Oral Presentation Β· Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis Sidik-Jonkman Random-Effects Model (JASP v0.16)

Clinical Characteristics and Discriminative Ability of Prognostic Scoring Systems in Hepatitis B-Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ida Bagus Aditya Bhaskara1 | Bernard Jonathan Christian Yong1 | I Made Suma Wirawan2

1 Intern Physician, Department of Internal Medicine, Wangaya Regional General Hospital (RSUD Wangaya), Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia

2 Internist / Gastroenterologist-Hepatologist, Department of Internal Medicine, RSUD Wangaya, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia

Correspondence: ibhaskaradit@gmail.com

πŸ₯ˆ 2ND PLACE WINNER · ORAL PRESENTATION DUGeM 2022 Denpasar Update Gastroentero-hepatology Meeting
27 Studies Β· 6,017 Patients with HBV-ACLF
Slide 01

INTRODUCTION & CLINICAL BACKGROUND

Syndrome Rationale & Golden Period
01

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a devastating, life-threatening clinical syndrome distinct from acute liver failure and routine decompensated cirrhosis. It is defined by acute hepatic insult, rapid systemic deterioration, and severe short-term mortality (>70% without emergency transplantation).

02

Reversibility in the Golden Period: Despite fulminant progression and extreme short-term lethality, ACLF harbors substantial potential for full clinical recovery if identified and aggressively managed during the early "golden window".

03

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Epidemiology: Indonesia carries intermediate-to-high HBV endemicity. Chronic hepatitis B is the predominant underlying cause of ACLF throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

04

Lack of Universal Consensus: Two major diagnostic criteria predominate: APASL (Asia-Pacific) and EASL-CLIF (Europe). APASL was selected because it is representative of Asian/Indonesian HBV-predominant cohorts and detects patients prior to irreversible multiorgan failure.

05

Prognostic Scores: Multiple staging systems (CTP, MELD, MELD-Na, CLIF-C ACLF, CLIF-C OF, AARC, and COSSH) are used for clinical decision-making, intensive care triage, and liver allocation, but their comparative discrimination in HBV-ACLF has not been systematically established.

Syndrome Profile Β· HBV-ACLF Burden
>70% Untreated Mortality
#1 HBV in Asia-Pac
Golden Reversal Window
Clinical Imperative Early Discriminative Triage
Study Objectives:
  • 1. Synthesize the discriminative performance (C-statistic / AUROC) of prognostic scores for 28-day and 90-day transplant-free mortality in adult HBV-ACLF.
  • 2. Establish the pooled prevalence of baseline cirrhosis, precipitating triggers, complications, and organ failure patterns.
Slide 02

METHODS: PICOTS FRAMEWORK & PRISMA 2020 FLOW

Systematic Review Protocol & Synthesis
Clinical Research Question (PICOTS) Synthesizing External Validation Studies

β€œWhat is the discriminative ability of MELD, MELD-Na, CTP, CLIF-C OF, CLIF-C ACLF, AARC-ACLF, and COSSH-ACLF in predicting 28-day and 90-day transplant-free mortality in adult HBV-ACLF patients without liver transplantation under APASL diagnostic criteria?”

P Population

Adults (≥18 y) with HBV-related ACLF diagnosed by APASL consensus criteria.

I Index Score

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD).

C Comparators

MELD-Na, CTP, CLIF-C OF, CLIF-C ACLF, AARC-ACLF, and COSSH-ACLF.

O Outcomes

Transplant-free mortality, quantified by C-statistic / AUROC.

T Timing

Short-term prognostic horizons: 28 days and 90 days post-admission.

S Setting

Early clinical risk triage, medical therapy, and emergency liver allocation.

Inclusion Criteria (APASL)
  • Adults with compensated cirrhosis or non-cirrhotic CLD
  • Severe jaundice: total bilirubin ≥ 5 mg/dL
  • Coagulopathy: INR ≥ 1.5 or prothrombin activity < 40%
  • Complicated within 4 weeks by ascites and/or encephalopathy
  • Reporting external validation AUROC / C-statistic
Exclusion Criteria
  • Non-English manuscripts or abstract-only reports
  • Diagnostic criteria other than APASL or mixed definitions
  • Non-HBV etiology or decompensated cirrhosis at baseline
  • Mortality reported only > 90 days
  • Patients receiving liver transplantation prior to outcome
Meta-Analytic Methods

Pooled prevalence synthesized with double-arcsine transformation via Meta-XL (Microsoft Excel). Pooled C-statistics calculated via Sidik-Jonkman random-effects method in JASP v0.16.0.0. Publication bias assessed via Egger's funnel asymmetry; study quality assessed with PROBAST.

High Rigor Systematic Review Protocol
Study Selection Process PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram
Click any stage for detailed exclusion breakdown
1. Identification n = 400

Database searches across 3 sources:

β€’ PubMed: 100
β€’ ScienceDirect: 245
β€’ Semantic Scholar: 55
2. Deduplication n = 176

Duplicates systematically removed:

-224 Duplicate records eliminated
3. Screening n = 54

Title and abstract evaluation:

169 excluded due to irrelevant themes / criteria
4. Eligibility n = 45

Full-text scrutinized (18 excluded):

β€’ Non-APASL criteria (8)
β€’ Mixed criteria / Non-HBV (2)
β€’ Transplant / ALSS (2)
β€’ Missing AUROC / score (2)
5. Included n = 27

Full Synthesis Cohorts

16 Prospective Studies 10 Retrospective Studies 1 Pro-Retrospective
Slide 03

POOLED CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS & PREVALENCE

Meta-XL Double-Arcsine Transformation
27
Cohort Origin & Demographics All 27 studies conducted in China (representing regional East Asian HBV hub)
Male Predominance: 57.1% – 92.6% Mean Age Range: 40.0 – 51.2 years (Median 46.34, IQR 2.24)
1. Triggers & Cirrhosis Etiology
Compensated Cirrhosis 51% (43–59%)
HBV Reactivation 54% (42–66%)
Bacterial Infection 17% (10–25%)
Alcohol Intake 6% (3–10%)
Hepatotoxic Drugs / TCM 5% (2–9%)
Unknown Cause 26% (19–33%)
HBV reactivation is the primary trigger
2. Complications Severity
Ascites (Most Common) 60% (54–65%)
Spontaneous Peritonitis (SBP) 37% (23–53%)
Hepatic Encephalopathy 24% (19–28%)
Hepatorenal Syndrome (HRS) 7% (5–10%)
Upper GI Bleeding 6% (3–11%)
Ascites occurs in 6 out of 10 patients
3. Organ Failures SOFA/CLIF
Liver Failure 78% (76–81%)
Coagulation Failure 26% (23–29%)
Renal Failure 7% (4–12%)
Cerebral Failure 7% (4–11%)
Respiratory Failure 4% (0–13%)
Circulatory Failure 3% (1–8%)
Intrahepatic & coagulopathy predominate
4. Short-Term Lethality Mortality
28-Day Mortality (Without Transplant)
31% 95% CI 25% – 36%
n = 3,725 patients (Q = 209.30, IΒ² = 92%)
90-Day Mortality (Without Transplant)
42% 95% CI 38% – 46%
n = 5,553 patients (Q = 290.10, IΒ² = 90%)
Over 4 in 10 patients die by day 90
Inspect Original Forest Plots from Presentation:
Slide 04

RESULTS: C-STATISTIC DISCRIMINATION META-ANALYSIS

28-Day Mortality
Sidik-Jonkman Random-Effects Model (JASP v0.16)
1. COSSH Superiority COSSH-ACLF possesses the highest discrimination both at 28 days (C-index 0.84 [0.79–0.88]) and 90 days (0.78 [0.69–0.85]), outperforming all other traditional and multiorgan scores.
2. Multiorgan Failure Weighting Scores incorporating comprehensive organ failure assessments (COSSH-ACLF, CLIF-C OF, CLIF-C ACLF) consistently achieve superior discrimination compared to MELD, MELD-Na, and CTP.
3. No Publication Bias Egger's regression asymmetry test demonstrated no significant publication bias across all evaluated scoring systems (all p-values > 0.05).
Slide 05

CRITICAL APPRAISAL & RISK OF BIAS (PROBAST)

Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool across 27 studies

PROBAST Domain Quality Distribution (27 Included Studies)
1. Participant Selection 15 Low (56%) | 11 High (41%) | 1 Unclear (3%)
15 Low
11 High
2. Predictors / Scoring Systems 27 Low (100%)
27 Low Risk (100%)
3. Outcome Definition (Mortality) 27 Low (100%)
27 Low Risk (100%)
4. Statistical Analysis 0 Low (0%) | 19 High (70%) | 8 Unclear (30%)
19 High Risk (70%)
8 Unclear (30%)
Low Risk
High Risk
Unclear
Methodological Summary (PROBAST Guidelines)

High Reliability in Measurement: The vast majority of included studies exhibited low risk of bias in the Participant, Predictor, and Outcome domains, as predictors (laboratory values) and outcomes (all-cause death at 28/90 days) are objective and well-standardized.

Vulnerability in Analysis Domain: Risk of bias was high in the Analysis domain across 70% of studies. This was driven primarily by two methodological shortcomings: (1) death events < 100 in smaller validation samples, and (2) complete-case analysis without explicit reporting of missing data handling strategies.

Slide 06

ACLF DEFINITIONS: EAST (APASL) VS WEST (EASL-CLIF)

Comparative appraisal of diagnostic paradigms and suitability for Indonesia

Diagnostic Domain EASL-CLIF Criteria (West / Europe) APASL Criteria (East / Asia-Pacific)
Underlying Chronic Liver Disease Exclusively strictly acute decompensation of cirrhosis. Compensated cirrhosis OR non-cirrhotic chronic liver disease (CLD).
Acute Precipitating Insults Alcohol, hepatotoxic drugs, hepatotropic viruses, surgery, sepsis, variceal bleeding. Alcohol, drugs, hepatotropic virus reactivation (HBV flare), surgery, trauma.
Primary Organ Failure Concept Multisystem organ failure (6 organs via CLIF-C OF, especially renal; hepatic is only one component). Acute hepatic failure is the primary core prerequisite (Bilirubin ≥ 5 mg/dL + INR ≥ 1.5).
Precipitation Onset Horizon Not strictly limited to a defined time interval. Rapid onset: complicated by ascites and/or encephalopathy within ≤ 4 weeks.
Rationale for APASL Framework in Indonesia:

APASL diagnostic criteria were deliberately selected for this study because they are significantly more representative of liver pathology in Indonesia and the broader Asia-Pacific region. Unlike Western Europe where alcoholic decompensated cirrhosis predominates, Indonesian epidemiology is driven by endemic chronic hepatitis B. APASL offers a more homogeneous cohort, practical bedside criteria, and enables detection of patients at an earlier stage before irreversible extrahepatic multiorgan shutdown occurs.

Slide 07

PROGNOSTIC SCORING SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE

Mathematical formulas, organ failure weighting, and cohort derivation backgrounds

Traditional Cirrhosis Models Limited Parameters
1. Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP)

Scores bilirubin, albumin, INR, and subjective categories of ascites and encephalopathy (5–15 points).

Lowest Discrimination: Pooled C-index 0.64–0.65 in HBV-ACLF due to subjective grading and ceiling limits for bilirubin.
2. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)
MELD = 3.78×ln(bilirubin) + 11.20×ln(INR) + 9.57×ln(creatinine) + 6.43

Captures 3 organ systems (liver, coagulation, kidney). Demonstrates solid baseline discrimination (C-index 0.75).

3. MELD-Na (Sodium-Corrected MELD)

Adds serum sodium to account for ascites/hemodynamic strain. However, in HBV-ACLF, MELD-Na was slightly inferior to classic MELD for 90-day mortality (0.71 vs 0.75).

Modern Multiorgan ACLF Scores Comprehensive
1. CLIF-C OF & CLIF-C ACLF (European EASL)

Assesses 6 organ systems (liver, kidney, brain, coagulation, circulation, respiration) + age + WBC count.

Strong 28-day discrimination (C-index 0.80–0.83), but derived from Western alcoholic cirrhosis.

2. AARC-ACLF (Asia-Pacific APASL)

Asian consortium score incorporating total bilirubin, hepatic encephalopathy grade, INR, lactate, and creatinine (C-index 0.79 at 28d, 0.71 at 90d).

3. COSSH-ACLF (Chinese Alliance) Highest Accuracy
COSSH = 0.741×INR + 0.523×HBV-SOFA + 0.026×age + 0.003×bilirubin

Specifically developed from an exclusive HBV-ACLF cohort (Wu et al. Gut 2017). Modifies CLIF-C OF organ failure thresholds to fit acute intrahepatic necrosis, delivering the highest discrimination at 28 days (0.84) and 90 days (0.78).

Slide 08

DISCUSSION & COHORT BENCHMARKING

This Meta-Analysis vs COSSH Cohort
Predominance of Intrahepatic Failure

HBV-ACLF in the Asia-Pacific region is characterized by severe acute hepatocellular destruction following viral flares, reflected in pooled liver failure (78%) and coagulopathy (26%). This contrasts with Western alcoholic ACLF where extrahepatic renal (kidney) and circulatory failures dominate.

Meta-Analysis Alignment with COSSH Cohort

The pooled clinical parameters synthesized in this meta-analysis (51% cirrhosis, 60% ascites, 24% HE, 31% 28d mortality) closely align with the original COSSH development and validation cohorts (Wu et al. Gut 2017), explaining why COSSH-ACLF consistently yields superior discriminative C-statistics.

Multiorgan Scoring Superiority

Scores incorporating organ failure criteria (COSSH-ACLF, CLIF-C OF, CLIF-C ACLF) consistently outperformed classical cirrhosis models (MELD, MELD-Na, CTP). Because ACLF mortality is governed by systemic inflammatory cascade and extrahepatic organ collapse, multiorgan scoring is mandatory for accurate clinical triage.

Study Limitations & Indonesian Imperative

Limitations include absence of calibration reporting (observed vs expected risk), high risk of bias in the PROBAST analysis domain in small studies, and origin of all studies from China. There is an urgent, indispensable need for prospective external validation in Indonesian HBV-ACLF cohorts.

Slide 09

CONCLUSION & CLINICAL PRACTICE TAKEAWAYS

Key Takeaways

COSSH-ACLF demonstrates the highest discriminative performance in adult HBV-ACLF patients for both 28-day (pooled C-index 0.84) and 90-day (pooled C-index 0.78) transplant-free mortality. Prognostic models incorporating comprehensive organ failure assessments should be preferred for early clinical triage and liver transplant prioritization.

Best Clinical Model

COSSH-ACLF (0.84 at 28d, 0.78 at 90d) is specifically optimized for HBV etiology and intrahepatic failure, outperforming general hepatology scores.

Multiorgan Paradigm

Multiorgan scores (COSSH, CLIF-C) surpass traditional models (MELD, CTP). Organ failure assessment is indispensable in ACLF management.

Future Research Direction

Prospective external validation of COSSH-ACLF and calibration assessments in Indonesian hospitals represent an urgent clinical priority.

Clinical Recommendation: Prioritize COSSH-ACLF for Early Triage, ALSS, & Transplant Prioritization Department of Internal Medicine, RSUD Wangaya, Denpasar, Bali