AIM: To determine the prognostic value of circulating indicators of cell death in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection as the single etiology. METHODS: Full length and caspase cleaved cytokeratin 18 (detected as M65 and M30 antigens) represent circulating indicators of necrosis and apoptosis. M65 and M30 were identified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 169 subjects including healthy controls (n = 33), patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB, n = 55) and patients with ACLF (n = 81). According to the 3-mo survival period, ACLF patients were defined as having spontaneous recovery (n = 33) and non-spontaneous recovery which included deceased patients and those who required liver transplantation (n = 48). RESULTS: Both biomarker levels significantly increased gradually as liver disease progressed (for M65: P < 0.001 for all; for M30: control vs CHB, P = 0.072; others: P < 0.001 for all). In contrast, the M30/M65 ratio was significantly higher in controls compared with CHB patients (P = 0.010) or ACLF patients (P < 0.001). In addition, the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis demonstrated that both biomarkers had diagnostic value (AUC ≥ 0.80) in identifying ACLF from CHB patients. Interestingly, it is worth noting that the M30/M65 ratio was significantly different between spontaneous and non-spontaneous recovery in ACLF patients (P = 0.032). The prognostic value of the M30/M65 ratio was compared with the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and Child-Pugh scores at the 3-mo survival period, the AUC of the M30/M65 ratio was 0.66 with a sensitivity of 52.9% and the highest specificity of 92.6% (MELD:AUC = 0.71; sensitivity, 79.4%; specificity, 63.0%; Child-Pugh: AUC = 0.77; sensitivity, 61.8%; specificity, 88.9%). CONCLUSION: M65 and M30 are strongly associated with liver disease severity. The M30/M65 ratio may be a potential prognostic marker for spontaneous recovery in patients with HBV-related ACLF.
AIM: To determine the prognostic value of circulating indicators of cell death in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection as the single etiology. METHODS: Full length and caspase cleaved cytokeratin 18 (detected as M65 and M30 antigens) represent circulating indicators of necrosis and apoptosis. M65 and M30 were identified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 169 subjects including healthy controls (n = 33), patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB, n = 55) and patients with ACLF (n = 81). According to the 3-mo survival period, ACLF patients were defined as having spontaneous recovery (n = 33) and non-spontaneous recovery which included deceased patients and those who required liver transplantation (n = 48). RESULTS: Both biomarker levels significantly increased gradually as liver disease progressed (for M65: P < 0.001 for all; for M30: control vs CHB, P = 0.072; others: P < 0.001 for all). In contrast, the M30/M65 ratio was significantly higher in controls compared with CHB patients (P = 0.010) or ACLF patients (P < 0.001). In addition, the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis demonstrated that both biomarkers had diagnostic value (AUC ≥ 0.80) in identifying ACLF from CHB patients. Interestingly, it is worth noting that the M30/M65 ratio was significantly different between spontaneous and non-spontaneous recovery in ACLF patients (P = 0.032). The prognostic value of the M30/M65 ratio was compared with the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and Child-Pugh scores at the 3-mo survival period, the AUC of the M30/M65 ratio was 0.66 with a sensitivity of 52.9% and the highest specificity of 92.6% (MELD:AUC = 0.71; sensitivity, 79.4%; specificity, 63.0%; Child-Pugh: AUC = 0.77; sensitivity, 61.8%; specificity, 88.9%). CONCLUSION: M65 and M30 are strongly associated with liver disease severity. The M30/M65 ratio may be a potential prognostic marker for spontaneous recovery in patients with HBV-related ACLF.
Authors: Darren G N Craig; Patricia Lee; Elizabeth A Pryde; Gail S Masterton; Peter C Hayes; Kenneth J Simpson Journal: Liver Int Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Zhengsheng Zou; Jumei Chen; Shaojie Xin; Hanqian Xing; Baosen Li; Jianyu Li; Honghui Shen; Yanping Liu Journal: Zhonghua Shi Yan He Lin Chuang Bing Du Xue Za Zhi Date: 2002-09
Authors: Rajiv Jalan; Pere Gines; Jody C Olson; Rajeshwar P Mookerjee; Richard Moreau; Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao; Vicente Arroyo; Patrick S Kamath Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Anna Rutherford; Lindsay Y King; Linda S Hynan; Chetan Vedvyas; Wenyu Lin; William M Lee; Raymond T Chung Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Richard Moreau; Rajiv Jalan; Pere Gines; Marco Pavesi; Paolo Angeli; Juan Cordoba; Francois Durand; Thierry Gustot; Faouzi Saliba; Marco Domenicali; Alexander Gerbes; Julia Wendon; Carlo Alessandria; Wim Laleman; Stefan Zeuzem; Jonel Trebicka; Mauro Bernardi; Vicente Arroyo Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Hani Oweira; Mahmoud Sadeghi; Daniel Volker; Markus Mieth; Ahmed Zidan; Elias Khajeh; Omid Ghamarnejad; Hamidreza Fonouni; Karl Heinz Weiss; Jan Schmidt; Imad Lahdou; Arianeb Mehrabi Journal: Ann Transplant Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 1.530
Authors: Gautam Mehta; Sam Rousell; Gary Burgess; Mark Morris; Gavin Wright; Stuart McPherson; Catherine Frenette; Matthew Cave; David T Hagerty; Alfred Spada; Rajiv Jalan Journal: J Clin Exp Hepatol Date: 2017-11-22
Authors: Mark J W McPhail; Debbie L Shawcross; Matthew R Lewis; Iona Coltart; Elizabeth J Want; Charalambos G Antoniades; Kiril Veselkov; Evangelos Triantafyllou; Vishal Patel; Oltin Pop; Maria Gomez-Romero; Michael Kyriakides; Rabiya Zia; Robin D Abeles; Mary M E Crossey; Wayel Jassem; John O'Grady; Nigel Heaton; Georg Auzinger; William Bernal; Alberto Quaglia; Muireann Coen; Jeremy K Nicholson; Julia A Wendon; Elaine Holmes; Simon D Taylor-Robinson Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 25.083