Patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) represent a heterogeneous population. The aim of the study is to identify distinct groups according to the etiologies of precipitating events. A total of 405 ACLF patients were identified from 1,361 patients with cirrhosis with acute decompensation and categorized according to the types of acute insults. Clinical characteristics and prognosis between the hepatic group and extrahepatic group were compared, and the performance of prognostic models was tested in different groups. Two distinct groups (hepatic-ACLF and extrahepatic-ACLF) were identified among the ACLF population. Hepatic-ACLF was precipitated by hepatic insults and had relatively wellcompensated cirrhosis with frequent liver and coagulation failure. In contrast, extrahepatic-ACLF was exclusively precipitated by extrahepatic insults, characterized by more severe underlying cirrhosis and high occurrence of extrahepatic organ failures (kidney, cerebral, circulation, and respiratory systems). Both groups had comparably high short-term mortality (28-day transplant-free mortality: 48.3% vs. 50.7%; P 5 0.22); however, the extrahepatic-ACLF group had significantly higher 90-day and 1-year mortality (90-day: 58.9% vs. 68.3%, P 5 0.035; 1-year: 63.9% vs. 74.6%, P 5 0.019). In hepatic-ACLF group, the integrated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (iMELD) score had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (auROC 5 0.787) among various prognostic models in predicting 28-day mortality, whereas CLIF-Consortium scores for ACLF patients (CLIF-C-ACLF) had the highest predictive value in the other group (auROC 5 0.779). Conclusions: ACLF precipitated by hepatic insults is distinct from ACLF precipitated by extrahepatic insults in clinical presentation and prognosis. The iMELD score may be a better predictor for hepatic-ACLF short-term prognosis, whereas CLIF-C-ACLF may be better for extrahepatic-ACLF patients. (HEPATOLOGY 2015;62:232-242)

No abstract

Systemic inflammation in HB-ACLF was characterized by an excessive innate immune response, which was associated with disease progression and mortality.

This study aimed to investigate whether specific medications used in the treatment chronic diseases affected either the development and/ or severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a cohort of 610 COVID-19 cases and 48,667 population-based controls from Zhejiang, China. Using a cohort of 578 COVID-19 cases and 48,667 populationbased controls from Zhejiang, China, we tested the role of usage of cardiovascular, antidiabetic, and other medications on risk and severity of COVID-19. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and body mass index and for presence of relevant comorbidities. Individuals with hypertension taking calcium channel blockers had significantly increased risk (odds ratio (OR) = 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.3) of manifesting symptoms of COVID-19, whereas those taking angiotensin receptor blockers and diuretics had significantly lower disease risk (OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.15-0.30 and OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.19-0.58, respectively). Among those with type 2 diabetes, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (OR = 6.02, 95% CI 2.3-15.5) and insulin (OR = 2.71, 95% CI 1.6-5.5) were more and glucosidase inhibitors were less prevalent (OR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.1-0.3) among with patients with COVID-19. Drugs used in the treatment of hypertension and diabetes influence the risk of development of COVID-19, but, not its severity.