The classical endpoint is mortality because that is the most important endpoint when people have end stage liver disease. In addition to that, people have looked at liver-related outcomes such as the development of hepato-renal syndrome, severe encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver failure. But we realize that many of these outcomes take a long time to measure so there is a lot of interest in evaluating new outcome measures. These outcome measures can broadly be categorized as measures that capture how a patient feels, functions or survives. So patient-reported outcomes have increasingly become an important endpoint because we live in a world where patient-centered outcome assessment is really important. In addition, there are quantitative liver function tests that are currently being evaluated as outcomes in clinical trials for portal hypertension.
The advantage is that it provides perspective from the patient’s side. It tells us what the things are that are important for the patient and limiting their quality of life and their ability to function. It provides a holistic assessment of how the patient feels they are doing. On the other side, the difficulty is that we know how patients feel is affected by a lot of things, so you lose specificity. You need a huge effect size of any intervention in order to be able to say clearly that it was an intervention that made a difference to patient-reported outcomes.
I don’t think so. I think most patients who are receiving beta-blockers have compensated cirrhosis with varices. Where we have seen a decline in beta-blockers has been in people who have advanced refractory ascites and where there is already some impairment in renal blood flow or where beta-blockers have been shown to further reduce renal blood flow. It is controversial, but certainly there is some concern that they may further worsen outcomes in that subset of patients.
The short answer to that question is to look at the total utilization of healthcare resources – frequency of hospitalization, emergency room visits, the total number of procedures that have to be performed, drugs and in addition, the costs of loss of work and the financial impact on families. So there is a direct element associated with the direct therapeutic intervention itself, but there is an indirect element that is composed of the total healthcare resources utilized and then the impact on families. These have to be modeled in future trials in order for us to know that if two interventions have the same clinical benefit, which one is actually more cost-effective.
Where we are making the greatest progress is in the setting of cirrhosis that is still compensated. The possibility of reversing cirrhosis appears to be, at least, on the horizon. I think we will know within the next two years if it is even feasible. But that gives us tremendous excitement and hope, based on mechanism of action and preclinical data, that we can indeed reverse cirrhosis. That would be extremely important for the entire field of hepatology and for patients with advanced liver disease where we know that even if they have advanced to cirrhosis, we will be able to slow the progression and even regress the disease to a non-cirrhotic state.