| Literature DB >> 31943691 |
Vanessa Stadlbauer1,2, Irina Komarova1, Ingeborg Klymiuk3, Marija Durdevic3,4, Alexander Reisinger5, Andreas Blesl1, Florian Rainer1, Angela Horvath1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Compositional changes of the faecal microbiome in cirrhosis are well described and have been associated with complications and prognosis. However, it is less well known, which disease or treatment-related factors affect microbiome composition most distinctively.Entities:
Keywords: aetiology; cirrhosis; disease severity; inflammation; malnutrition; proton pump inhibitor
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31943691 PMCID: PMC7187411 DOI: 10.1111/liv.14382
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Liver Int ISSN: 1478-3223 Impact factor: 5.828
Patient characteristics
| Cirrhosis (n = 88) | |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 58 (56; 61) |
| Sex (m/f) | 62/26 (70.5%/29.5%) |
| Aetiology (alcohol/hepatitis C/other) | 47/16/25 (53.4%/18.2%/ 28.4%) |
| Child‐Pugh Grade (A/B/C) | 66/20/2 (75%/22.7%/2.3%) |
| MELD score | 10 (9;12) |
| SGA Grade (adequate/moderate malnutrition) | 71/17 (80.7%/19.3%) |
| PPI (y/n) | 48/40 (54.5%/45.5%) |
| Lactulose (y/n) | 9/79 (10.2%/89.8%) |
| Albumin (mg/dl) | 4.2 (4.0; 4.3) |
| Bilirubin (mg/dl) | 1.2 (1.0; 3.0) |
| CRP (mg/l) | 2.5 (1.9; 3.0) |
| Creatinine (mg/dl) | 0.84 (0.79;0.9) |
| INR | 1.24 (1.19; 1.27) |
Data are given as absolute numbers and percentage, or median and 95% confidence interval (lower; upper).
Abbreviations: CRP, C‐reactive protein; INR, international normalized ratio; MELD, model of end stage liver disease; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; SGA, subjective global assessment.
Figure 1Multivariate redundancy analysis (RDA+) based on Bray‐Curtis dissimilarity. Disease severity was chosen as grouping variable due to the lowest P‐value on univariate analysis. The effect of the other explanatory variables is also included in the model. The table shows the results of multivariate redundancy analysis for variables with significant effects on univariate analysis
Figure 2Differentially abundant taxa for disease severity groups and PPI use/non‐use based on ANCOM analysis. ANCOM analysis does not report P‐values. All features/genera/families/orders/classes shown in this graph are significantly different between the groups
Figure 3Differentially abundant taxa for aetiology (A‐C) and nutritional status (D‐F) based on ANCOM analysis. ANCOM analysis does not report P‐values. All features/genera/families/orders/classes shown in this graph are significantly different between the groups
Figure 4Differentially abundant taxa for age (A‐C) and CRP (D‐G) based on ANCOM analysis. ANCOM analysis does not report P‐values. All features/genera/families/orders/classes shown in this graph are significantly different between the groups
Figure 5Most differentially abundant taxa selected by Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) for (A) Disease severity, (B) aetiology, (C) PPI use/non‐use, (D) nutritional status
Figure 6Network analysis to identify associations between bacteria and selected host variables. Taxa and explanatory variables are represented as nodes, taxa abundance as node size, and edges represent positive and negative associations. Nodes (genera) are coloured based on their association with selected host variables (disease severity, PPI use/non‐use and aetiology). A, Whole cohort (n = 88). B, Child A cirrhosis (n = 67) and © Child B/C cirrhosis (n = 21)