| Literature DB >> 35836768 |
Jun Yang1, Ran Xue1,2, Jing Wu1, Lin Jia1, Juan Li1, Hongwei Yu1, Yueke Zhu1, Jinling Dong1, Qinghua Meng1.
Abstract
Background and Aims: It is challenging to predict the 90-day outcomes of patients infected with hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (HBV-ACLF) via prevailing predictive models. This study aimed to develop an innovative model to enhance the analytical efficacy of 90-day mortality in HBV-ACLF.Entities:
Keywords: Acute-on-chronic hepatitis B liver failure; MELD; Nomogram
Year: 2021 PMID: 35836768 PMCID: PMC9240246 DOI: 10.14218/JCTH.2021.00202
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Transl Hepatol ISSN: 2225-0719
Baseline characteristics of the study cohort
| Characteristics | Training | Validation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No of patients | 149 | 31 | |
| Age in years | 45.14±12.4 | 47.97±10.28 | <0.0001 |
| Sex | |||
| Female | 16 | 3 | 1 |
| Male | 133 | 28 | 0.501 |
| HBeAg | |||
| Yes | 81 | 20 | 0.582 |
| No | 68 | 11 | 0.829 |
| Ascites | |||
| Yes | 86 | 13 | 0.981 |
| No | 63 | 18 | 0.119 |
| Infection | |||
| Yes | 76 | 6 | 1 |
| No | 73 | 25 | 0.176 |
| Electrolytes | |||
| Yes | 13 | 2 | 1 |
| No | 136 | 29 | 0.316 |
| HE | |||
| Yes | 14 | 0 | 0.000 |
| No | 135 | 31 | 0.281 |
| HRS | |||
| Yes | 5 | 0 | 0.000 |
| No | 144 | 31 | 0.346 |
| Hydrothorax | |||
| Yes | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| No | 143 | 29 | 0.391 |
| Entecavir | |||
| Yes | 28 | 6 | 1 |
| No | 121 | 25 | 0.425 |
| Cirrhosis | |||
| Yes | 121 | 24 | 0.962 |
| No | 28 | 7 | 0.2 |
| Time (days) | 20 (10.0, 30.0) | 15 (10.0, 30.0) | 0.218 |
| lgHBV DNA | 4.96 (3.3, 6.3) | 4.27 (3.2, 5.7) | 0.643 |
| HBsAg | 3,100 (414.4, 6,505.5) | 250.0 (154.1, 5,442.0) | 0.071 |
| ALT (U/L) | 307.0 (121.7, 561.0) | 331.0 (202.8, 486.0) | 0.639 |
| AST (U/L) | 218.0 (157.8, 507.1) | 231.0 (140.0, 512.5) | 0.995 |
| Tbil (μmol/L) | 336.8 (249.9, 471.7) | 283.7 (212.3, 342.5) | 0.018 |
| ALB (g/L) | 31.04±4.03 | 30.38±3.18 | 0.121 |
| BUN | 4.04 (3.2, 6.2) | 4.00 (3.4, 5.3) | 0.890 |
| Cr | 65.0 (55.6, 78.6) | 71.0 (62.0, 85.0) | 0.205 |
| NH3 | 85.13±41.89 | 63.53±35.44 | 0.837 |
| TG | 0.83 (0.55, 1.36) | 0.83 (0.54, 1.41) | 0.753 |
| CHO | 2.21 (1.8, 2.8) | 1.96 (1.7, 2.4) | 0.182 |
| WBC | 6.54 (4.9, 8.9) | 5.45 (4.6, 7.9) | 0.181 |
| L% | 19.2 (14.3, 26.4) | 20 (14.8, 28.1) | 0.414 |
| M% | 9.31±3.8 | 10.89±3.64 | 0.692 |
| N% | 67.3 (60.6, 76.7) | 61 (5.7, 70.3) | 0.006 |
| PTA | 35.63±9.53 | 36.84±7.0 | 0.269 |
| INR | 1.97 (1.7, 2.3) | 1.79 (1.6, 2.0) | 0.035 |
| RBC | 3.89±0.86 | 3.85±0.79 | 0.747 |
| HGB | 126 (109.0, 139.5) | 131 (113.0, 142.0) | 0.637 |
| PLT | 102 (66.5, 129.0) | 88 (60.4, 146.0) | 0.789 |
ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate transaminase; BUN, urea nitrogen; CHO, cholesterol ; HBsAg, hepatitis B virus surface antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HE, hepatic encephalopathy; HGB, hemoglobin; HRS, hepatorenal syndrome; INR, international normalized ratio; L, lymphocyte; M, monocyte; N, neutrophil; NH3, blood ammonia; PLT, platelet; PTA, prothrombin activity; RBC, red blood cell; TBIL, total bilirubin; TG , triglyceride; WBC, white blood cell.
Fig. 1Results of the 33 variables in the LASSO regression.
(A) Features’ selection using LASSO regularization. LASSO coefficient profiles (y-axis) of the 33 features. The lower x-axis indicates the log (λ). The top x-axis indicates the average number of predictors. (B) Identification of the optimal penalization coefficient (λ) in the LASSO model performed via 3-fold cross-validation based on minimum criteria. LASSO, Least-absolute shrinkage and selection operator.
Multivariable predictors of mortality for the training cohort
| Variable | β-coefficient | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tbil | 0.006 | 1.006 (1.003, 1.009) | 0.000 |
| PTA | −0.107 | 0.899 (0.850, 0.950) | 0.000 |
| L% | −0.116 | 0.890 (0.837, 0.947) | 0.000 |
| M% | 0.199 | 1.220 (1.066, 1.395) | 0.004 |
| Age | 0.048 | 1.049 (1.013, 1.087) | 0.008 |
Fig. 2Construction of prediction nomogram in the training cohort.
The value of each variable was given a score on the point scale axis. A total score could be easily calculated by adding every single score and projecting the total score to the lower total point scale. As such, the probability of death was able to be estimated. The nomogram is composed of age, L, M, PTA, and Tbil. L, lymphocyte; M, monocyte; PTA, prothrombin activity; Tbil, total bilirubin.
Fig. 3Calibration and decision curve analysis of the nomogram.
The calibration curve and decision curve in the training cohort (A, C) and validation cohort 1 (B, D). (A, B) The x-axis indicates the estimated viability derived from the nomogram, and the y-axis characterizes the real survival. (C, D) The y-axis measures the net benefit. The red line represents the MELD score. The blue line represents the nomogram. The grey line represents all patients. The net benefit was calculated by subtracting the proportion of all patients who are false positive from the proportion, which is a true positive.
Fig. 4ROC curves in the training cohort (P1) and validation cohort (P2).
The ROC curve is used to distinguish the validation (P2) and MELD score, and the training (P1) and MELD score, respectively. MELD, model for end-stage liver disease.
Predictive value of mortality for the training and validation cohorts
| Model | AUROC | 95% CI | Youden’s index | Sensitivity, % | Specificity, % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 0.864 | 0.798–0.915 | 0.0008 | 0.5847 | 87.50 | 70.97 |
| P2 | 0.874 | 0.705–0.965 | 0.0962 | 0.6429 | 64.29 | 100.0 |
| MELD | 0.723 | 0.644–0.793 | 0.4382 | 75.0 | 68.82 |
P1, training; P2, validation. MELD, model for end-stage liver disease.