Introduction
Portal hypertension (PH), a key driver of liver-related morbidity, arises as a consequence of static and dynamic changes in the liver parenchyma. While the static PH component is determined by the degree of fibrosis, the analysis of dynamic PH components remains challenging.
Aims & Methods
We aimed to investigate the influence of inflammation on the dynamic component of PH in the setting of liver disease regression in (i) well-standardised mouse models and (ii) abstinent patients with alcohol-related liver cirrhosis (ALD). In male C57BL/6JRj mice, disease regression was modelled by administering carbon tetrachloride or thioacetamide for 12 weeks to induce cirrhosis before discontinuing the toxic stimulus and thus enabling regression for either one (R1; n=15) or two (R2; n=15) weeks. In our patient cohort, we included 128 ALD patients with prolonged abstinence (>1 month) undergoing same-day hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and liver stiffness measurement (LSM). The static component of PH during regression (histological collagen proportionate area [CPA; %] in mice; LSM in patients) was used to predict portal pressure (PP) based on a linear model. Subsequently, we explored parameters affecting the dynamic PH component (i.e., difference between the predicted PP based on LSM/CPA and the true/measured PP) by analysing the linear model’s residuals.
Results
When compared to mice at peak disease severity, withdrawing the toxic stimulus led to a significant decrease in PP, CPA and intrahepatic expression of inflammatory genes (see Table). Despite improvements in hepatic inflammation during regression, the linear model demonstrated a significant association between an increased expression of inflammatory genes and higher-than-expected PP levels in R1 and R2 mice, as shown by the positive correlation between Tnfα (Spearman’s r:0.46; p=0.012), Il6 (r:0.48; p=0.008), Il1β (r:0.39; p=0.036), Cxcl1 (r:0.33; p=0.075) and Mcp1 (r:0.26; p=0.159) with the model’s residuals. Similarly, a longer duration of abstinence in ALD patients was associated with a significantly lower HVPG (r:-0.21; p=0.017), LSM (r:-0.37; p<0.001), IL-6 (r:-0.24; p=0.006) and CRP (r:-0.28; p=0.001). Nevertheless, patients with higher levels of systemic inflammation also demonstrated a higher HVPG than predicted by LSM in the linear model. Specifically, IL-6 (r:0.18; p=0.043) and CRP (r:0.21; p=0.016) were positively correlated with the model’s residuals. Furthermore, levels of complement factor C3c (r:-0.22, p=0.049) and C4 (r:-0.15, p=0.203) were markedly decreased in patients with higher-than-expected HVPG. Interestingly, while the impact of systemic inflammation was primarily found in long-term abstinence (>6 months), the negative correlation with C3c was only present in short-term abstinence (≤6 months).
| Healthy animals n=13 | Diseased animals n=14 | R1 n=15 | R2 n=15 | p-value |
| PP (mmHg) | 5.4 (5.2-5.7) | 8.3 (7.7-9.9) | 7.7 (7.2-8.2) | 6.4 (6.0-8.1) | <0.001 |
| CPA (%) | 0.77 (0.73-0.97) | 4.35 (3.79-16.20) | 4.33 (3.58-9.74) | 3.29 (2.94-5.09) | <0.001 |
| Tnfa (log2 fold change) | 0.00±0.50 | 2.96±0.71 | 1.92±0.57 | 1.98±0.92 | <0.001 |
| Il6 (log2 fold change) | 0.00±0.91 | 1.39±1.34 | -0.69±1.27 | 0.04±1.26 | <0.001 |
| Cxcl1 (log2 fold change) | 0.00±0.72 | 1.52±0.74 | -0.16±0.71 | -0.16±0.78 | <0.001 |
| Il1b (log2 fold change) | 0.00±0.44 | 0.33±0.43 | 0.10±0.55 | 0.77±1.09 | 0.021 |
| Mcp1 (log2 fold change) | 0.00±0.57 | 3.77±1.23 | 1.50±0.63 | 0.87±1.02 | <0.001 |
Conclusion
Despite significant improvements during disease regression, intrahepatic inflammation in mice and systemic inflammation in ALD patients remain critical determinants of the dynamic component of PH.
Disclosure
Benedikt Simbrunner: Travel support from AbbVie and Gilead. Georg Semmler: Travel Support from Gilead. Michael Trauner: Grant support from Albireo, Alnylam, Cymabay, Falk, Gilead, Intercept, MSD, Takeda and UltraGenyx; Honoraria for consulting from Albireo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BiomX, Falk, Genfit, Gilead, Intercept, MSD, Novartis, Phenex, Pliant, Regulus and Shire; Speaker fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Falk, Gilead, Intercept and MSD; Travel support from AbbVie, Falk, Gilead and Intercept. Mattias Mandorfer: Speaker and/or consultant and/or advisory board member for AbbVie, Collective Acumen, Gilead, and W. L. Gore & Associates; Travel support from AbbVie and Gilead. Philipp Schwabl: Consulting fees from PharmaIN; Travel support from Falk and Phenex Pharmaceuticals. Thomas Reiberger: Grant support from Abbvie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Gilead, Gore, Intercept, MSD, Myr Pharmaceuticals, Philips Healthcare, Pliant, and Siemens; Speaking honoraria from Abbvie, Gilead, Gore, Intercept, Roche, MSD; Consulting/advisory board fee from Abbvie, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Gilead, Intercept, MSD, Siemens; Travel support from Abbvie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Gilead and Roche.