Harmonising APASL and A-TANGO criteria for acute-on-chronic liver failure: identification of complementary high-risk pre-ACLF populations
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background & Aims
ACLF is defined differently by APASL (acute hepatic dysfunction) and by organ failure-based frameworks including EASL-CLIF and the recently developed A-TANGO score. Whether these definitions identify competing populations or sequential stages of the same syndrome remains unresolved, with direct implications for the timing of intervention. We tested whether APASL-defined ACLF can be integrated into the A-TANGO framework to identify a clinically actionable patient population.
Methods
4,024 patients hospitalised with acute decompensation of cirrhosis in a multicentre cohort were classified simultaneously by APASL and A-TANGO criteria. Mortality, progression to A-TANGO ACLF among A-TANGO-negative patients, and reversal of ACLF were assessed using Fine-Gray competing-risk models with death as a competing event. EASL-CLIF analyses were performed as sensitivity analyses.
Results
A-TANGO-negative/APASL-positive patients comprised 8.7% of the cohort and had higher 90-day mortality than A-TANGO-negative/APASL-negative patients (22.3% vs 14.4%, p=0.001), despite similar 28-day mortality. Once A-TANGO ACLF was established, 28-day mortality was high irrespective of APASL status (45.4% in APASL-positive and 56.0% in APASL-negative patients). Among A-TANGO-negative patients, 53.5% of APASL-positive vs 27.9% of APASL-negative patients progressed to A-TANGO ACLF within 28 days, with APASL positivity independently predicting progression (adjusted sHR: 2.30, 95%CI: 1.90-2.77). Within A-TANGO-negative/APASL-negative patients an A-TANGO OF score ≥8 independently enriched for progression (52% vs 19%). A-TANGO reversal occurred in 17.1% and was independently reduced by APASL positivity (adjusted sHR: 0.756, 95%CI: 0.586-0.975), while APASL reversal was rare (4.0%). EASL-CLIF sensitivity analyses were directionally consistent.
Conclusions
APASL-defined ACLF does not compete with A-TANGO; it occupies an upstream position on the same disease trajectory. A-TANGO-negative/APASL-positive patients and A-TANGO-negative/APASL-negative patients with A-TANGO OF ≥8 represent complementary pre-ACLF populations suitable for prevention trials and enrichment strategies.
