Einstein Healthcare Network

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The revision of the eighth edition of the primary tumor, lymph node, and metastasis (TNM) classification of the American Joint Commission of Cancer (AJCC) for breast cancer was determined by a multidisciplinary team of breast cancer experts. The panel recognized the need to incorporate biologic factors, such as tumor grade, proliferation rate, estrogen and progesterone receptor expression, human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) expression, and gene expression prognostic panels into the staging system. AJCC levels of evidence and guidelines for all tumor types were followed as much as possible. The panel felt that, to maintain worldwide value, the tumor staging system should remain based on TNM anatomic factors. However, the recognition of the prognostic influence of grade, hormone receptor expression, and HER2 amplification mandated their inclusion into the staging system. The value of commercially available, gene-based assays was acknowledged and prognostic input added. Tumor biomarkers and low Oncotype DX recurrence scores can alter prognosis and stage. These updates are expected to provide additional precision and flexibility to the staging system and were based on the extent of published information and analysis of large, as yet unpublished databases. The eighth edition of the AJCC TNM staging system, thus, provides a flexible platform for prognostic classification based on traditional anatomic factors, which can be modified and enhanced using patient biomarkers and multifactorial prognostic panel data. The eighth edition remains the worldwide basis for breast cancer staging and will incorporate future online updates to remain timely and relevant. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:290-303. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a rare adverse drug reaction and it can lead to jaundice, liver failure, or even death. Antimicrobials and herbal and dietary supplements are among the most common therapeutic classes to cause DILI in the Western world. DILI is a diagnosis of exclusion and thus careful history taking and thorough work-up for competing etiologies are essential for its timely diagnosis. In this ACG Clinical Guideline, the authors present an evidence-based approach to diagnosis and management of DILI with special emphasis on DILI due to herbal and dietary supplements and DILI occurring in individuals with underlying liver disease.

IMPORTANCE: Mammography plays a key role in early breast cancer detection. Single-institution studies have shown that adding tomosynthesis to mammography increases cancer detection and reduces false-positive results. OBJECTIVE: To determine if mammography combined with tomosynthesis is associated with better performance of breast screening programs in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of screening performance metrics from 13 academic and nonacademic breast centers using mixed models adjusting for site as a random effect. EXPOSURES: Period 1: digital mammography screening examinations 1 year before tomosynthesis implementation (start dates ranged from March 2010 to October 2011 through the date of tomosynthesis implementation); period 2: digital mammography plus tomosynthesis examinations from initiation of tomosynthesis screening (March 2011 to October 2012) through December 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recall rate for additional imaging, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values for recall and for biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 454,850 examinations (n=281,187 digital mammography; n=173,663 digital mammography + tomosynthesis) were evaluated. With digital mammography, 29,726 patients were recalled and 5056 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 1207 patients (n=815 invasive; n=392 in situ). With digital mammography + tomosynthesis, 15,541 patients were recalled and 3285 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 950 patients (n=707 invasive; n=243 in situ). Model-adjusted rates per 1000 screens were as follows: for recall rate, 107 (95% CI, 89-124) with digital mammography vs 91 (95% CI, 73-108) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, -16 (95% CI, -18 to -14; P < .001); for biopsies, 18.1 (95% CI, 15.4-20.8) with digital mammography vs 19.3 (95% CI, 16.6-22.1) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.1; P = .004); for cancer detection, 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7) with digital mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001); and for invasive cancer detection, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.2) with digital mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001). The in situ cancer detection rate was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) per 1000 screens with both methods. Adding tomosynthesis was associated with an increase in the positive predictive value for recall from 4.3% to 6.4% (difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%; P < .001) and for biopsy from 24.2% to 29.2% (difference, 5.0%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.0%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship to clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Amantadine hydrochloride is one of the most commonly prescribed medications for patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness after traumatic brain injury. Preliminary studies have suggested that amantadine may promote functional recovery. METHODS: We enrolled 184 patients who were in a vegetative or minimally conscious state 4 to 16 weeks after traumatic brain injury and who were receiving inpatient rehabilitation. Patients were randomly assigned to receive amantadine or placebo for 4 weeks and were followed for 2 weeks after the treatment was discontinued. The rate of functional recovery on the Disability Rating Scale (DRS; range, 0 to 29, with higher scores indicating greater disability) was compared over the 4 weeks of treatment (primary outcome) and during the 2-week washout period with the use of mixed-effects regression models. RESULTS: During the 4-week treatment period, recovery was significantly faster in the amantadine group than in the placebo group, as measured by the DRS score (difference in slope, 0.24 points per week; P=0.007), indicating a benefit with respect to the primary outcome measure. In a prespecified subgroup analysis, the treatment effect was similar for patients in a vegetative state and those in a minimally conscious state. The rate of improvement in the amantadine group slowed during the 2 weeks after treatment (weeks 5 and 6) and was significantly slower than the rate in the placebo group (difference in slope, 0.30 points per week; P=0.02). The overall improvement in DRS scores between baseline and week 6 (2 weeks after treatment was discontinued) was similar in the two groups. There were no significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Amantadine accelerated the pace of functional recovery during active treatment in patients with post-traumatic disorders of consciousness. (Funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00970944.).

Herbal and dietary supplements (HDS) are used increasingly both in the United States and worldwide, and HDS-induced liver injury in the United States has increased proportionally. Current challenges in the diagnosis and management of HDS-induced liver injury were the focus of a 2-day research symposium sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease and the National Institutes of Health. HDS-induced liver injury now accounts for 20% of cases of hepatotoxicity in the United States based on research data. The major implicated agents include anabolic steroids, green tea extract, and multi-ingredient nutritional supplements. Anabolic steroids marketed as bodybuilding supplements typically induce a prolonged cholestatic but ultimately self-limiting liver injury that has a distinctive serum biochemical as well as histological phenotype. Green tea extract and many other products, in contrast, tend to cause an acute hepatitis-like injury. Currently, however, the majority of cases of HDS-associated liver injury are due to multi-ingredient nutritional supplements, and the component responsible for the toxicity is usually unknown or can only be suspected. HDS-induced liver injury presents many clinical and research challenges in diagnosis, identification of the responsible constituents, treatment, and prevention. Also important are improvements in regulatory oversight of nonprescription products to guarantee their constituents and ensure purity and safety. The confident identification of injurious ingredients within HDS will require strategic alignments among clinicians, chemists, and toxicologists. The ultimate goal should be to prohibit or more closely regulate potentially injurious ingredients and thus promote public safety. (Hepatology 2017;65:363-373).

To produce a word, the intended word must be selected from a competing set of other words. In other domains where competition affects the selection process, the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) responds to competition among incompatible representations. The aim of this study was to test whether the LIFG is necessary for resolution of competition in word production. Using a methodological approach applying the same rigorous analytic methods to neuropsychological data as is done with neuroimaging data, we compared brain activation patterns in normal speakers (using fMRI) with the results of lesion-deficit correlations in aphasic speakers who performed the same word production task designed to elicit competition during lexical selection. The degree of activation of the LIFG in normal speakers and damage to the LIFG in aphasic speakers was associated with performance on the production task. These convergent findings provide strong support for the hypothesis that the region of cortex commonly known as Broca's area (i.e., the posterior LIFG) serves to bias competitive interactions during language production.

Research on treatment efficacy and effectiveness requires that the treatments of interest be objectively defined. Such definitions are relatively straightforward for pharmacologic and surgical treatments, in which the active ingredients can be specified in terms of chemical structure or anatomic result. Definitions of treatment are more difficult for the many experience-based interventions employed in rehabilitation. This has led to the criticism that much clinical rehabilitation research has characterized the treatments of interest as a "black box," allowing little insight into the active ingredients contained therein. Moreover, rehabilitation care may involve the simultaneous application of multiple different treatments, raising the question of whether to define the individual components or the service delivery system. In this article, we consider how the levels of analysis considered in rehabilitation (disease, impairment, activity, and participation) and the role of theory shape the definition of treatment, and we address the need to develop protocol-based treatments and tools to objectively verify their contents. Rigorous definition of rehabilitation treatments, supported by theory, will facilitate needed efficacy research, will allow replication of that research, and will ultimately foster dissemination of effective treatments into clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Controversy exists regarding the optimal negative margin width for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast irradiation. METHODS: A multidisciplinary consensus panel used a meta-analysis of margin width and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) from a systematic review of 20 studies including 7,883 patients and other published literature as the evidence base for consensus. RESULTS: Negative margins halve the risk of IBTR compared with positive margins defined as ink on DCIS. A 2-mm margin minimizes the risk of IBTR compared with smaller negative margins. More widely clear margins do not significantly decrease IBTR compared with 2-mm margins. Negative margins narrower than 2 mm alone are not an indication for mastectomy, and factors known to affect rates of IBTR should be considered in determining the need for re-excision. CONCLUSION: Use of a 2-mm margin as the standard for an adequate margin in DCIS treated with whole-breast irradiation is associated with lower rates of IBTR and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates, improve cosmetic outcomes, and decrease health care costs. Clinical judgment should be used in determining the need for further surgery in patients with negative margins narrower than 2 mm.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of methylphenidate on a variety of aspects of attention, ranging from laboratory-based impairment measures to caregiver ratings and work productivity, in individuals after traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: A total of 34 adults with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury and attention complaints in the postacute phase of recovery were enrolled in a 6-wk, double-blind, placebo-controlled, repeated crossover study of methylphenidate, administered in a dose of 0.3 mg/kg/dose, twice a day. A wide range of attentional measures was gathered weekly, including computerized and paper-and-pencil tests of attention, videotaped records of individual work in a distracting environment, real-time observational scoring of attentiveness in a classroom environment, and caregiver and clinician rating scales of attentiveness. Participants also attempted to guess their drug condition each week. Data from the first ten participants were used for pilot purposes, to develop attentional factors for composite scoring, and to identify attentional dimensions suggestive of a treatment effect for independent replication. The remaining 24 participants' results were used to confirm potential treatment effects seen in the pilot sample, using Wilcoxon's signed-ranks test on composite factor scores and individual variables. RESULTS: A total of 54 dependent variables were reduced to 13 composite factors and 13 remaining individual variables. Of the 13 attentional factors, five showed suggestive treatment effects in the pilot sample. Of these, three showed statistically significant treatment effects in the replication sample: speed of information processing (effect sizes, -0.06 to 0.48; P < 0.001), attentiveness during individual work tasks (effect sizes, 0.15-0.62; P = 0.01), and caregiver ratings of attention (effect sizes, 0.44-0.50; P = 0.01). Of the individual variables, four showed suggestive treatment effects in the pilot sample, but only one showed significant treatment effects in the replication sample: reaction time before errors in the Sustained Attention to Response Task (effect size, 0.20; P = 0.03). No treatment-related improvement was seen in divided attention, sustained attention, or susceptibility to distraction. None of the variables showed suggestive or definite negative treatment effects. Effect sizes for those performance measures positively affected by methylphenidate were in the small to medium range and included both impairment and activity level measures. Improvements in processing speed did not seem to come at the expense of accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Methylphenidate, at 0.3 mg/kg/dose, given twice a day to individuals with attentional complaints after traumatic brain injury, seems to have clinically significant positive effects on speed of processing, caregiver ratings of attention, and some aspects of on-task behavior in naturalistic tasks. Further research is needed to identify the optimal dose and to extend these findings to less carefully selected individuals.

Meaningful speech, as exemplified in object naming, calls on knowledge of the mappings between word meanings and phonological forms. Phonological errors in naming (e.g. GHOST named as 'goath') are commonly seen in persisting post-stroke aphasia and are thought to signal impairment in retrieval of phonological form information. We performed a voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping analysis of 1718 phonological naming errors collected from 106 individuals with diverse profiles of aphasia. Voxels in which lesion status correlated with phonological error rates localized to dorsal stream areas, in keeping with classical and contemporary brain-language models. Within the dorsal stream, the critical voxels were concentrated in premotor cortex, pre- and postcentral gyri and supramarginal gyrus with minimal extension into auditory-related posterior temporal and temporo-parietal cortices. This challenges the popular notion that error-free phonological retrieval requires guidance from sensory traces stored in posterior auditory regions and points instead to sensory-motor processes located further anterior in the dorsal stream. In a separate analysis, we compared the lesion maps for phonological and semantic errors and determined that there was no spatial overlap, demonstrating that the brain segregates phonological and semantic retrieval operations in word production.

Medical Writings: Book Notes20 April 2004Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis for Epidemiology: A Practical GuideLeonard E. Braitman, PhDLeonard E. Braitman, PhDFrom Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.For the Longitudinal Data Study Group; e-mail, .Search for more papers by this authorEmail the corresponding author at [email protected]Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-140-8-200404200-00042 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Twisk JW. 301 pages. New York: Cambridge Univ Pr; 2003. ISBN 0521525802. $40.00. Order phone 845-353-7500.Field of medicine: Epidemiology and biostatistics.Format: Softcover book.Audience: Physician researchers, epidemiologists, and analysts of biomedical data.Purpose: To provide a cogent nontechnical introduction to the analysis of clinical and epidemiologic longitudinal studies.Content: In longitudinal studies, “the outcome variable is measured in the same individual on several different occasions” so that the development of a certain outcome can be studied over time and be related to development of other variables. The book's chapters on continuous, binary, and categorical and count outcomes begin ... Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.For the Longitudinal Data Study Group; e-mail, [email protected]net. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 20 April 2004Volume 140, Issue 8Page: 676KeywordsComputer softwareComputersEpidemiologyHealth careLongitudinal studiesMarkov modelsRegression analysisSoftware toolsStatistical dataStatistical methods ePublished: 20 April 2004 Issue Published: 20 April 2004 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2004 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...

Drug-induced liver injury is one of the more challenging forms of liver disease, both in diagnosis and management. Several hundred drugs, nutritional supplements, and herbal medications have been implicated in causing liver injury. Their clinical presentation can be highly variable and mimic almost any form of liver disease. The literature on drug-induced liver injury is large, but spread among many journals in many different specialties and languages. Excellent textbooks are available, but they are rapidly out-of-date and not always easily accessed. Drug-induced liver injury is also a challenging area of research, in that most cases are unpredictable, idiosyncratic, and rare and thus difficult to study. As a consequence, there have been few advances in the understanding, control, or prevention of drug-induced liver injury in the last 50 years. DILIN, Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network; NIDDK, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; NLM, National Library of Medicine. As a part of a long-term initiative in promoting basic and clinical research on drug-induced liver injury, the Liver Disease Research Branch of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) in collaboration with the National Library of Medicine (NLM) has created the LiverTox website (www.livertox.nih.gov) (Fig. 1). LiverTox is a multilayered, informational, and interactive website with comprehensive and evidence-based information on drug, dietary supplement, and herbal-induced liver injury that is freely accessible to physicians, researchers, and the public. The website is particularly designed for use by physicians and healthcare professionals who might rarely see patients with drug-induced liver injury, including family practitioners, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, surgeons, specialists, and subspecialists in all areas of medicine. The website will also be helpful to hepatologists and experts in hepatotoxicity by providing a complete and accurate summary of information about the clinical features of liver injury for each medication, along with a complete and annotated list of references. Finally, LiverTox will be helpful to patients seeking information on liver injury due to drugs. The LiverTox website. LiverTox consists of three major components: (1) an introductory and background section, (2) separate records on the hepatotoxicity of individual drugs, and (3) an interactive section that allows for submission and assessment of cases. The introductory and background section includes an overview and detailed discussion of the problem of drug-induced liver injury: its frequency, major causes, epidemiology, natural history, diagnosis, and management. The section provides a description of the principal clinical and histologic patterns of liver injury (phenotypes), standardized definitions of terms used, and discussion of methods to diagnose and judge severity and causality in drug-induced liver injury. This section includes specific and detailed information about formal causality assessment instruments such as the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM), the Maria and Victorino Clinical Scale (M&V), the Naranjo Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale, and the Drug Induced-Liver Injury Network (DILIN) Causality Process. The website provides printable copies of the actual instruments, discussion of their relative strengths and weaknesses, and detailed instructions on their completion (manual of operations). The bulk of the LiverTox website consists of individual records on ∼650 different medications, dietary supplements, and herbals. The specific agents are searchable using both generic and trade names. The agents discussed include all of the major known causes of drug-induced liver injury as well as the most commonly used medications in the United States (prescription and nonprescription and whether or not they cause liver injury). Limited numbers of the many drugs, herbals, and nutritional supplements available only outside of the United States are discussed in LiverTox based upon whether they have been implicated in cases of hepatotoxicity. Each drug record is a concise summary (200-400 words) about the drug class, mechanism of action, indications, dose-regimens, frequency of use, and common side effects. This introduction is followed by a concise description of the hepatotoxicity associated with the agent, including its frequency, clinical patterns, and course followed by a brief overview of the known or suspected mechanisms of injury from the medication. A final paragraph summarizes the prognosis and outcome of liver injury from the agent and gives a brief discussion of management. This overview is followed by one to four actual case reports taken from the published literature or from the DILIN Network. The drug record also includes chemical information with the drug structure and specific Internet links to the approved product labeling (package insert). Each drug record concludes with a comprehensive list of scientific articles and publications on hepatotoxicity of the medication prepared by the NLM and annotated by NIDDK staff. The final component of LiverTox is an interactive section that allows clinicians to submit a case report or to make suggestions and comments about the website. Submission of a case requires registration and assignment of a password. The submission uses a highly structured method with cues to enter the specific information necessary to fully assess the liver injury and judge severity and causality. Information sought includes the name of the drug, dates it was started and stopped, dates of onset of the drug-induced liver injury, pertinent demographic and medical history, initial and serial laboratory tests, and specialized testing and imaging results. The LiverTox website then produces a computer-generated history, a table of serial laboratory results, a graphic display of the course of the illness, and calculations of latency, time to recovery, severity, causality (RUCAM score), and data completeness. The submission can also generate an official MedWatch report, if requested, so as to include the case in the official Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS). Unlike the typical MedWatch report, however, submissions made through LiverTox will be specific for liver-related adverse events and will provide all of the information necessary to adequately assess liver-related adverse drug events. The submitted cases will be maintained in a searchable database available to the registrants for analysis. This database will provide a means of monitoring the frequency and secular trends in the incidence of drug induced-liver injury and permits analysis of clinical features and outcomes of the submitted cases. Finally, LiverTox allows for submission of comments regarding the content of the website which will aid in the updating and improvement in the information provided. LiverTox became available online in April 2012 and was released officially as of October 1, 2012. At the time of release, the text of LiverTox contained over one million words, provided information on more than 650 medications, and included over 12,000 annotated references. LiverTox is a work-in-progress and will continue to add new drug records, references, and information in the years ahead. Comments about the accuracy and completeness of LiverTox and suggestions for improvement are welcomed. The creators of LiverTox hope that the website will be a practical and widely used tool for improving diagnosis, management, prevention, and treatment of drug-induced liver disease. The ultimate purpose of LiverTox is to provide a stimulus and structured basis for future clinical and basic research into this important but often neglected cause of liver disease.

Abstract Objective To determine patient, institution, and machine characteristics that contribute to variation in radiation doses used for computed tomography (CT). Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Data were assembled and analyzed from the University of California San Francisco CT International Dose Registry. Participants Standardized data from over 2.0 million CT examinations of adults who underwent CT between November 2015 and August 2017 from 151 institutions, across seven countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Israel, and Japan). Main outcome measures Mean effective doses and proportions of high dose examinations for abdomen, chest, combined chest and abdomen, and head CT were determined by patient characteristics (sex, age, and size), type of institution (trauma center, care provision 24 hours per day and seven days per week, academic, private), institutional practice volume, machine factors (manufacturer, model), country, and how scanners were used, before and after adjustment for patient characteristics, using hierarchical linear and logistic regression. High dose examinations were defined as CT scans with doses above the 75th percentile defined during a baseline period. Results The mean effective dose and proportion of high dose examinations varied substantially across institutions. The doses varied modestly (10-30%) by type of institution and machine characteristics after adjusting for patient characteristics. By contrast, even after adjusting for patient characteristics, wide variations in radiation doses across countries persisted, with a fourfold range in mean effective dose for abdomen CT examinations (7.0-25.7 mSv) and a 17-fold range in proportion of high dose examinations (4-69%). Similar variation across countries was observed for chest (mean effective dose 1.7-6.4 mSv, proportion of high dose examinations 1-26%) and combined chest and abdomen CT (10.0-37.9 mSv, 2-78%). Doses for head CT varied less (1.4-1.9 mSv, 8-27%). In multivariable models, the dose variation across countries was primarily attributable to institutional decisions regarding technical parameters (that is, how the scanners were used). Conclusions CT protocols and radiation doses vary greatly across countries and are primarily attributable to local choices regarding technical parameters, rather than patient, institution, or machine characteristics. These findings suggest that the optimization of doses to a consistent standard should be possible. Study registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03000751 .

Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection in Women With Dense Breasts

INTRODUCTION There are currently more than 1000 prescription medications available for use in the United States and more than 100,000 over‐the‐counter herbal and dietary supplements (HDS) available for purchase in retail stores and online. In addition, the average adult American receives more than six prescription medications per year.1,2 Many of these drugs and HDS products have been implicated as causes of DILI. Furthermore, DILI is a leading reason for regulatory actions regarding drugs in development as well as those in the marketplace.1 Confidently establishing a diagnosis of DILI is difficult because of the need to exclude more common competing causes of liver injury, the protean clinical manifestations from an individual agent, and the lack of a validated diagnostic biomarker.3–5 This guidance was developed with the support and oversight of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guidelines Committee, who chose to commission a guidance, rather than a guideline, because of the paucity of randomized controlled trials on this topic. This document was developed by consensus of an expert panel and provides guidance statements based on formal review and analysis of the literature on the topics and questions related to the needs of patients with drug and supplement–induced liver injury. The aim of this practice guidance is to provide recommendations regarding the common clinical, laboratory, and histological features seen in patients with DILI based on observational and epidemiological data reported in case series or DILI registries. In addition, expert opinion–based recommendations for patient management, including risk stratification, are provided to assist patients and practitioners. DILI classification DILI can be mechanistically classified as being either direct (i.e., dose‐dependent, intrinsic, and predictable) or idiosyncratic (largely dose‐independent, idiosyncratic, and unpredictable) (Table 1). Direct hepatotoxins such as acetaminophen (APAP) (N‐acetyl‐para‐aminophenol) can cause liver injury in nearly all exposed individuals if a threshold dose or duration is exceeded. In contrast, idiosyncratic hepatotoxins are usually neither dose‐related nor rather or drug DILI is with drugs in in 1000 to in a exposed patients have or features is implicated in of idiosyncratic classification of DILI classification Direct in usually to of injury or or of injury is or on liver or from of is the of the drug the leading to a of liver injury. idiosyncratic hepatotoxins are of the dose of and have a of to with clinical of the with and of statements be with the of patients with DILI. Direct hepatotoxins such as can cause liver injury in nearly all exposed individuals a threshold dose or duration of use is exceeded. DILI is of the dose and duration of use and by a and drug and clinical and histological DILI is to from an to the drug hepatotoxins are of the dose and have a and manifestations from the of the drug on the liver or of idiosyncratic DILI DILI is with an in the of to per 100,000 or per in the The of idiosyncratic DILI based on the case as well as the for case the to be in per 100,000 adult patients who of the implicated drugs in the United States and per 100,000 patients a The of idiosyncratic DILI is in being reported as as of DILI the of drugs and of patients and in case as well as in and and in the (Table and with DILI in United Study case case and Liver implicated drug drugs drugs or or implicated The duration of are as or Liver herbal and dietary case based on the cause of in individual to DILI and The the in the individual for the to based on the causes of idiosyncratic DILI of medications can cause idiosyncratic drug are more implicated than and are more implicated than the implicated HDS products in and for of DILI In contrast, HDS products a of in the United and with an is the implicated individual in in (Table risk of idiosyncratic DILI is by and idiosyncratic DILI is of the dose or duration of implicated drugs are a dose of per than of DILI in liver in the United States by medications with In dose the risk of idiosyncratic DILI as seen with dose or the with and in the liver are with an in with a dose In addition, drugs and in in are with DILI risk in of drugs been with an risk of DILI in and and The of and and on DILI is well because of the lack of epidemiological to DILI with DILI with patient this be in by use with with more and the DILI was more than in than than In addition, to be risk of and individuals are more to DILI from and case series an of with and to be with and Liver is the common drug is the leading cause in In addition, more to have and In contrast, more to a or liver than the of the of are to these and been with an risk of and have been with in the of was with clinical in patients in the Furthermore, are data the of and on DILI The by liver DILI DILI by been with a with the of liver than risk related to and have been reported as DILI (Table in been with to be a risk for DILI and with an of have as risk for drugs or HDS In the have because of the of DILI in the a in to be in DILI diagnosis and with DILI in or and as in the the the provided be for for of and DILI Liver to the of the based on the reported of statements The of idiosyncratic DILI in the is in data and are the implicated in the DILI series HDS are implicated in and are implicated in as The dose of a and of the risk of DILI data to and and as risk for DILI drugs are more to cause DILI in individuals are more implicated in such as and are with and of DILI with the of and in DILI is with liver are risk of liver injury with drugs In addition, with liver are risk of with a DILI in is a risk drugs and have been with to individual the clinical of in DILI diagnosis to be to DILI DILI is a clinical diagnosis of on a including the and of liver and drug and of causes of liver The for DILI and and direct and are a of 1). DILI is as of the or of or if is on with or or with or DILI with of to of individuals in the have liver because of and common diagnostic for patients with DILI. diagnosis of DILI on of clinical and drug with of more common causes of liver injury. herbal and dietary of including the use of HDS is in all DILI This and of the dose and use of the data (i.e., clinical drug and (i.e., to DILI of a drugs have In contrast, can have of DILI is to to an agent, is to to an agent, such as cause DILI. of medications to the or if cause DILI because of the dose of clinical of liver injury been reported for a or HDS can be in an is the cause of the injury. The of liver injury the for competing causes of liver 1). In the of injury can be as with a of with a of or can be more and the as by of liver injury, an of liver injury, and an and a liver injury The is the of the of injury can as the a drug be with more than clinical causes of liver injury for is for all patients with DILI including and to exclude 1). In of in the analysis of the for of DILI is is reported in developed because of to was in in the are regarding of the available for be in including a or in with in patients with DILI for with for and and are drugs can an with or are risk for liver injury, usually by and a in by with or In can be In for is to for In patients with a of than be if are and with and Furthermore, for in this is patients with DILI of liver with an to for of or liver such as or be to for or drugs have been with clinical and such as or are in DILI can with a of clinical and histological from the on and of and histological of idiosyncratic DILI of drugs with or and or the with and or in or with either or by to or with or than with with the of in with or or injury and in with more and injury injury with and liver in the or with to the and and of and of and in a of with in of of and by a either and or and DILI of to with of the or to for common are and and of liver injury drug is in DILI of injury the to the is a of the drug with reported in such as The provides a of the clinical features of idiosyncratic DILI to more than 1000 prescription drugs and HDS are from the In addition, provides a of have been to a as or more of liver and statements DILI is as of the or or if is on with or or with or drugs cause liver injury the of use have or drug of a patient with DILI a and HDS the DILI be by the and can the of causes of liver injury. causes of liver injury is in all DILI including for liver and drugs have been with and be in the for a of the literature on liver injury to 1000 prescription drugs and more than Liver in DILI a liver is to can be in causes of liver and in the in a diagnosis of DILI in of clinical medications are with histological of liver injury can be on can be the liver or with drug or the patient and can be to the of liver a liver causes of or can the clinical or to liver The in the of a liver for a patient with DILI is to the of injury, as are histological of to of DILI with liver injury and of or with or This histological of and or (Table diagnostic to from features in such as of an the of and are DILI and in DILI and are for more and be by a and the be by The of in from DILI to as have been The histological in DILI is injury, with and with on liver is and the of with being in than is an of and liver are in DILI because of and a of those with of DILI DILI and In the be the histological and as in and the is the of by more In the and have injury or to the is common histological manifestations of DILI liver and be is related to injury, and or usually to on nor with and liver can DILI in injury to the development of and as and as either or as and development is with and histological features and be seen on a liver in a patient with DILI. of and of as are in the of or of and is of DILI seen as with to an to drugs and the of DILI and liver can provide The of and of are with the of and is with in a of DILI case to DILI is the of liver from DILI of the of liver injury, the DILI as the In contrast, a liver liver is or on statements Liver is to a diagnosis of idiosyncratic DILI be in DILI with a or and in those with diagnostic a is usually in or liver can the drugs based on histological and can exclude liver of histological been reported in patients with and a drug be with more than a The of and on a liver in a patient with DILI is with a more those who have or have liver from a patient with DILI the of injury, as was seen with the to and provides an to the a drug or HDS is the cause of liver injury by the laboratory, and clinical features and of more common causes of liver is to the data and a is from to of clinical have been developed for DILI and in the and to liver injury to to to to liver injury to to to to to to causes of liver injury to to to to or of to to to to to manifestations to of to to to DILI to from the are and are from and clinical diagnostic of those (i.e., or is by in risk was developed for drug and for Liver expert and data support data with more data data from be with to features from the (Table The as the for of was in provides a from to and the with by injury. The was in and a from to with the The to the medications and for There are the of is more with the and the The is in clinical practice because was to be to the The is a of the with the of and from to the was to be to the in is currently of because of the lack of available and The is currently available online. This a of to and as well as the in data The risk and an of competing causes to and diagnostic is and to the for by the have in DILI or clinical practice because of lack of liver expert The developed by the of DILI from to (Table of expert the to for drug and of including liver in to This been to be as as the expert is available in clinical of in DILI There are in DILI with the patients be drugs or HDS products the drugs for In addition, and lack of of HDS liver is for by the of and with to drugs and HDS to by expert the clinical features of a patient with of the of the causes of liver regarding the the of developed a of with drug and by or Furthermore, of causes of liver injury have been or the is for for or and are data to of risk as in the of the have been in the by the the for for the risk of and for all The provides more guidance in the of the drug is for use in patients with liver being available is this provide more and and data to be in of the the of DILI from seen in the United States and (Table or in with more than a Furthermore, the been in liver injury and and needs to be statements are and and the and of drug and drug or HDS an of the laboratory, and histological features and of competing causes of liver injury. The expert developed by the is in clinical practice and in the need for The and more diagnostic with the risk of and are of The is a more and than are drug is in clinical in HDS HDS are the on a more than of the of dietary supplements in the in a supplements products as well as of be and have been for by for HDS are products are the of in or of supplements are of from individual and products have been including liver of HDS use and liver injury American more than on herbal products in on HDS of all of liver injury in of products in the United States is are to is and need to to the based on The and provides the regulatory for and in the United The regulatory in as in a in the the of a on the a of with of the of injury to a dietary can be reported by and to the and the are by the for and the of a is regulatory actions can be the including of a from the in the in the diagnosis of liver injury are by to is well supplements are to or of and are on the and usually from the of usually to in with the for is the of in products for the of HDS as a of leading to of to a the of injury can be because of the of the the lack of and of liver injury from these over‐the‐counter supplements cause the injury to by patients and HDS and Many of the of from HDS have from products such as and dietary supplements are in is of and the such the with the be Furthermore, the supplements implicated in liver injury are The are being to the from are or as in (Table HDS products and implicated in or liver reported and or reported and or case of reported of to of The the of The of the is for is for liver injury. of liver injury to have been with the being those in injury analysis of in the to of the of as being and with a with This risk been with in individuals to a herbal to and have patients with HDS leading to liver are more to or to patients with drug This be to of the as the cause of liver injury or of HDS to statements HDS are with of in the United States and leading to the of and can cause can have clinical, laboratory, and histological in the and the a is the of an individual patient HDS been with to in and in and of idiosyncratic DILI and with idiosyncratic DILI with a drug of drugs have an In nearly of patients have injury, the with either an or injury (Table a diagnosis of idiosyncratic DILI is the be patients with liver injury need to be for and those with and be to a liver because of of drug patients with DILI to of patients with DILI with be risk of because of liver or have patients with and as well as are risk for In addition, have patients with liver are risk of in a of and have been to patients with DILI risk of clinical features are with a of such as the of and on liver for patients with idiosyncratic DILI for liver and for patients and be to and and a and for the for Liver available DILI is as in liver or the of or histological of injury DILI The of DILI in the was with and patients with a liver injury being of patients (i.e., of leading to can be and reported of DILI from and to or to of (Table of idiosyncratic patients with DILI is for all patients with including the use of and as with and or for and (Table of be in adult patients with in of in a randomized controlled in patients with randomized of patients with DILI a of with with a of in with for use in a dose of of are to patients with including the as drug with and In a of (i.e., with be of in patients with features on as well as for patients with DILI from and (Table of and DILI randomized controlled trials are to the dose and for patients with idiosyncratic DILI to per in if to in data patients to if with for duration in in with features per of for of for dose and duration can be in with by use with for from medications and patients or use to with for to a of to in and with liver liver drug with and of In to be for are data clinical with for with to In addition, be of for patients with because of and is a of from and use been with in patients with with statements and with idiosyncratic DILI with an liver injury or be of in In of patients with idiosyncratic DILI are risk for including liver and of of the of in idiosyncratic of of these individuals to a liver is liver injury is in of patients with DILI and be more in those with DILI. risk for patients with DILI with and and as well as those with and on liver and those with and liver of the drug with of and are the of idiosyncratic DILI of be of in adult patients with this is for for be of in patients with idiosyncratic including those with and features on liver the dose and duration are because of the lack of controlled clinical is an for patients with DILI is to is a is for use in and with to with the drug be the is for a or is as a over‐the‐counter In is to in 100,000 to and The of from the of with all idiosyncratic The reason for this is drugs with is a dose‐related with all to liver injury in to was to be a cause of in of or in the of or because of the lack of of the use of risk for and can to of as well as use of and medications can the and to of the data are in with these is by a of diagnosis of is based on a of of as a can to of liver injury with 1000 the of (Table of a a can the patients risk of liver of been as a more to in patients or with an this is and of of of use to per or of and can to in Liver injury of in to 1000 with in is and can to liver or and is in to 1000 with in such as can liver injury can to liver or to risk of available causes of liver injury clinical to exclude risk for and for dose if of in nor by as if of or by the those with of liver injury, is is and is of liver and in and to a liver of a of and and The of is to the of and can to because of of or is an as a dose by is of the liver be The of with The can be and a is a in the an by or and if more than is be of and of liver are and are nearly of patients either or a liver The patients a and have been developed and including the for Liver and the Liver Study In in the over‐the‐counter of been the of have the because of in with of patients statements is a to liver injury are a or is the leading cause of in the United diagnosis of on a of of an and of competing causes of liver injury. and be to all patients of a or can liver injury nearly if of is for patients The in is related to the of and of DILI in clinical practice The to liver injury from DILI is of the or individuals a drug with a to of DILI and clinical a validated a the to recommendations in the for a of In addition, patients medications are to or to are available and can be the have been and drug recommendations regarding of the for drug and of the for patients with liver in a The of currently drugs with or a for or if of liver injury or or for to the recommendations by medications have been with a a for drugs and have recommendations for the of to injury. In contrast, was clinical of a to or in patients with liver injury, a risk and been by the for the and clinical of all in clinical practice to is to individuals who are medications have a of for liver for the of in patients with liver of from to with and and and with drugs and can with because of and or of histological injury to DILI. can be seen with and a with of by are by the is in the of the with are by as to the of are in The development of these is to and are and are to be This of injury is reported with drugs such as and for medications In the United an individuals have individuals are for the of DILI to be than to be a leading cause of in the United States and (Table The for from to of to with a risk of including of with the for of and are available on individual patient the recommendations for have been with liver for all this been to be than for clinical of the are to individual and to liver is for those with liver use of liver or and or liver can be in those than of and to American are common in of and are with and liver patients are to and drugs and can be of a DILI to liver injury in of patients be for patients with can be with the development of and risk for liver injury with liver and liver is of all by and and liver been the to the and of the liver in more the need for liver patient The American of for the of and with the for and of The the use of in patients with to those with liver or by In contrast, the of for and and on in patients with risk for is and Liver is for those who have or those who have liver of dose liver are for all There are or drugs are on a by of patients with In are to and to dose or in to of on was of in to of patient was In the of patients with DILI to a an and injury as well as patients with randomized controlled trials have in the of and including in patients with liver In addition, have in patients with liver and the risk of and In the the of available liver be liver is liver in patients are or of be in patients with to can be on an individual risk are or in with are to more than of patients with The of and been to common for The of from in clinical trials and observational patients with injury in the of who in with and are risk of DILI is for of of liver injury in patients with and causes of liver for the the of and in of these Liver or and is patients have or for and with clinical and patients with liver injury with more is patients with an liver the be and per (Table patients with or or liver the be and a dose of per with for patients with be or can be for of the liver to be because of the risk of in of patients with and in those with can with a of liver statements of DILI is by patients to to with clinical and with drugs the and are to of DILI to the the of liver can be seen with drugs such as are because of and The and are a for drug and provide and recommendations for be including drug and for in to the common be for patient to of been to the of liver injury and can to of in and in of liver is as a to the of drugs to cause is to drugs cause DILI. liver are for all patients of liver is because of the risk of including patients with liver with liver and can and as use of in with be based on of risk and is the of for patients with a series of to the use based on the of liver injury. of need in DILI clinical the need for diagnostic and and and of the of DILI. of and DILI from is In addition, of the of DILI is to and and for DILI available of liver injury (i.e., are neither nor to nor are to clinical DILI in development liver injury the or of aim to the of liver and diagnostic including and as being more and for liver injury with from clinical in patients with (Table The and be more than in liver injury and be of of to and are to be in DILI In this a can be in the in as well as and as DILI have including the of in from the patient are with the drug (Table The a are the development of in from and liver is DILI and of is with use of case and in clinical trials and The and to DILI are well of in the of patients with DILI have are to of the of DILI with the of and for statements available of liver injury such as and are or to DILI. DILI to be by the lack of an to a drug as the DILI in development are currently being DILI diagnosis and as well as to provide DILI DILI use and for clinical and and to of DILI and

PURPOSE: To investigate differences in attitudes, preferences, and behaviors regarding end of life in terminally ill patients and their designated family caregivers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 68 African-American and white patients with stage III-B or IV lung or stage IV colon cancer and 68 patient-designated family caregivers interviewed between December 1999 and May 2001. RESULTS: White patients were more likely to have a durable power of attorney (34% v 8%, P =.01) and were more likely to have a living will (LW; 41% v 11%, P =.004) than were African-American patients. More African-American than white patients desired the use of life-sustaining measures (cardiopulmonary resusitation [CPR], mechanical ventilation, tube feeding) in their current condition (all P >.12). In a near-death condition, African-American patients were more likely than white patients to desire each of the life-sustaining measures (all P <.004). There was no patient-caregiver agreement beyond chance regarding preferences for initiation of CPR, tube feeding, or mechanical ventilation in the patient's current condition or in the near-death condition. In the near-death condition in patients without LWs, there was disagreement in 46% of patient-caregiver pairs about CPR, in 50% about mechanical ventilation, and in 43% about tube feeding. CONCLUSION: Although most patients and families endorse the primacy of the patient in decisions at end of life, the majority do not take supporting actions. Disagreements between patients and families about the use of life-sustaining measures in patients without LWs may result in patients' preferences being superseded at end of life.

BACKGROUND: Although studies have reported ethnic differences in approaches to end of life, the role of spiritual beliefs is less well understood. PURPOSE: This study investigated differences between African American and White patients with cancer in their use of spirituality to cope with their cancer and examined the role of spiritual coping in preferences at end-of-life. METHODS: The authors analyzed data from interviews with 68 African American and White patients with an advanced stage of lung or colon cancer between December 1999 and June 2001. RESULTS: Similar high percentages of African American and White patients reported being "moderately to very spiritual" and "moderately to very religious." African American patients were more likely to report using spirituality to cope with their cancer as compared to their White counterparts (p = .002). Patients who reported belief in divine intervention were less likely to have a living will (p = .007). Belief in divine intervention, turning to higher power for strength, support and guidance, and using spirituality to cope with cancer were associated with preference for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and hospitalization in a near-death scenario. CONCLUSIONS: It was found that patients with cancer who used spiritual coping to a greater extent were less likely to have a living will and more likely to desire life-sustaining measures. If efforts aimed at improving end-of-life care are to be successful, they must take into account the complex interplay of ethnicity and spirituality as they shape patients' views and preferences around end of life.

Several pathologic conditions may manifest as an osteochondral lesion of the knee that consists of a localized abnormality involving subchondral marrow, subchondral bone, and articular cartilage. Although understanding of these conditions has evolved substantially with the use of high-spatial-resolution MRI and histologic correlation, it is impeded by inconsistent terminology and ambiguous abbreviations. Common entities include acute traumatic osteochondral injuries, subchondral insufficiency fracture, so-called spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee, avascular necrosis, osteochondritis dissecans, and localized osteochondral abnormalities in osteoarthritis. Patient demographics, the clinical presentation, and the role of trauma are critical for differential diagnosis. A localized osteochondral defect can be created acutely or can develop as an end result of several chronic conditions. MRI features that aid in diagnosis include the location and extent of bone marrow edema, the presence of a fracture line, a hypointense area immediately subjacent to the subchondral bone plate, and deformity of the subchondral bone plate. These findings are essential in diagnosis of acute traumatic injuries, subchondral insufficiency fracture, and its potentially irreversible form, spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee. If the lesion consists of a subchondral region demarcated from the surrounding bone, the demarcation should be examined for completeness and the presence of a “double-line sign” that is seen in avascular necrosis or findings of instability, which are important for proper evaluation of osteochondritis dissecans. Subchondral bone plate collapse, demonstrated by the presence of a depression or a fluid-filled cleft, can be seen in advanced stages of both avascular necrosis and subchondral insufficiency fracture, indicating irreversibility. Once the diagnosis is established, it is important to report pertinent MRI findings that may guide treatment of each condition. ©RSNA, 2018 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on August 23, 2018.

Palliative care is defined as multidisciplinary, specialized medical care that addresses the physical, spiritual, and psychosocial needs of patients with serious illness and their caregivers.[1, 2] The benefits of palliative care are increasingly recognized across disease states and for patients with decompensated cirrhosis (DC).[3-5] This American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) guidance to providing palliative care for patients with cirrhosis was developed with the support and oversight of the AASLD Practice Guidelines Committee. The AASLD Practice Guidelines Committee chose to commission a guidance, rather than a guideline, because of the paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. AASLD guidelines are supported by systematic reviews of the literature, formal ratings of evidence quality and strength of recommendations, and, if appropriate, meta-analysis of results using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. In contrast, this document was developed by consensus of an expert panel and provides guidance statements based on formal review and analysis of the literature on the topics and questions related to the palliative care needs of patients with cirrhosis and their caregivers. Although palliative care can be considered regardless of the stage of cirrhosis, this guidance document predominantly addresses issues pertinent to adult patients with DC because this group bears considerable physical, psychosocial, and financial burden. We specifically focus on topics that are not covered in existing AASLD practice guidelines/guidance documents and thus refer the readers to the AASLD practice guidelines for specific recommendations for the diagnosis and management of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy (HE), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and portal hypertension.[6-9] In addition, the complex palliative care needs for patients with HCC are not specifically addressed by this guidance, but are addressed by other guidelines.[10, 11] Palliative care can be provided at any stage of a serious illness and concurrently with disease-directed and curative treatments (including organ transplants). Over the past decade, the body of evidence supporting early palliative care has expanded to include persons with nonmalignant conditions, such as cirrhosis.[3, 4] Palliative care takes a comprehensive, person-centered approach to care, focusing on the aspects of care most important to patients and their families/informal caregivers. Because of this comprehensive scope, management typically relies on a team, including physicians, nurses, chaplains, social workers, and other providers. Table 1 illustrates the conceptual distinctions between primary and specialty palliative care. Specialty palliative care refers to care delivered by specialists with advanced palliative care skills such as board-certified palliative care physicians or palliative-certified nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and chaplains.[12] However, primary palliative care describes care aligned with the principles of palliative care (e.g., person-centered, communication-focused symptom management) that can be delivered by any medical professional.[12] The National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care defined eight core domains of high-quality palliative care around which this guidance is framed (Figure 1).[13, 14] Although all eight domains can apply to patients with DC, their relative importance may vary across the illness trajectory.[5, 15] Advance care planning (ACP) is a component of palliative care that involves the iterative and longitudinal process of medical decision making for patients and their families over the course of their illness trajectory.[16, 17] ACP includes identifying surrogate decision makers, illness education and prognostic disclosure, and formal documentation of goals for medical and end-of-life care (EoLC) through advance directives that center on the goals, values, and preferences of patients and their families.[17] Hospice is EoLC focused on allowing people in the last phases of incurable disease to live as fully and comfortably as possible.[14] Hospice is different than palliative care in that it focuses exclusively on comfort, rather than disease-directed curative treatment, and includes only persons with a life expectancy measured in months. In the USA, the hospice benefit is provided under Medicare Part A, and patients must have a defined, time-limited prognosis (certified by one or more physicians as ≤6 months).[18] DC is in many cases incurable, and life expectancy, which can be predicted with models such as the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and Child-Pugh-Turcotte scores, may be well below 6 months.[6, 19-21] Because of the poor prognosis of DC, many patients with DC qualify for hospice benefits, which can help support patients and their caregivers. Attention to patients' families and support persons, herein called caregivers, is a core value and component of palliative care (Figure 1). Caregivers are discussed in The National Consensus Project under the heading of clinical implications. Throughout this document, we address the role of caregivers in each aspect of palliative care. Caregivers of patients with DC often face under-recognized psychological, physical, and financial burdens.[22-27] Their symptoms include stress, anxiety, depression, insomnia, decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and worse physical health.[23, 25-27] Psychological symptom burden among caregivers is associated with patients' alcohol use, encephalopathy, ascites, liver disease (LD) severity, repeated hospitalizations, prognostic uncertainty, and lack of information.[25-29] Caregivers of patients with DC report feeling unprepared to provide physical care, medication management, and transportation to their loved ones and often experience significant financial burdens.[23-25, 27, 30-32] Importantly, the financial, social, and psychological burdens of cirrhosis experienced by caregivers can continue to impact caregivers after patients die. As such, support for caregivers of patients with cirrhosis should start early and extend through the bereavement period. This support can include inquiring about how they are doing during a medical visit, acknowledging the challenges of caregiving, and referring to services for support. Hepatology providers should assess caregivers' goals and consider their needs. Being knowledgeable about and providing a list of ancillary services to caregivers is something that can occur in hepatology. Services of interest to caregivers may include pastoral care or spiritual support, mental health resources, bereavement support, grief counseling, caregiver support websites, and peer support groups. Cirrhosis is associated with poor HRQoL attributable to multiple physical, cognitive, psychological, and social stressors that are challenging to manage.[30, 33, 34] Although the prognosis for patients with DC is variable, with a 5-year mortality ranging from 20% to 80% across studies, the overall disease trajectory is progressive, with declining health and increasing symptom burden and frequent hospitalizations at the end of life.[19, 35-37] Though liver transplantation (LT) can be curative, few patients are ever waitlisted for or receive LT.[38] Palliative care needs of patients with cirrhosis and their caregivers are frequently underaddressed.[39] Only 11% of patients with cirrhosis receive specialty palliative care or hospice care referrals, and consultation often occurs very late in the disease course.[40-44] Consequently, patients with cirrhosis receive EoLC that is more resource intensive and invasive than that of patients with other serious, life-limiting illnesses.[27, 44, 45] There are several barriers to palliative care implementation that have been identified specifically in hepatology. These barriers include a shortage of specialty palliative care providers, absence of evidence-based referral criteria, lack of role clarity between specialists, stigma that palliative care is synonymous with "giving up" on curative treatments, lack of provider training, competing demands on providers' time, and prognostic uncertainty.[22, 27, 41, 46-50] In addition, many of the symptoms experienced by persons with DC are highly liver specific and managed longitudinally by liver teams. This is in contrast to oncology practice models in which palliative care teams frequently have a key role managing malignant pain syndromes throughout the disease course.[51] Transplant evaluation and listing may also present a unique barrier to palliative care for patients with cirrhosis, related to the perceived incompatibility of transplantation and palliative care. One study found that patients with cirrhosis undergoing transplant evaluation received lower-quality EoLC.[52] Similarly, a qualitative study of 42 patients and 46 clinicians found that transplant teams avoided discussing nonaggressive treatment options with patients, leading caregivers to feel unprepared to support their loved ones at the end of life.[53] Finally, hepatology training does not routinely include palliative care training, and palliative care competencies for hepatologists have not been developed. Despite these barriers, hepatology clinicians, especially those with a longitudinal relationship with patients and families, can play a key role in delivering primary palliative care to address patients' and caregivers' needs. Some elements of primary palliative care that could be provided as part of routine hepatology care include evaluating and managing symptoms, identifying and documenting surrogate decision makers, eliciting patient preferences about treatment and aligning care plans with these preferences, providing counseling about what to expect in the future, and referring patients for social services to increase support in the community. A growing body of evidence supports the integration of curative and palliative care approaches for patients with DC (Table 2).[54-57] Observational studies have demonstrated reduced resource use, decreased symptoms, and improved HRQoL for patients with cirrhosis who receive palliative care services.[50, 58, 59] A single-arm, single-center study found that outpatient specialty palliative care referral for all patients undergoing LT evaluation resulted in improved physical and psychological symptom scores.[54] Likewise, an outpatient primary palliative care intervention led by hepatology nurses with palliative care and communication training was feasible and acceptable to recently discharged patients and their health care teams.[57] The intervention was associated with improved HRQoL, care coordination, coping, and anticipatory planning. Two studies that examined inpatient palliative care also had favorable findings. A specialty palliative care intervention in a single academic surgical intensive care was associated with earlier consensus around goals of care, reduced length of stay, and earlier provision of comfort-focused care without any change in mortality.[55] Caregivers also reported having more time to say goodbye.[55] This intervention included early consultation with an interdisciplinary palliative care team, who provided a comprehensive evaluation within 24 h of admission, including discussion of prognosis, caregiver support, ACP, and symptom assessment. The palliative care team then participated in daily rounds and conducted a caregiver meeting within 72 h of admission. To the best of our knowledge, Shinall et al. conducted the only RCT of a palliative care intervention in inpatients with cirrhosis. The intervention included patients with a life expectancy <12 months and involved an inpatient specialty palliative care consultation and monthly postdischarge follow-up with the palliative care team, who reviewed medications, symptoms, and goals of care.[56] The comparison group received usual care that included palliative care at the discretion of the hepatologist (19% received palliative care), and results were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Although this trial was prematurely terminated because of low enrollment, patients in the intervention group had significantly reduced readmission rates and more days alive outside of the hospital as compared with patients in the control group.[56] The researchers cited barriers to enrollment including patients and family feeling overwhelmed at the time of index hospitalization, concerns about whether insurance would cover palliative care, challenges with identifying caregivers, and a narrow screen-in to enrollment window.[56] Few interventions have included caregivers of patients with cirrhosis. A randomized trial of a cognitive behavior-based coping intervention delivered by trained nurses or social workers by telephone (as compared with LD education as an attention control) did not significantly impact mental health or HRQoL for patients or caregivers.[60] However, a mindfulness-based stress reduction and supportive group therapy intervention was associated with improved patient and caregiver mental health symptoms and HRQoL.[61] More trials are needed to understand how to best help caregivers of patients with cirrhosis. Although these early data generally support the effectiveness of palliative care interventions for patients with cirrhosis and their caregivers, larger trials are needed to further characterize the optimal timing and content of these interventions. Conducting palliative care trials in this population is especially challenging for several reasons. Such trials are resource and time intensive; the population is heterogeneous (in terms of illness severity, trajectory, and treatments) with considerable prognostic uncertainty; trials require rigorous, potentially intrusive study monitoring; and there is limited interest in the topic from commercial sources, among others. The ongoing PAL LIVER trial, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, is recruiting patients with advanced liver disease and their caregivers from 18 clinical centers in the United States, comparing the effectiveness of palliative care delivered by specialists versus trained hepatologists for improving patients' HRQoL, symptoms, caregiver burden, and health care use.[62] PAL LIVER and other studies are needed to establish which palliative outcomes matter most to patients and their caregivers. As cirrhosis-specific data accumulate, trials of palliative care in other similar populations may help to inform care. Over the past decade, several landmark studies have assessed the impact of multicomponent, interdisciplinary palliative care interventions in patients with advanced heart, lung, renal, and hematological diseases across multiple domains of palliative care (Table S1).[13, 14] Palliative care interventions have improved physical (e.g., fatigue, pain), psychological (e.g., depression, anxiety, and mood), social, spiritual, EoLC, ACP, caregivers' quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of care.[63-77] However, evidence for improvement in religious, existential, and cultural aspects of care remains limited.[14] In general, interventions with a comprehensive evaluation by palliative care specialists, including nurses, social workers, or physicians, were associated with improved quality of care and symptom management. ACP is a proactive, ongoing, collaborative process of decision making about health care preferences, goals, and values in the context of a life-limiting illness.[16, 17] Decisions around life-sustaining treatments, completing advance directives, and identifying surrogate decision makers are all part of ACP, which is based on continuous assessment and documentation of patients' personal values, preferences, and caregiver input.[14, 17] Written documentation (such as advance directives) can help ensure that these values and preferences are respected across clinical teams and health care settings. ACP interventions are also associated with greater concordance between patient preferences and care delivery, completion of advance directives, and improved end-of-life management.[78] Thus, facilitating ACP is an important component of caring for persons with DC. Table 3 outlines key ACP definitions, and Figure 2 illustrates key components of ACP, including assessing patients' capacity and willingness to engage in ACP, identifying surrogate decision makers who should be present for conversations, and eliciting and documenting preferences.[14, 17, 79] It is critical to document this information early in the trajectory of cirrhosis, before the onset of encephalopathy, for example. It is also notable that a person who is present at an outpatient appointment or at the hospital bedside may not be the person that local surrogacy laws identify as a default surrogate or the person that the patient wants to be making decisions on their behalf. Ideally, clinicians with a continuity relationship with a patient and an understanding of their prognosis should regularly engage in conversations regarding prognosis and goals of care.[14] Unfortunately, these conversations often do not occur until the end of life for patients with DC.[36, 43, 48, 53, 59, 80-83] Insufficient and delayed discussions likely contribute to receipt of high-intensity EoLC.[84] Conversely, early palliative care referral has been associated with higher rates of goals-of-care discussions in retrospective cohort studies.[58, 59] One pilot trial found that provider education and standardized documentation were associated with a 23% increase in advance directive completion and a 51% increase in goals-of-care conversations.[85] Similarly, specialty palliative care consultation with transplant evaluation led to early identification of surrogate decision-maker and ACP documentation.[54] In a single-site pilot RCT, a 5-min ACP video decision support tool for transplant-ineligible patients with DC significantly improved their knowledge about EoLC, informed their preferences for resuscitation and intubation, and was highly acceptable to patients (Table 2).[86] An expert panel, supported by modified Delphi methods, provided guidance on the timing of ACP in patients with DC.[87] They recommended that advance directives should be completed as early in the course of cirrhosis as possible and preferably before hepatic decompensation and potentially loss of decision-making capacity. Similarly, goals-of-care discussions, with or without the support of specialty palliative care services, should be prioritized when LT is being considered or if death is anticipated within 6 months.[87, 88] Resources that can support hepatologists in leading ACP include patient-facing visual aids, communication training, and goals-of-care communication training workshops and webinars (Table S2).[16, 89-95] Communication skills are a key component of ACP and palliative care. Uncertainty of the illness trajectory in cirrhosis complicates communication about prognosis. Furthermore, care preferences can fluctuate with a patient's changing clinical status. Clinicians may struggle to effectively communicate the complexity and uncertainty associated with the fluctuating and unpredictable clinical course—indeed, 80% of respondents in a large survey of hepatologists felt that the communication training they had received (in this study, around end-of-life communication) was inadequate.[48] Patients and families struggle to get the information they need or desire, particularly in the setting of critical illness.[84] Several published communication frameworks may be well suited to address the unpredictability associated with cirrhosis (Figure 3).[89-95] Although communication training is associated with improved person-centered outcomes, more work is needed to tailor approaches to training and communication in hepatology settings.[90] The medical team should also ensure that communication occurs in the language preferred by patients and families using a professional medical interpreter, if the preferred language is different than that of the provider.[96] Psychosocial, spiritual, and cultural aspects of care are understudied in all patient populations, despite being important to patients.[44] In general, an interdisciplinary, person-centered approach is recommended when addressing these potentially sensitive topics, and it is important to be aware of the local supportive care resources through ongoing conversations with social work, pharmacy, patient navigation, chaplaincy, spiritual care, and pastoral care, where available.[14] A key component of person-centered palliative care is assessing patient and caregiver psychosocial needs across social determinants of health, including financial stability, employment, food insecurity, housing, transportation, and access for necessary equipment/supplies.[14] Assessing financial burden is also important for patients with DC, who often report high rates of cost-related nonadherence to medications and food insecurity.[31, 97, 98] The question "Are you having difficulty paying for your medical care?" is an effective early screen for financial burden and engaging social work and pharmacy services to help support patients and their families in mitigating financial stress.[31, 97, 98] Cirrhosis carries a significant financial burden for patients and families. Patients with DC require a high number of informal caregiving hours each week compared with persons with other illnesses, which can lead to difficulty maintaining employment for family caregivers.[31] Patients differ in their beliefs and approaches to ACP, palliative care, and death and dying related to their spiritual and cultural frames of reference.[20] The limited relevant spirituality research in cirrhosis includes two qualitative studies that identified spirituality as a key determinant of HRQoL and perceptions of medical care.[99, 100] General palliative care guidelines recommend routinely evaluating the spiritual and cultural needs of patients and their families through understanding their preferred communication preferences, values, of spiritual and approaches to death and medical chaplaincy, and spiritual care providers as in the care of patients and families may in providing sensitive palliative care that also their spiritual beliefs and and can also help to support caregivers during the time of Although and spiritual care providers are not across health care patients and their families to include or spiritual from the to in their care can be in work has demonstrated and in palliative care and pain More work is needed to the to which these in health care access versus cultural or in preferences for care. However, a understanding of patients' spiritual and cultural needs may ACP and palliative care to patients with DC from management is a core component of caring for patients with DC, who from often on a systematic the most frequently reported symptoms are pain psychological symptoms anxiety, and Because often not all symptoms can be addressed in a single clinical it is important to an approach to and Although a review of outcomes and is of for this the approach to addressing symptoms may include to questions about or Several such have been in palliative care, including the Assessment of Care and the Assessment Clinicians should assess symptom severity, and and the impact of to the are experienced through the cognitive and of the patient and must be in the context of the symptom ratings should be relative to past ratings from the person over Because clinicians may be with the management of symptoms, particularly at the end of life, a team approach and early to palliative care, social work, and other services are important in providing comprehensive palliative care to patients and In the we the most symptoms and their such as physical therapy and cognitive should be when that these can address multiple symptoms with can be challenging in patients with cirrhosis, a approach is generally Table of and of medications for palliative care of patients with The of pain in persons with cirrhosis can be and Cirrhosis can lead to or pain through ascites, and hepatic or because of of of pain can but the most are (e.g., and (e.g., Table the approach to pain management for patients with cirrhosis, which can be and The in addressing pain is to assess and (e.g., ascites, local and The of pain also the pain is more to therapy than pain management often involves including management, physical and As such, pain (e.g., pain to management, of or with associated may require consultation with palliative care specialists or in pain management. approaches to pain management have not been specifically in patients with cirrhosis, but pain cognitive and physical and therapy are and in other populations for the management of approaches have been in cirrhosis, but is for pain and in Although there are data about the of in patients with cirrhosis, studies of that is likely in patients with and a review the benefits of for cirrhosis more Similarly, can be for limited such as physical therapy remains Because of hepatic and the of encephalopathy, and are generally preferred for management of pain in patients with are generally for These can include as discussed or or Although there are data supporting the of in patients with cirrhosis, they are generally considered and have demonstrated in other are to a of and for (e.g., and pain (e.g., are effective and have limited likely in persons with to 2 daily as 6 as is generally and should be the therapy for pain in this However, patients should be informed that other and may include which the daily are among the most medications in patients with studies the impact of in patients with cirrhosis attributable to of and One trial of patients with cirrhosis demonstrated that of of or was associated with significantly of and of and Thus, should be avoided in patients with cirrhosis. Although has been

Classical eyeblink conditioning is a well-characterized model paradigm that engages the septohippocampal cholinergic system. This form of associative learning is impaired in normal aging and severely disrupted in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Some nicotinic cholinergic receptor subtypes are lost in AD, making the use of nicotinic allosterically potentiating ligands a promising therapeutic strategy. The allosterically potentiating ligand galantamine (Gal) modulates nicotinic cholinergic receptors to increase acetylcholine release as well as acting as an acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitor. Gal was tested in two preclinical experiments. In Experiment 1 with 16 young and 16 older rabbits, Gal (3.0 mg/kg) was administered for 15 days during conditioning, and the drug significantly improved learning, reduced AChE levels, and increased nicotinic receptor binding. In Experiment 2, 53 retired breeder rabbits were tested over a 15-wk period in four conditions. Groups of rabbits received 0.0 (vehicle), 1.0, or 3.0 mg/kg Gal for the entire 15-wk period or 3.0 mg/kg Gal for 15 days and vehicle for the remainder of the experiment. Fifteen daily conditioning sessions and subsequent retention and relearning assessments were spaced at 1-month intervals. The dose of 3.0 mg/kg Gal ameliorated learning deficits significantly during acquisition and retention in the group receiving 3.0 mg/kg Gal continuously. Nicotinic receptor binding was significantly increased in rabbits treated for 15 days with 3.0 mg/kg Gal, and all Gal-treated rabbits had lower levels of brain AChE. The efficacy of Gal in a learning paradigm severely impaired in AD is consistent with outcomes in clinical studies.