Search

Fibromax is a diagnostic tool composed of the combination of 4 non-invasive biomarker panels for the diagnosis of steatosis (SteatoTest), necrosis and inflammation (ActiTest and NashTest-2) and fibrosis (FibroTest). The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of these biomarker panels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). All patients underwent routine labs, a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test, a liver proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) to measure intrahepatic triglyceride content, and a percutaneous liver biopsy to establish the diagnosis of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and to grade and stage the disease in those patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) by 1H-MRS. For determination of the scores, plasma samples were blindly provided to establish the SteatoTest, ActiTest, NashTest-2 and FibroTest scores. A total of 220 patients with T2DM were included in this study. When the ability of the SteatoTest to identify patients with T2DM with NAFLD by 1H-MRS was assessed, the overall performance expressed as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.73 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81). The performance of the ActiTest and NashTest-2 to diagnose definite NASH among patients with T2DM was 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.77) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.76), respectively. Regarding the FibroTest score, its performance to identify patients with moderate or advanced fibrosis was 0.67 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.76) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.83), respectively. Non-invasive panels for the diagnosis of steatosis, NASH and/or fibrosis, which were developed and validated in non-diabetic cohorts, underperformed when applied to a large cohort of patients with T2DM. Results from non-diabetic populations should not be extrapolated to patients with T2DM.

Patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Hydoxy-3-methyglutaryl-coenzyme reductase inhibitors, statins, reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.1 Studies have shown that statins are safe among patients with liver disease, including those with compensated cirrhosis,2 and their use is associated with lower mortality, hepatic decompensation, and possibly hepatocellular carcinoma.3,4 Despite these data, statins are under prescribed among patients with liver disease due to concerns about hepatotoxicity.5 This study aimed to assess prevalence and patient factors associated with indicated statin use in patients with NAFLD in a real-world cohort.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), including its severe form known as steatohepatitis or NASH, are increasingly common in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and can progress to cirrhosis. However, there is limited information on their comorbid medical conditions in “real world” practice. Thus, the disease characteristics of patients with NASH or NASH-cirrhosis (cirrhosis), with or without T2DM, was evaluated in TARGET-NASH, an ongoing longitudinal observational study of patients with NAFLD, who are managed according to local standards at 60 community and academic hepatology and endocrinology practices in the United States. Among 3085 patients enrolled with NASH or cirrhosis, 1645 had NASH (47% T2DM) and 1440 had cirrhosis (72% T2DM). Patients with T2DM were older (median 61 vs. 56 years) and had a higher median BMI (34.0 vs. 32.0 kg/m2, p In conclusion, patients with type 2 diabetes and NASH or cirrhosis had more advanced liver disease compared to those without type 2 diabetes. Patients with type 2 diabetes had more than twice the risk of cirrhosis compared to those without type 2 diabetes. These results support a strong link of type 2 diabetes and metabolic risk factors with advanced NASH. Disclosure K. Cusi: Consultant; Self; Allergan plc., AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Cirius Therapeutics, Echosens, Eli Lilly and Company, Inventiva Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk Inc., Poxel SA, Zydus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. M. Roden: Advisory Panel; Self; Servier. Board Member; Self; Poxel SA. Consultant; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., ProSciento, TARGET PharmaSolutions. Research Support; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Novartis Pharma K.K., Sanofi US. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. A.S. Barritt: Consultant; Self; GENFIT, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., TARGET PharmaSolutions. R.J. Firpi: None. V. Clark: Research Support; Self; GENFIT, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc. S. Klein: Advisory Panel; Self; Danone Nutricia, Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer Inc. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Aspire Bariatrics. A. Lok: None. P. Newsome: Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. K. Corbin: None. M.B. Vos: Advisory Panel; Self; TARGET PharmaSolutions. Consultant; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Immuron, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk A/S. Research Support; Self; Bristol Myers Squibb. R. Reddy: Advisory Panel; Self; Ambys, Epigenomics AG, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Conatus Pharmaceuticals, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., Inc. C. Schoen: None. A.R. Mospan: Employee; Self; TARGET PharmaSolutions. J.L. Taunk: None. K. Wyne: Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc. Research Support; Self; Sanofi. B. Neuschwander-Tetri: Advisory Panel; Self; 89Bio, Allysta, ARTham, Blade, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gelesis, GENFIT, Histoindex, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medpace, Merck & Co., Inc., Sagimet, Siemens Corporation. Consultant; Self; Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Axcella, DURECT Corporation, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fortress, Indalo, Innovo, Lipocine, Mundipharma International, pH-Pharma, TARGET PharmaSolutions. A. Sanyal: Consultant; Self; Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc. Stock/Shareholder; Self; DURECT Corporation, GENFIT, HemoShear, Sanyal Bio, Tiziana Life Sciences plc. Funding TARGET-NASH

Background: Opioid use is a topic of growing concern among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Given safety concerns of opioids, proactively identifying subgroups of patients with an increased probability of opioid use may encourage practitioners to recommend alternative therapies for pain, thus reducing the likelihood of opioid misuse. This work assessed the prevalence and patient characteristics associated with opioid use in a real-world cohort of patients with NAFLD. Methods: TARGET-NASH, an observational study of participants at 55 academic and community sites in the United States, includes patients with NAFLD defined by pragmatic case definitions. Opioid use was defined as any documented opioid prescriptions in the year prior to enrollment. The association between patient characteristics and the odds of opioid use were modeled with stepwise multivariable logistic regression and tree ensemble methods (Classification and regression tree/Boosted Tree). Results: The cohort included 3,474 adult patients with NAFLD including 18.0% with documented opioid use. Variables associated with opioid use included presence of cirrhosis (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.16–1.98), BMI ≥32 kg/m2 (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05–1.59), depression (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.50–2.33), and anxiety (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.27–1.98). In the boosted tree analysis, history of back pain, depression, and fibromyalgia had the greatest relative importance in predicting opioid use. Conclusion: Prescription opioids were used in nearly 1 of 5 patients with NAFLD. Given the safety concerns of opioids in patients with NAFLD, alternative therapies including low-dose acetaminophen and nonpharmacologic treatments should be considered for these patients.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is typically associated with obesity. Little is known about the prevalence of cirrhosis in patients with NAFLD and a normal body mass index (BMI).We determined prevalence of cirrhosis, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and metabolic abnormalities among participants in all BMI categories in the TARGET-NASH study. A total of 3386 patients with NAFLD were enrolled from August 2016 through March 2019. The odds ratios of cirrhosis, CVD, and metabolic abnormalities were estimated by age and race, adjusting for sex and center type.Based on standard BMI cutoff values, 12.8% of study subjects were lean, 27.1% were overweight, 26.5% had class 1 obesity, and 33.7% had class 2 or 3 obesity. Asians accounted for 48.7% of lean participants, and proportions decreased as BMI categories increased (P .0001). Lower proportions of lean participants had cirrhosis (22.6% vs 40.2% of non-lean participants), CVD history (9.0% vs 14.8% of nonlean participants), diabetes (32.6% vs 53.5% of non-lean participants), hypertension (47.8% vs 67.4% of non-lean participants), or dyslipidemia (54.0% vs 64.1% of non-lean participants). Asian participants had a lower prevalence of cirrhosis, history of CVD, cardiovascular events, and diabetes compared with non-Asians, independent of BMI category. After we adjusted for age, sex, and center type and site, the odds of NAFLD-associated cirrhosis in Asians who were lean was almost half the odds of NAFLD-associated cirrhosis in non-Asians who were lean (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.77).More than 10% participants in a cohort of persons with NAFLD in the United States are lean; Asians account for almost half of the lean persons with NAFLD. Lean participants had a lower prevalence of cirrhosis, CVD, and metabolic abnormalities than non-lean persons with NAFLD. Asian participants had a significantly lower prevalence of cirrhosis, CVD, and metabolic abnormalities than non-Asians in all BMI categories. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02815891.

Objective The objective of this study was to compare posttransplant outcomes in patients undergoing bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) with Y-90 transarterial radioembolization (TARE) based protocol compared with transarterial chemoembolization based protocol for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prior liver transplantation (LT). Materials and methods Patients listed for LT with HCC within the Milan criteria at our center who had bridging LRT were treated according to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) based protocol from May 2012 to April 2014 and a TARE based protocol from October 2014 to December 2017. Early posttransplant survival and tumor recurrence were compared between the groups. Tumor response to LRT, microvascular invasion (mVI), and the rate of delisting was also evaluated. Results One hundred three patients who were listed for LT with HCC within the Milan criteria received LRT. LT was performed in 65 patients, 28 treated with TARE protocol and 37 on TACE protocol. There were no statistical differences in baseline pretransplant characteristics and tumor recurrence. There was a trend toward improved 3-year survival in the TARE group (92.9% vs. 75.7%; P=0.052). The mVI was seen in 1/28 (3.6%) explants in the TARE group compared with 10/37 (27%) in the TACE group (P=0.013). The TARE group also required fewer LRT treatments (1.46 vs. 2.43; P=0.001) despite no difference in time on the transplant list. Conclusions Despite requiring fewer LRT treatments, there was significantly less mVI in the explants of patients treated with TARE protocol LRT as a bridge to LT as well as a trend toward improved 3-year survival. Therefore, TARE may be associated with improved tumor control and reduced post-LT recurrence.

The programmed death 1 (PD-1), programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) immune checkpoints are negative regulators of T-cell immune function. Inhibition of these targets by antibodies (PD-1 blocking therapy) has been explored to treat solid malignancies such as melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and other cancers. PD-1 blocking therapy is known to cause gastrointestinal tract adverse events in some patients and some of the adverse events are thought to be immune-mediated. Cancer patients receiving PD-1 blocking therapy have often failed several lines of chemotherapy and thus potentially are susceptible to a variety of infections including cytomegaloviral infection. However, there has not been any report of concurrent immune-mediated gastroenterocolitis and cytomegaloviral infection in cancer patients receiving PD-1 blocking therapy. Herein, we report one unusual case of histologically confirmed gastritis with features of immune-mediated pangastritis and cytomegaloviral infection in one patient who had metastatic urothelial carcinoma and received PD-1 blocking therapy, initially with atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1 antibody) followed by a switch to pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1 antibody) because of tumor progression. Pembrolizumab was held and intravenous ganciclovir treatment was started, the patient’s symptoms (abdominal pain and vomiting) were significantly improved and she was discharged from the hospital in stable conditions on hospital day 5. Pathologists should be aware of PD-1 blocking therapy-associated immune-mediated gastrointestinal tract adverse effect and concurrent cytomegaloviral infection.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment options are limited for people infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) with decompensated liver disease. The C-SALT study assessed elbasvir (EBR) plus grazoprevir (GZR) in individuals with HCV genotype 1 infection and Child-Pugh class B (CP-B) cirrhosis. METHODS: In this 12-week, phase 2, nonrandomized, open-label study (NCT02115321; Protocol MK-5172-059), participants with CP-B cirrhosis received EBR 50 mg plus GZR 50 mg once daily, and a control group of noncirrhotic participants received EBR 50 mg plus GZR 100 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy was achieved by 27/30 (90.0%) CP-B participants and 10/10 (100.0%) noncirrhotic participants. Two participants relapsed, and one died during follow-up after having undetectable HCV RNA at the end of treatment. Most CP-B participants had stable or improved model for end-stage liver disease and Child-Pugh scores at follow-up week 12 compared with baseline. There was no significant difference in drug exposure between groups, despite the differing GZR dose. Adverse events occurring in >10% of participants were fatigue (CP-B: 30.0%; noncirrhotic: 30.0%), arthralgia (16.7%; 20.0%), nausea (10.0%; 20.0%), and headache (10.0%; 50.0%). No serious treatment-related adverse events or hepatic events of clinical interest occurred. CONCLUSIONS: EBR 50 mg plus GZR 50 mg once daily for 12 weeks was highly effective and well tolerated in a traditionally hard-to-treat population. TRANSLATIONAL IMPACT: Although EBR plus reduced-dose GZR is not available for people with CP-B cirrhosis, these results complement phase 2/3 trial data and real-world experience with EBR/GZR.

Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD), ranging from simple steatosis to its more severe form, steatohepatitis (NASH), is an increasingly common problem in patients with T2DM and is associated with progression to cirrhosis and extrahepatic complications (i.e., cardiovascular disease [CVD]). There is limited information on the clinical profile of T2DM patients with NASH in “real world” practice. Accordingly, we studied the clinical profile of participants (pts) with NASH, with or without T2DM (nonDM), enrolled in TARGET-NASH, a large longitudinal observational study of patients with NAFLD followed at 54 sites (39 academic/15 community) across the U.S. Data collected from medical records (including lab data, imaging, pathology, procedures, and outcomes) is sent to a central database utilizing novel data abstraction technology. Among 1743 pts studied to date in TARGET-NASH, 1261 had NASH diagnosed by biopsy or clinical criteria (699 T2DM and 562 nonDM). Pts with T2DM and NASH were older (median 61 vs. 56 years) and had a higher BMI than nonDM (34.0 vs. 32.0 kg/m2, both p Disclosure K. Cusi: Consultant; Self; Janssen Global Services, LLC., Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Self; Cirius Therapeutics. Other Relationship; Self; Nordic Bioscience. Research Support; Self; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk Inc.. Other Relationship; Self; Quest Diagnostics. Research Support; Self; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.. Other Relationship; Self; OWL metabolomics, Echosens. Research Support; Self; Janssen Global Services, LLC.. Consultant; Self; Tobira Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc. A.S. Barritt: Consultant; Self; Targetpharma solutions. Consultant; Spouse/Partner; Targetpharma solutions, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., AbbVie Inc.. V. Clark: None. R.J. Firpi: None. S. Klein: Stock/Shareholder; Self; Aspire Bariatrics. Consultant; Self; Pfizer Inc.. Research Support; Self; Merck & Co., Inc., Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., REMD Biotherapeutics. A. Lok: None. R. Loomba: Research Support; Self; Adheron, Arora, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo Inc., Galectin, Galmed, GE, Genfit, Gilead, Immuron, Intercept, Kinemed, Madrigal, Merck, NGM, Promedior, Prometheus, Siemens, Sirius, Tobira. Advisory Panel; Self; Arrowhead Research, Conatus, Galmed, Gilead, Intercept, NGM, Nimbus, Octeta, Tobira. Consultant; Self; Alnylam, Bird Rock Bio, BMS, Boehringer Ingleheim, Celgene, Conatus, DeuteRx, Eli Lily, Enanta, Fibrogen, Genkyotex, Gilead, GRI Bio, ISIS, Janssen Inc.Kirin, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM, Nitto Denko, Pf, Sanofi,Scholar Rock, Shire, Tasly, Viking, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, Zafgen. L. Malahias: None. B. Neuschwander-Tetri: None. C. Schoen: None. K. Reddy: Advisory Panel; Self; Gilead Sciences, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., AbbVie Inc.. Other Relationship; Self; Novartis AG, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., AbbVie Inc., Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc., Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. J.L. Taunk: None. K. Wyne: Research Support; Self; Sanofi. Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc.. Research Support; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. A.J. Sanyal: Stock/Shareholder; Self; Sanyal Bio, Genfit, Durect, Indalo, Exhalenz. Consultant; Self; Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intercept. Advisory Panel; Self; Galectin, NGM. Consultant; Self; Pfizer.

We present a rare case of a 46-year-old man presenting with mucinous ascites secondary to malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) that was diagnosed via colonoscopy with biopsies. Both our findings and the clinical presentation were unique. While it is widely known that asbestos exposure is commonly associated with pleural mesothelioma, 6-10% of malignant mesotheliomas arise from the peritoneum. To date, only 4 cases of MPM with the primary tumor site in the colon have been described in the literature.

Liver transplantation (LT) is the main intervention to improve survival of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) patients. There are conflicting reports on the association of pre LT diastolic dysfunction (DD) with post LT risk of clinical heart failure (HF) and mortality. We aimed to retrospectively study

This prospective, randomized, phase 2 study in subjects with recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 postorthotopic liver transplant evaluated once-daily simeprevir 150 mg + sofosbuvir 400 mg, with and without ribavirin 1000 mg. Primary endpoint was proportion of subjects with week 12 sustained virologic response (SVR12). Thirty-three subjects without cirrhosis were randomized 1:1:1 into three arms (stratified by genotype/subtype and Q80K): Arm 1, simeprevir + sofosbuvir + ribavirin, 12 weeks; Arm 2, simeprevir + sofosbuvir, 12 weeks; Arm 3, simeprevir + sofosbuvir, 24 weeks; 13 additional subjects (two with cirrhosis, 11 without cirrhosis) entered Arm 3. All 46 subjects received at least one dose of study drug; median age, 60 years; 73.9% male; 80.4% White; 71.7% genotype/subtype 1a [12 (36.4%) of these had Q80K]; median 4.5 years post-transplant. Among randomized subjects, SVR12 was achieved by 81.8% in Arm 1, 100% in Arm 2, and 93.9% in Arm 3; two subjects did not achieve SVR12: one viral relapse (follow-up week 4; Arm 1) and one missing follow-up week 12 data. In total, five subjects had a serious adverse event, considered unrelated to treatment per investigator. Simeprevir exposure was increased relative to the nontransplant setting, but not considered clinically relevant. Simeprevir + sofosbuvir treatment, with or without ribavirin, was efficacious and well tolerated (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02165189).

Hepatitis C is a devastating illness which has the potential in the majority of cases to lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Worldwide, the number living with chronic hepatitis C approaches 185 million. Up until recently, the regimen of peg-IFN and ribavirin stood as the standard of care and is still commonly used as first line therapy. This is rapidly changing. Direct acting antivirals have altered the landscape drastically. By understanding the genome of the hepatitis C virus, scientists and researchers have been able to exploit its mechanism of transmission by creating inhibitors against several of the nonstructural proteins that are integral to HCV replication and function [NS3/4 protease, NS5A polymerase, and NS5B polymerases (nucleoside and non-nucleoside)]. The previously reported 50%-70% SVR rates achieved with peg-IFN and RBV are no longer the standard of care. Thanks to direct acting antivirals, IFN free as well as “all oral” regimens are being used to treat HCV. In addition to this, ribavirin-free regimens are also available. These highly effective therapies also provide far less side effects and accomplish better results in less time, thus shortening treatment duration significantly. Additionally, even in the notori‐ ously difficult -to-treat populations, results have been promising.

Over the past several years, more so recently, treatment options for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have seemed to exponentially grow. Up until recently, the regimen of pegylated interferon (peg-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) stood as the standard of care. Direct acting antivirals, which target nonstructural proteins involved in replication and infection of HCV were first approved in 2011 as an addition to the peg-IFN and RBV regimen and with them have come increased sustained virological response rates (SVR). The previously reported 50%-70% SVR rates using the combination of peg-IFN and RBV are no longer the standard of care with direct acting antiviral (DAA) based regimens now achieving SVR of 70%-90%. Peg-IFN free as well as “all oral” regimens are also available. The current randomized controlled trials available show favorable SVRs in patients who are naive to treatment, non-cirrhotic, and not human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-co-infected. What about patients who do not fit into these categories? In this review, we aim to discuss the currently approved and soon to be approved DAAs while focusing on their roles in patients that are treatment experienced, cirrhotic, or co-infected with HIV. In this discussion, review of the clinical trials leading to recent consensus guidelines as well as discussion of barriers to treatment will occur. A case will attempt will be made that social services, including financial support and drug/alcohol treatment, should be provided to all HCV infected patients to improve chances of cure and thus prevention of late stage sequela.

A 45-year-old Caucasian woman, with no known liver disease, was referred to hepatology clinic for liver biopsy after abnormal image findings during a recent adult chicken pox infection. She presented with mildly elevated alkaline phosphatase of 170 U/L and γ-glutamyltransferase of 267 U/L. In clinic, she was asymptomatic with a negative review of systems. Initial laboratory evaluation, including a basic metabolic panel, complete blood count, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase and direct/indirect bilirubin …

Background: Amiodarone is associated with heart block in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure. The safety of amiodarone use in patients with amyloid is unknown. We sought to identify the prevalence of heart block in patients with amyloid and heart failure who received amiodarone and compare them to those without amyloid in elderly patients. Methods: We searched Explorys (Explorys Inc, Cleveland, Ohio), a database that aggregates electronic health records of 45 million patients from 23 integrated health systems in the United States. We included patients who are at least 55 years of age who have heart failure and atrial fibrillation and receive amiodarone therapy. We compared those to age adjusted controls with heart failure and atrial fibrillation without amyloidosis. Results: We identified 640 patients with amyloid and 87280 patients without amyloid. Prevalence of block was higher in patients with amyloid on amiodarone (43.8% vs 30.0%, p!0.0001). When adjusted for age, odds ratio of block was as follows: 55-59 (1.9 [1.4-2.5], p50.0017), 60-64 (1.8 [1.42.4], p50.0002), 65-69 (2.1 [1.7-2.5], p!0.0001), 70-74 (1.2 [0.9-1.6], p50.31), 7579 (1.5 [1.3-1.8], p50.0001), 80-84 (1.2 [1.0-1.5], p50.09), 85-89 (1.3 [1.0-1.8], p50.052), and 90+ (1.2 [0.9-1.7], p50.25), figure. Conclusion: Elderly patients