METHODS: A review of the literature identified studies containing histology verified CAP data (M probe, vibration controlled transient elastography with FibroScan®) for grading of steatosis (S0-S3). Receiver operating characteristic analysis after correcting for center effects was used as well as mixed models to test the impact of covariates on CAP. The primary outcome was establishing CAP cut-offs for distinguishing steatosis grades.
RESULTS: Data from 19/21 eligible papers were provided, comprising 3830/3968 (97%) of patients. Considering data overlap and exclusion criteria, 2735 patients were included in the final analysis (37% hepatitis B, 36% hepatitis C, 20% NAFLD/NASH, 7% other). Steatosis distribution was 51%/27%/16%/6% for S0/S1/S2/S3. CAP values in dB/m (95% CI) were influenced by several covariates with an estimated shift of 10 (4.5-17) for NAFLD/NASH patients, 10 (3.5-16) for diabetics and 4.4 (3.8-5.0) per BMI unit. Areas under the curves were 0.823 (0.809-0.837) and 0.865 (0.850-0.880) respectively. Optimal cut-offs were 248 (237-261) and 268 (257-284) for those above S0 and S1 respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: CAP provides a standardized non-invasive measure of hepatic steatosis. Prevalence, etiology, diabetes, and BMI deserve consideration when interpreting CAP. Longitudinal data are needed to demonstrate how CAP relates to clinical outcomes.
LAY SUMMARY: There is an increase in fatty liver for patients with chronic liver disease, linked to the epidemic of the obesity. Invasive liver biopsies are considered the best means of diagnosing fatty liver. The ultrasound based controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) can be used instead, but factors such as the underlying disease, BMI and diabetes must be taken into account. Registration: Prospero CRD42015027238.
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: All publications related to hepatitis B reactivation with the use of immunosuppressive therapy since 1975 were reviewed. Advice from key opinion leaders in member countries/administrative regions of Asian-Pacific Association for the study of the liver was collected and synchronized. Immunosuppressive therapy was risk-stratified according to its reported rate of hepatitis B reactivation.
RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend the necessity to screen all patients for hepatitis B prior to the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy and to administer pre-emptive nucleos(t)ide analogues to those patients with a substantial risk of hepatitis and acute-on-chronic liver failure due to hepatitis B reactivation.
METHODS: A total of 1402 ACLF patients, enrolled in the APASL-ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) with 90-day follow-up, were analyzed. An ACLF score was developed in a derivation cohort (n = 480) and was validated (n = 922).
RESULTS: The overall survival of ACLF patients at 28 days was 51.7%, with a median of 26.3 days. Five baseline variables, total bilirubin, creatinine, serum lactate, INR and hepatic encephalopathy, were found to be independent predictors of mortality, with AUROC in derivation and validation cohorts being 0.80 and 0.78, respectively. AARC-ACLF score (range 5-15) was found to be superior to MELD and CLIF SOFA scores in predicting mortality with an AUROC of 0.80. The point scores were categorized into grades of liver failure (Gr I: 5-7; II: 8-10; and III: 11-15 points) with 28-day cumulative mortalities of 12.7, 44.5 and 85.9%, respectively. The mortality risk could be dynamically calculated as, with each unit increase in AARC-ACLF score above 10, the risk increased by 20%. A score of ≥11 at baseline or persisting in the first week was often seen among nonsurvivors (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The AARC-ACLF score is easy to use, dynamic and reliable, and superior to the existing prediction models. It can reliably predict the need for interventions, such as liver transplant, within the first week.
AIM: To determine how to use CAP in interpreting liver stiffness measurements.
METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from an individual patient data meta-analysis on CAP. The main exclusion criteria for the current analysis were unknown aetiology, unreliable elastography measurement and data already used for the same research question. Aetiology-specific liver stiffness measurement cut-offs were determined and used to estimate positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) with logistic regression as functions of CAP.
RESULTS: Two thousand and fifty eight patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (37% women, 18% NAFLD/NASH, 42% HBV, 40% HCV, 51% significant fibrosis ≥ F2). Youden optimised cut-offs were only sufficient for ruling out cirrhosis (NPV of 98%). With sensitivity and specificity-optimised cut-offs, NPV for ruling out significant fibrosis was moderate (70%) and could be improved slightly through consideration of CAP. PPV for significant fibrosis and cirrhosis were 68% and 55% respectively, despite specificity-optimised cut-offs for cirrhosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Liver stiffness measurement values below aetiology-specific cut-offs are very useful for ruling out cirrhosis, and to a lesser extent for ruling out significant fibrosis. In the case of the latter, Controlled Attenuation Parameter can improve interpretation slightly. Even if cut-offs are very high, liver stiffness measurements are not very reliable for ruling in fibrosis or cirrhosis.
METHODS: We recruited ACLF patients between 2009 and 2020 from APASL-ACLF Research Consortium (AARC). Their clinical data, investigations and organ involvement were serially noted for 90-days and utilized for AI modelling. Data were split randomly into train and validation sets. Multiple AI models, MELD and AARC-Model, were created/optimized on train set. Outcome prediction abilities were evaluated on validation sets through area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and class precision.
RESULTS: Among 2481 ACLF patients, 1501 in train set and 980 in validation set, the extreme gradient boost-cross-validated model (XGB-CV) demonstrated the highest AUC in train (0.999), validation (0.907) and overall sets (0.976) for predicting 30-day outcomes. The AUC and accuracy of the XGB-CV model (%Δ) were 7.0% and 6.9% higher than the standard day-7 AARC model (p
METHODS: ACLF patients recruited from the APASL-ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) were followed up till 30 days, death or transplantation, whichever earlier. Clinical details, including dynamic grades of HE and laboratory data, including ammonia levels, were serially noted.
RESULTS: Of the 3009 ACLF patients, 1315 (43.7%) had HE at presentation; grades I-II in 981 (74.6%) and grades III-IV in 334 (25.4%) patients. The independent predictors of HE at baseline were higher age, systemic inflammatory response, elevated ammonia levels, serum protein, sepsis and MELD score (p
METHODS: Consecutive ACLF patients were monitored for the development of SIRS/sepsis and associated complications and followed till 90 days, liver transplant or death.
RESULTS: Of 561 patients, 201 (35.8%) had no SIRS and 360 (64.2%) had SIRS with or without infection. New onset SIRS and sepsis developed in 74.6% and 8% respectively in a median of 7 (range 4-15) days, at a rate of 11% per day. The cumulative incidence of new SIRS was 29%, 92.8%, and 100% by days 4, 7, and 15. Liver failure, that is, bilirubin > 12 mg/dL (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.05-6.19], P = 0.04) at days 0 and 4, and renal failure at day 4 (OR = 6.74 [95%CI = 1.50-13.29], P = 0.01), independently predicted new onset SIRS. Absence of SIRS in the first week was associated with reduced incidence of organ failure (20% vs 39.4%, P = 0.003), as was the 28-day (17.6% vs 36%, P = 0.02) and 90-day (27.5% vs 51%,P = 0.002) mortality. The 90-day mortality was 61.6% in the total cohort and that for those having no SIRS and SIRS at presentation were 42.8% and 65%, respectively (P
METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the AARC database were analyzed.
RESULTS: Of the 1249 AH patients, (aged 43.8 ± 10.6 years, 96.9% male, AARC score 9.2 ± 1.9), 38.8% died on a 90 day follow-up. Of these, 150 (12.0%) had mild-moderate AH (MAH), 65 (5.2%) had SAH and 1034 (82.8%) had ACLF. Two hundred and eleven (16.9%) patients received CS, of which 101 (47.87%) were steroid responders by day 7 of Lille's model, which was associated with improved survival [Hazard ratio (HR) 0.15, 95% CI 0.12-0.19]. AARC-ACLF grade 3 [OR 0.28, 0.14-0.55] was an independent predictor of steroid non-response and mortality [HR 3.29, 2.63-4.11]. Complications increased with degree of liver failure [AARC grade III vs. II vs I], bacterial infections [48.6% vs. 37% vs. 34.7%; p
METHODS: Patients with AIH-ACLF without baseline infection/hepatic encephalopathy were identified from APASL ACLF research consortium (AARC) database. Diagnosis of AIH-ACLF was based mainly on histology. Those treated with steroids were assessed for non-response (defined as death or liver transplant at 90 days for present study). Laboratory parameters, AARC, and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were assessed at baseline and day 3 to identify early non-response. Utility of dynamic SURFASA score [- 6.80 + 1.92*(D0-INR) + 1.94*(∆%3-INR) + 1.64*(∆%3-bilirubin)] was also evaluated. The performance of early predictors was compared with changes in MELD score at 2 weeks.
RESULTS: Fifty-five out of one hundred and sixty-five patients (age-38.2 ± 15.0 years, 67.2% females) with AIH-ACLF [median MELD 24 (IQR: 22-27); median AARC score 7 (6-9)] given oral prednisolone 40 (20-40) mg per day were analyzed. The 90 day transplant-free survival in this cohort was 45.7% with worse outcomes in those with incident infections (56% vs 28.0%, p = 0.03). The AUROC of pre-therapy AARC score [0.842 (95% CI 0.754-0.93)], MELD [0.837 (95% CI 0.733-0.94)] score and SURFASA score [0.795 (95% CI 0.678-0.911)] were as accurate as ∆MELD at 2 weeks [0.770 (95% CI 0.687-0.845), p = 0.526] and better than ∆MELD at 3 days [0.541 (95% CI 0.395, 0.687), p 6, MELD score > 24 with SURFASA score ≥ - 1.2, could identify non-responders at day 3 (concomitant- 75% vs either - 42%, p
OBJECTIVE: Several European and international consensus statements concerning faecal microbiota transplantation have been issued. While these documents provide overall guidance, we aim to provide a detailed description of all processes that relate to the collection, handling and clinical application of human donor stool in this document.
METHODS: Collaborative subgroups of experts on stool banking drafted concepts for all domains pertaining to stool banking. During a working group meeting in the United European Gastroenterology Week 2019 in Barcelona, these concepts were discussed and finalised to be included in our overall guidance document about faecal microbiota transplantation.
RESULTS: A guidance document for all domains pertaining to stool banking was created. This document includes standard operating manuals for several processes involved with stool banking, such as handling of donor material, storage and donor screening.
CONCLUSION: The implementation of faecal microbiota transplantation by stool banks in concordance with our guidance document will enable quality assurance and guarantee the availability of donor faeces preparations for patients.
METHODOLOGY: One thousand two hundred and sixteen prospectively enrolled patients with ACLF (males 98%, mean age 42.5 ± 9.4 years, mean CTP, MELD and AARC scores of 12 ± 1.4, 29.7 ± 7 and 9.8 ± 2 respectively) from the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) database were analysed retrospectively. Patients with or without metabolic risk factors were compared for severity (CTP, MELD, AARC scores) and day 30 and 90 mortality. Information on overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hypertension and dyslipidaemia were available in 1028 (85%), 1019 (84%), 1017 (84%) and 965 (79%) patients respectively.
RESULTS: Overall, 392 (32%) patients died at day 30 and 528 (43%) at day 90. Overweight/obesity, T2DM, hypertension and dyslipidaemia were present in 154 (15%), 142 (14%), 66 (7%) and 141 (15%) patients, respectively, with no risk factors in 809 (67%) patients. Patients with overweight/obesity had higher MELD scores (30.6 ± 7.1 vs 29.2 ± 6.9, P = .007) and those with dyslipidaemia had higher AARC scores (10.4 ± 1.2 vs 9.8 ± 2, P = .014). Overweight/obesity was associated with increased day 30 mortality (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.06-2.24, P = .023). None of other metabolic risk factors, alone or in combination, had any impact on disease severity or mortality. On multivariate analysis, overweight or obesity was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (aHR 1.91, 95% CI 1.41-2.59, P