METHODS: A prospective-retrospective cohort of 985 patients was identified from the APASL-ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) database and the Chinese Study Group. Complications of ACLF (ascites, infection, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, upper gastrointestinal bleeding) as well as cirrhosis and the current main prognostic models were measured for their predictive ability for 28- or 90-day mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 709 patients with HBV-ACLF as defined by the AARC criteria were enrolled. Among these HBV-ACLF patients, the cirrhotic group showed significantly higher mortality and complications than the non-cirrhotic group. A total of 36.1% and 40.1% of patients met the European Association for the Study of Liver (EASL)-Chronic Liver Failure consortium (CLIF-C) criteria in the non-cirrhotic and cirrhotic groups, respectively; these patients had significantly higher rates of mortality and complications than those who did not satisfy the CLIF-C criteria. Furthermore, among patients who did not meet the CLIF-C criteria, the cirrhotic group exhibited higher mortality and complication rates than the non-cirrhotic group, without significant differences in organ failure. The Tongji prognostic predictor model score (TPPMs), which set the number of complications as one of the determinants, showed comparable or superior ability to the Chinese Group on the Study of Severe Hepatitis B-ACLF score (COSSH-ACLFs), APASL-ACLF Research Consortium score (AARC-ACLFs), CLIF-C organ failure score (CLIF-C OFs), CLIF-C-ACLF score (CLIF-C-ACLFs), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (MELDs) and MELD-sodium score (MELD-Nas) in HBV-ACLF patients, especially in cirrhotic HBV--ACLF patients. Patients with two (OR 4.70, 1.88) or three (OR 8.27, 2.65) complications had a significantly higher risk of 28- or 90-day mortality, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The presence of complications is a major risk factor for mortality in HBV-ACLF patients. TPPM possesses high predictive ability in HBV-ACLF patients, especially in cirrhotic HBV-ACLF patients.
Methods: A link to the online survey was sent to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Asia interested in AYA cancer care. Questions covered the demographics and training of HCPs, their understanding of AYA definition, availability and access to specialised AYA services, the support and advice offered during and after treatment, and factors of treatment non-compliance.
Results: We received 268 responses from 22 Asian countries. There was a striking variation in the definition of AYA (median lower age 15 years, median higher age 29 years). The majority of the respondents (78%) did not have access to specialised cancer services and 73% were not aware of any research initiatives for AYA. Over two-thirds (69%) had the option to refer their patients for psychological and/or nutritional support and most advised their patients on a healthy lifestyle. Even so, 46% did not ask about smokeless tobacco habits and only half referred smokers to a smoking cessation service. Furthermore, 29% did not promote human papillomavirus vaccination for girls and 17% did not promote hepatitis B virus vaccination for high-risk individuals. In terms of funding, 69% reported governmental insurance coverage, although 65% reported that patients self-paid, at least partially. Almost half (47%) reported treatment non-compliance or abandonment as an issue, attributed to financial and family problems (72%), loss of follow-up (74%) and seeking of alternative treatments (77%).
Conclusions: Lack of access to and suboptimal delivery of AYA-specialised cancer care services across Asia pose major challenges and require specific interventions.