defined by Maddrey s discriminant function (MDF) 32 [12], or the presence of hepatic encephalopathy [3,13,14]. The basis of these recommendations comes from the 2011 meta-analysis by Mathurin et al. of five previously published randomized controlled trials, with a combined recruitment of more than 400 patients with severe AH on the basis of the MDF >32, all of whom had biopsy-confirmed alcoholic steatohepatitis [15]. This reanalysis demonstrated a significant 28-day survival benefit of % in the corticosteroidtreated subjects compared to % (p=0.0005) in the control subjects. In addition, while a 2008 Cochrane meta-analysis of 15 trials (over 700 patients) by Rambaldi et al. showed no statistically significant reduction in mortality in the corticosteroid group compared with placebo or no intervention in the entire population, there was a significant reduction in mortality in patients with a discriminant function greater than 32 or hepatic encephalopathy [16]. Another recent French RCT in severe AH compared corticosteroids to corticosteroids plus intravenous n-acetyl cysteine (NAC) [17]. The 5

7 primary end-point, which was survival at 6-months, was not improved by the combination of prednisolone and NAC. However, post hoc analysis showed a significant survival benefit for prednisolone and NAC at 28 days. Unfortunately, the majority of the trials were at high risk of bias owing to significant heterogeneity. A more recent randomized trial published by Thursz et al. investigated steroids or pentoxyfilline for AH (given the acronym STOPAH ) and concluded that corticosteroids had a beneficial survival effect in only the first 28 days [8]. This multicenter, doubleblind, factorial (2x2) trial randomized 1103 AH patients with MDF >32 into one of four arms: placebo/placebo (i.e., the natural history of the disease), prednisolone/placebo, pentoxyfilline (PTX)/placebo, or prednisolone/ptx [8]. All diagnoses were made on clinical criteria and liver biopsies were not required. Furthermore, subjects were randomized based on a risk stratification, with high risk defined as recent gastrointestinal hemorrhage, renal insufficiency, or sepsis. Exclusionary criteria included severe renal failure (renal replacement therapy or a serum creatinine > 5.7 mg/dl or 500 µmoles/l), gastrointestinal hemorrhage, sepsis, or inotropic support after 7 days of therapy. There was a non-significant survival advantage during the first four weeks among recipients of prednisolone (OR 0.72; 95% CI , p=0.06). On crosssectional analysis of 28-day survival, prednisolone was not associated with a survival benefit. However, on a post-hoc multivariable analysis, prednisolone was associated with improved 28-day survival, with an odds ratio of survival of (p = 0.015), while having no effect on 90-day or 1-year mortality. Interestingly, the mortality rate from severe alcoholic hepatitis was lower in all treatment arms than was projected in the power analysis and lower than the mortality rate in the alcoholic hepatitis literature overall. Nevertheless, the STOPAH trial lends further evidence to the efficacy of corticosteroids in the treatment of severe alcoholic hepatitis. On the basis of this short review, we conclude that the design of an RCT of AH treatment requires careful consideration of several design issues, and an awareness of the ethical challenges when studying this population. In the remainder of this paper we will discuss these challenges in further detail. 6

8 III. Controversies in Designing AH Trials Inclusionary Criteria Since AH is a clinical entity, diagnosis will be made with specified clinical parameters. The MDF has become the ubiquitous minimal measure of severity to ensure that patients with a good chance of spontaneous recovery are excluded. However, the range of mortality risk of patients with an MDF above 32 is very broad, and several authorities have recommended restricting entry into RTCs for a specific strata of patients within this general criterion of MDF >32. This could require a second prognostic score such as ABIC [18], MELD [19 21], Lille [22,23] or the Glasgow score [24,25]. A consequence of restricting recruitment in this way will be to limit recruitment. A second area of controversy is whether or not to require liver biopsy confirmation of AH. The benefit of this policy is to avoid inclusion of subjects with conditions that mimic clinical AH while lacking alcoholic steatohepatitis. Examples are alcoholic cirrhosis with sepsis, or alcoholic foamy cell hepatitis [26,27]. Furthermore, immunohistochemistry data, in conjunction with laboratory and clinical data, can provide important diagnostic and prognostic information including risk for infection and mortality [28 30]. Once again the unwanted consequence is that of limiting recruitment. Indeed the unavailability of transjugular biopsy in many community hospitals would preclude their participation were a biopsy required. Even if biopsy is available, the histologic diagnosis of AH is not standardized across all pathologists and is subject to variable interpretation. Furthermore, requiring biopsy confirmation of histologic alcoholic steatohepatitis may limit the real-world application of clinical trial results in these same community hospitals where histologic confirmation of AH may not be possible. Recently, the NIAAA study consortia have proposed a partial way around this conundrum by characterizing severe AH as definite, probable and possible (Table 2) [31]. In clinical studies, biopsy would be required in order to include patients in the possible category, but not in probably or definite categories. 7

9 Exclusionary Criteria As we discussed above, the authors of future studies will have to decide the severity of liver injury needed to be included. Since AH is a dynamic condition, it makes sense, as in STOPAH, to avoid patients who are very likely to die irrespective of treatment. However, the converse is also true. Patients in the ICU, with severe renal failure, or with very high MDF and MELD scores are important populations to investigate. Determining whether these patients should be excluded or stratified into subgroups is important for the design of future studies. The principal benefit of using MDF > 32 as an entry requirement is to avoid including patients who would likely recover in any case. On foot of the salutary effect of alcohol withdrawal, some studies introduce a short waiting period before commencement of the RCT, in order to avoid diluting the cohorts with patients who would recover with simple medical management. However, as more restrictions to recruitment are applied, the harder it becomes to fulfil power requirements. The inclusion and exclusion criteria recently proposed by the NIAAAfunded consortia on alcoholic hepatitis are depicted in Table 3. Power Calculations and End Points A common limitation to performing successful RCTs in the field of AH is the need for large subject numbers in each therapeutic arm. The issues surrounding power calculations are well demonstrated by STOPAH. The power analysis was based on a predicted 28-day survival in the placebo/placebo group similar to that reported by Mathurin et al. of 70%, with an expected improvement to 79% in the treated groups. In fact, the 28-day survival in the placebo/placebo group was 83% compared to 86% in subjects who received prednisolone. These findings pose several questions. Does the STOPAH outcome constitute a new normal? Should future studies be based on this estimated survival at 28 days? If this is the case, it will further complicate studies using mortality as the primary end-point and necessitate very large cohorts. The selection of end-points is linked to the choice of duration of observation, and the power calculation. Even in very large studies, such as STOPAH, when power 8

10 calculation expectations are not met, the end-point of mortality may not yield a clear result. The field would be advanced by the development of a consensus endpoint that included survival but also clinical markers of recovery or deterioration. In fact, there is a current effort to define new primary end points other than survival in order to reduce the number of patients needed for such studies [31]. Observation Interval and Monitoring Abstinence We have already drawn attention to the studies of the AH treatment which have shown a survival benefit at 28 days, but not at 3 or 6 months. This is not surprising, since the events arising in the shorter time period are directly related to severity of liver injury, the capacity of the liver to recover, and the influence of related events such as infection and multiorgan failure. In this short interval, many patients are hospitalized or admitted to nursing home care, thereby restricting their access to alcohol. Furthermore, ill-health itself may act as a restraint on drinking. In contrast, as the interval from the onset of treatment of AH admission is extended out to 3 or 6 months, the contribution of alcohol use disorder tends to increase, as the patient recovers from the immediate effects of the AH episode. It seems reasonable to make two suggestions in light of the two separate pathways of AH and alcohol use disorder: first, that the interval of observation of AH treatment closely mirrored the expected natural history of the disease. Given that most of the clinical improvment from alcoholic hepatitis occurs within the first three months of alcohol abstinence, 90 days seems to be a reasonable duration of observation. Second, studies adopting end-points after 28 days should include some structured treatment of alcohol use disorder. Since the greater the duration of study, the greater the risk of relapse, alcohol relapse is a potential powerful confounder in those studies that are continued beyond 28 days. Consequently these studies would be greatly enhanced by formal plans to monitor alcohol use. There is no consensus on how best to do this, but we would recommend a mixed approach involving asking questions about drinking and use of biomarkers [32]. 9

11 IV. Ethics of Placebo Controlled Trials in AH Placebo-controlled trials are scientifically necessary and important in advancing the therapy of deadly diseases such as AH. However, the question remains whether such studies are ethical when an established therapy exists. For a RTC to be ethical, it is essential that investigators have no preference for any particular intervention, a concept known as equipoise [33,34]. In circumstances where there is no established treatment, placebo-controlled trials provide the greatest methodologic rigor and robust data. However, it is usually unethical to include a placebo arm in an RCT when it deprives a subject from receiving an established therapy that is available and effective [35,36]. We discuss the ethical controversy of conducting placebo-controlled trials in the setting of AH and arguments for and against conducting such studies. Argument For Placebo Controlled Trials in AH There are compelling methodologic reasons to conduct placebo-controlled trials. Research in AH is limited by small sample sizes and placebo arms of RTCs ensure internal validity and provide stronger evidence of the effectiveness of novel therapies [37]. A well-designed study that shows superiority of a treatment to a control provides strong evidence of its effectiveness. On the contrary, a noninferiority trial that shows equivalence (i.e. little difference between a new drug and known active treatment) does not itself demonstrate that the new treatment is effective [35,38]. Additionally, proven therapies for AH (e.g. prednisolone) may not have long-term benefits and committing patients to potentially ineffective therapies just because it is standard of care in itself may be unethical and harmful. When the effectiveness of an available treatment is modest or inconsistent, placebo arms can shed light on the benefits of new treatments or different dosing of current therapies. In the setting of AH, the STOPAH trial demonstrated that prednisolone did not improve long-term health and potentially harmed individuals after one month given increased infectious risks. Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to believe that omitting steroids would pose no significantly greater harm to individuals than that experienced in the natural course of 10

12 AH. That being said, the placebo arm should not be substantially more likely than those receiving active-treatment to die, to experience severe discomfort, or to suffer serious harm [37]. Furthermore, we acknowledge that placebo alone trials may be ethical in certain patient populations which have not been traditionally studied, and in which there are limited data regarding whether regional differences or patient characteristics might influence steroid efficacy. Examples of such special populations would be patients in countries in the developing world, or patients with severe renal disease, encephalopathy, or recent variceal hemorrhage that were excluded from the studies reviewed above. In order for placebo-controlled trials in AH to be ethical, there must be robust informed consent. Individuals must be informed of the rationale for using a placebo arm, must be aware of the existence of any effective therapy, and understand the consequences of not receiving such therapy. If an individual believes that foregoing known therapy poses unacceptable risks and that receiving placebo is unreasonable, then he/she can choose not to participate in such a trial. Argument Against Placebo Controlled Trials in AH In the setting of a known therapy for AH, placebo-controlled trials violate the therapeutic obligation of clinicians to offer optimal medical care and pose unnecessary harm and risk to individuals [34,39]. According to the original Declaration of Helsinki: In any medical study, every patient including those of a control group, if any should be assured of the best proven diagnostic and therapeutic method [40], [41]. As discussed in the review above, prednisolone is currently considered the standard of care for severe AH with MDF >32 [11,15,42,43]. In high stakes situations in which morbidity and mortality are veritable risks, it is unethical to deprive individuals of a proven beneficial therapy (even if the benefit is marginal). If we consider steroids to have any benefit in terms of reducing morbidity and mortality, then it is unethical to use untreated controls or placebos in the setting of AH [39,44]. 11

13 The benefits of prednisolone may have been marginalized given the divergent results between small clinical trials and the STOPAH study. First, these smaller studies were subject to Type II errors. Second, differences in mortality from AH varied significantly based on the study country and socioeconomic factors (i.e. in Mexico and India 3-month mortality averaged 50-60%) [45]. Lastly, these studies varied due to different exclusion criteria (i.e. presence of sepsis, acute kidney injury (AKI), severe encephalopathy as in STOPAH) and so did not have comparable study populations. Based on these considerations, it is conceivable that disease severity and local socioeconomic factors masked the efficacy of prednisolone. Although findings varied, controlling for these variables including locoregional differences may have revealed more consistent benefits of steroids among AH patients. Lastly, individuals with AH comprise a critically ill patient population in which it may be difficult to obtain robust informed consent. For informed consent to be valid, however, comprehension and voluntariness are required. Individuals with substance abuse problems and hepatic encephalopathy may have impaired decision-making capacity and comprehension, limiting their ability to provide truly informed consent [46,47]. It is problematic to rely on these individuals to determine for themselves whether forgoing standard of care or known effective therapy is reasonable. Developing standardized methods for assessing and grading hepatic encephalopathy prior to research enrollment may help to ensure an ethical balance between protecting research participants with encephalopathy from undue influences and promoting their research participation. Current state of clinical trials in alcoholic hepatitis The current state of clinical trials in severe alcoholic hepatitis reflect the ethical dilemma outlined above. Frequently, novel investigational agents are used in combination with corticosteroids and outcomes compared to subjects treated with corticosteroids alone. Clinical trials investigating ASK-1 inhibitors, N-acetylcysteine, metadoxine, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) are examples of trials using novel agents in conjunction with corticosteroids. In a similar vein, true placebo controlled trials of 12

14 investigational agents are frequently reserved for patients that fail corticosteroids. Current trials utilizing mycophenolate mofetil and G-CSF have inclusion criteria requiring corticosteroid failure prior to enrollment. Thus, true placebo controlled trials in severe alcoholic hepatitis are presently uncommon. V. Conclusion There are formidable barriers to developing high-quality, well-powered RCTs of therapy for severe AH. We have outlined several practical barriers and ethical challenges related to designing such trials. All call for a balance between clarity of purpose, and the inherent danger that greater stringency in regards to entry criteria, selection of endpoints and the like, will damage recruitment. We specifically address the issue of placebo inclusion and ethical challenges to testing novel therapies using placebo control arms. We suggest the field will advanced by the development of a plausible animal model of AH, by the framing of a consensus on a composite clinical end-point that does not solely rely on mortality, and the adoption of the recommendations of the NIAAA Alcoholic Hepatitis Consortia regarding standard definitions, and when to require a liver biopsy prior to study entry. While the AASLD and EASL consider prednisolone to be standard of care in severe AH, this recommendation remains controversial given the marginal benefits and questionable longterm safety of steroids in severe AH. Placebo controlled trials without steroids may be necessary and ethically justified in certain populations of AH who have not been adequately investigated. Future trials will have to determine whether omitting corticosteroids is an ethical and pragmatic way to test novel therapies in AH. 13

15 Table 1. Summary of placebo controlled trials of corticosteroids in alcoholic hepatitis AUTHOR (YEAR) TOTAL SUBJECTS (N) THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTION CONTROL GROUP BIOPSY MDF USED AS THRESHOLD FOR STEROID THERAPY ENDPOINT MORTALITY BENEFIT OF STEROID THERAPY Porter (1971)[48] Helman (1971)[9] Campra (1973)[49] Blitzer (1977)[50] Shumaker (1978)[51] Prednisolone IV tapered over 15 days Prednisolone 40 mg daily x 4 weeks then tapered Prednisone 0.5 mg/kg/day for 3 weeks then 0.25 mg/kg/day for 3 weeks Prednisolone 10 mg QID x 14 days then tapered over 12 days Prednisolone 80 mg daily for 4-7 days then tapered over 4 weeks Placebo No No Mortality No Placebo Yes No Mortality Yes Placebo No No Mortality No Placebo No No Mortality No Placebo No No Mortality No Maddrey (1978)[12] 55 Prednisolone 40 mg/day x 30 days Placebo No No Mortality Yes, for patients with high discriminant function Depew (1980)[52] Theodossi (1982)[53] Mendenhall (1984)[54] Carithers (1989)[55] Ramond (1992)[56] Thursz (2015)[8] Prednisolone 40 mg/day x 28 days then tapered over two weeks Methylprednisolone 1 g/day x 3 days Prednisolone 60 mg/day x 4 days and tapered over 30 days Prednisolone 32 mg/day x 28 days then tapered Prednisolone 40 mg x 28 days Prednisolone 40 mg/day x 28 days (with or without Placebo No Yes Mortality No Placebo No No Mortality No Placebo No No Placebo No Yes Placebo Yes Yes Placebo and Placebo+PTX 30 day mortality and overall survival 28 day mortality 66 day mortality pentoxifylline * While the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance, prednisolone was associated with a decreased odds ratio of 28 day mortality on a multivariable regression analysis adjusted for predictors of mortality No Yes 28 day mortality No Yes Yes No* 14

16 Table 2. NIAAA Study Consortium Definitions of alcoholic hepatitis (AH)* CERTAINTY OF AH DIAGNOSIS DEFINITION Clinically diagnosed DEFINITE Biopsy proven Clinically diagnosed without confounding factors (e.g. possible ischemic hepatitis from multiorgan failure, uncontrolled gastrointestinal bleeding, hypotension, cocaine use, etc.) PROBABLE Heavy alcohol use and typical liver tests Negative markers for immune and metabolic liver disease Absence of sepsis, shock, cocaine use, or recent drug use making DILI unlikely Clinically diagnosed Potential confounding factors (e.g. ischemic hepatitis from GI bleeding, septic shock, cocaine use, DILI, uncertain POSSIBLE alcohol use) Atypical laboratory tests (e.g. AST < 50 IU/mL or > 400 IU/mL, AST/ALT ratio < 1.5, ANA Ab > 1:160, SMA > 1:80) *Permission granted to represent this adaptation of the definitions outlined by Crabb et al. Gastroenterology 2016; 150;4: Abbreviations: ALT = alanine aminotransferase, ANA = antinuclear antibody, AST = aspartate aminotransferase, DILI = drug-induced liver injury, SMA = smooth muscle antibody. 15

17 Table 3. NIAAA Study Consortium Proposed Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Clinical Trials in alcoholic hepatitis (AH)* RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUSION CRITERIA EXCLUSION CRITERIA STRATIFICATION BASED ON SEVERITY Onset of jaundice within prior 8 weeks Alcohol Consumption: o Females: > 40 g per day for at least 6 months o Males: > 60 g per day for at least 6 months Less than 60 days of abstinence before onset of jaundice AST > 50 IU / L AST and ALT < 400 IU / L ALT / ALT > 1.5 Serum total bilirubin > 3.0 mg/dl Liver biopsy confirmation in patients with confounding factors (e.g. potential ischemic hepatitis, DILI, immune or metabolic liver disease, viral hepatitis, etc.) Patients with very severe disease (MDF > 60 or MELD > 30) Uncontrolled infections Multiorgan failure Uncontrolled upper gastrointestinal bleeding Preexisting kidney injury with severe creatinine > 2.5 mg/dl Other underlying liver diseases including HBV, autoimmune liver diseases, Wilson disease, suspected DILI HCC or other active malignancies except skin cancer Pregnancy Underlying diseases that might be exacerbated by proposed treatments (e.g. HCV, hemocromathosis, latent TB) Uncontrolled drug addiction MDF > 32 assuming a control prothrombin of 12 seconds MELD > 20 Less ill patients may be appropriate for early phases or mechanistic studies *Permission granted to represent this adaptation of the definitions outlined by Crabb et al. Gastroenterology 2016; 150;4: Abbreviations: ALT = alanine aminotransferase, AST = aspartate aminotransferase, DILI = drug-induced liver injury, HBV = hepatitis B virus, HCC = hepatocellular carcinoma, HCV = hepatitis C virus, MDF = Maddrey s discriminant function test, MELD = Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, TB = tuberculosis. 16

18 References [1] Mandrekar P, Bataller R, Tsukamoto H, Gao B. Alcoholic hepatitis: Translational approaches to develop targeted therapies. Hepatology 2016;64: doi: /hep [2] Mathurin P, Bataller R. Trends in the management and burden of alcoholic liver disease. J Hepatol 2015;62:S [3] Arsene D, Farooq O, Bataller R. New therapeutic targets in alcoholic hepatitis. Hepatol Int 2016;10: [4] Tome S, Lucey MR. Review article: current management of alcoholic liver disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;19: [5] Cheong J, Stein E, Bataller R. Diagnostic Approaches and Clinical End Points of Treatment in Alcoholic Liver Disease. Alcohol. Non-Alcoholic Fat. Liver Dis., Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016, p doi: / _10. [6] Mathurin P, Moreno C, Samuel D, Dumortier J, Salleron J, Durand F, et al. Early liver transplantation for severe alcoholic hepatitis. N Engl J Med 2011;365: [7] Im GY, Kim-Schluger L, Shenoy A, Schubert E, Goel A, Friedman SL, et al. Early Liver Transplantation for Severe Alcoholic Hepatitis in the United States--A Single-Center Experience. Am J Transplant 2016;16: [8] Thursz MR, Richardson P, Allison M, Austin A, Bowers M, Day CP, et al. Prednisolone or pentoxifylline for alcoholic hepatitis. N Engl J Med 2015;372: [9] Helman RA, Temko MH, Nye SW, Fallon HJ. Alcoholic hepatitis. Natural history and evaluation of prednisolone therapy. Ann Intern Med 1971;74: [10] Gao B, Bataller R. Alcoholic liver disease: pathogenesis and new therapeutic targets. Gastroenterology 2011;141: [11] Singh S, Murad MH, Chandar AK, Bongiorno CM, Singal AK, Atkinson SR, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacological Interventions for Severe Alcoholic Hepatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2015;149: e12. [12] Maddrey WC, Boitnott JK, Bedine MS, Weber FL, Mezey E, White RI. Corticosteroid therapy of alcoholic hepatitis. Gastroenterology 1978;75: [13] O Shea RS, Dasarathy S, McCullough AJ, Practice Guideline Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Alcoholic liver disease. Hepatology 2010;51: [14] European Association for the Study of Liver. EASL clinical practical guidelines: management of alcoholic liver disease. J Hepatol 2012;57: [15] Mathurin P, O Grady J, Carithers RL, Phillips M, Louvet A, Mendenhall CL, et al. Corticosteroids improve short-term survival in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis: meta-analysis of individual patient data. Gut 2011;60: [16] Rambaldi A, Saconato HH, Christensen E, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Systematic review: glucocorticosteroids for alcoholic hepatitis--a Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized clinical trials. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;27:

19 doi: /j x. [17] Nguyen-Khac E, Thevenot T, Piquet M-A, Benferhat S, Goria O, Chatelain D, et al. Glucocorticoids plus N-Acetylcysteine in Severe Alcoholic Hepatitis. N Engl J Med 2011;365: doi: /nejmoa [18] Dominguez M, Rincón D, Abraldes JG, Miquel R, Colmenero J, Bellot P, et al. A new scoring system for prognostic stratification of patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103: [19] Cholongitas E, Marelli L, Shusang V, Senzolo M, Rolles K, Patch D, et al. A systematic review of the performance of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) in the setting of liver transplantation. Liver Transplant 2006;12: doi: /lt [20] Malinchoc M, Kamath PS, Gordon FD, Peine CJ, Rank J, ter Borg PCJ. A model to predict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Hepatology 2000;31: doi: /he [21] Kamath P, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, Kremers W, Therneau TM, Kosberg CL, et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology 2001;33: doi: /jhep [22] Kamath PS, Therneau T, Shah VH. MELDing the Lille Score to More Accurately Predict Mortality in Alcoholic Hepatitis. Gastroenterology 2015;149: doi: /j.gastro [23] Louvet A, Labreuche J, Artru F, Boursier J, Kim DJ, O Grady J, et al. Combining Data From Liver Disease Scoring Systems Better Predicts Outcomes of Patients With Alcoholic Hepatitis. Gastroenterology 2015;149: e8. doi: /j.gastro [24] Abe T, Tashiro H, Hattori M, Kuroda S, Tahara H, Ohira M, et al. Prediction of long-term survival by using the Glasgow Prognostic Score in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation. Hepatol Res 2016;46: doi: /hepr [25] Kaltenborn A, Schrem H, Reichert B, Braun F, Emmanouilidis N, Klempnauer J, et al. The Glasgow Prognostic Score and its variants predict mortality in living donor but not in deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: A double-center validation study. Hepatol Res doi: /hepr [26] Roth N, Kanel G, Kaplowitz N. Alcoholic foamy degeneration and alcoholic fatty liver with jaundice: Often overlooked causes of jaundice and hepatic decompensation that can mimic alcoholic hepatitis. Clin Liver Dis 2015;6: doi: /cld.520. [27] Ruiz P, Michelena J, Altamirano J, Miquel R, Moreira L, Cárdenas A, et al. Hepatic hemodynamics and transient elastography in alcoholic foamy degeneration: report of 2 cases 2012;11: [28] Hardy T, Wells C, Kendrick S, Hudson M, Day CP, Burt AD, et al. White cell count and platelet count associate with histological alcoholic hepatitis in jaundiced harmful drinkers. BMC Gastroenterol 2013;13:55. doi: / x [29] Altamirano J, Miquel R, Katoonizadeh A, Abraldes JG, Duarte-Rojo A, Louvet A, et al. A histologic scoring system for prognosis of patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Gastroenterology 2014;146: [30] Mookerjee RP, Lackner C, Stauber R, Stadlbauer V, Deheragoda M, Aigelsreiter 18

20 A, et al. The role of liver biopsy in the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with acute deterioration of alcoholic cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2011;55: doi: /j.jhep [31] Crabb DW, Bataller R, Chalasani NP, Kamath PS, Lucey M, Mathurin P, et al. Standard Definitions and Common Data Elements for Clinical Trials in Patients With Alcoholic Hepatitis: Recommendation From the NIAAA Alcoholic Hepatitis Consortia. Gastroenterology 2016;150: doi: /j.gastro [32] Cabezas J, Lucey MR, Bataller R. Biomarkers for monitoring alcohol use. Clin Liver Dis 2016;8: doi: /cld.571. [33] Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987;317: [34] Miller FG, Brody H. What makes placebo-controlled trials unethical? Am J Bioeth 2002;2:3 9. [35] Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med 2000;133: [36] Ellenberg SS, Temple R. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 2: practical issues and specific cases. Ann Intern Med 2000;133: [37] Emanuel EJ, Miller FG. The ethics of placebo-controlled trials--a middle ground. N Engl J Med 2001;345: [38] Simon R. Are placebo-controlled clinical trials ethical or needed when alternative treatment exists? Ann Intern Med 2000;133: [39] Michels KB, Rothman KJ. Update on unethical use of placebos in randomised trials. Bioethics 2003;17: [40] World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. JAMA 1997;277:925. doi: /jama [41] WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects [42] McPherson S, Lucey MR, Moriarty KJ. Decompensated alcohol related liver disease: acute management. BMJ 2016:i124. doi: /bmj.i124. [43] Thursz M, Louvet A, Kim D, Labreuche J, Atkinson S, Sidhu S, et al. Corticosteroids are the only remaining pharmacological option for severe alcoholic hepatitis: a meta-analysis of individual data on 1974 patients. 67th Annu. Meet. Am. Assoc. Study Liver Dis., WILEY-BLACKWELL; [44] Rothman KJ, Michels KB. The continuing unethical use of placebo controls. N Engl J Med 1994;331: [45] Altamirano J, Higuera-de latijera F, Duarte-Rojo A, Martínez-Vázquez MA, Abraldes JG, Herrera-Jiménez LE, et al. The amount of alcohol consumption negatively impacts short-term mortality in Mexican patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106: [46] Walker R, Logan TK, Clark JJ, Leukefeld C. Informed consent to undergo treatment for substance abuse: a recommended approach. J Subst Abuse Treat 2005;29: [47] Anderson EE, DuBois JM. The need for evidence-based research ethics: a review of the substance abuse literature. Drug Alcohol Depend 2007;86:

21 [48] Porter HP, Simon FR, Pope CE, Volwiler W, Fenster LF. Corticosteroid therapy in severe alcoholic hepatitis. A double-blind drug trial. N Engl J Med 1971;284: doi: /nejm [49] Campra JL, Hamlin EM, Kirshbaum RJ, Olivier M, Redeker AG, Reynolds TB. Prednisone therapy of acute alcoholic hepatitis. Report of a controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1973;79: [50] Blitzer BL, Mutchnick MG, Joshi PH, Phillips MM, Fessel JM, Conn HO. Adrenocorticosteroid therapy in alcoholic hepatitis. A prospective, double-blind randomized study. Am J Dig Dis 1977;22: [51] Shumaker JB, Resnick RH, Galambos JT, Makopour H, Iber FL. A controlled trial of 6-methylprednisolone in acute alcoholic hepatitis. With a note on published results in encephalopathic patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1978;69: [52] Depew W, Boyer T, Omata M, Redeker A, Reynolds T. Double-blind controlled trial of prednisolone therapy in patients with severe acute alcoholic hepatitis and spontaneous encephalopathy. Gastroenterology 1980;78: [53] Theodossi A, Eddleston AL, Williams R. Controlled trial of methylprednisolone therapy in severe acute alcoholic hepatitis. Gut 1982;23:75 9. [54] Mendenhall CL, Anderson S, Garcia-Pont P, Goldberg S, Kiernan T, Seeff LB, et al. Short-term and long-term survival in patients with alcoholic hepatitis treated with oxandrolone and prednisolone. N Engl J Med 1984;311: doi: /nejm [55] Carithers RL, Herlong HF, Diehl AM, Shaw EW, Combes B, Fallon HJ, et al. Methylprednisolone therapy in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. A randomized multicenter trial. Ann Intern Med 1989;110: [56] Ramond MJ, Poynard T, Rueff B, Mathurin P, Théodore C, Chaput JC, et al. A randomized trial of prednisolone in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. N Engl J Med 1992;326: doi: /nejm