Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (ACLF): The ‘Kyoto Consensus’-Steps From Asia

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a condition associated with high mortality in the absence of liver transplantation. There have been various definitions proposed worldwide. The first consensus report of the working party of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set in 2004 on ACLF was published in 2009, and the APASL ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) was formed in 2012. The AARC database has prospectively collected nearly 10,500 cases of ACLF from various countries in the Asia-Pacific region. This database has been instrumental in developing the AARC score and grade of ACLF, the concept of the \u27Golden Therapeutic Window\u27, the \u27transplant window\u27, and plasmapheresis as a treatment modality. Also, the data has been key to identifying pediatric ACLF. The European Association for the Study of Liver-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL CLIF) and the North American Association for the Study of the End Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD) from the West added the concepts of organ failure and infection as precipitants for the development of ACLF and CLIF-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and NACSELD scores for prognostication. The Chinese Group on the Study of Severe Hepatitis B (COSSH) added COSSH-ACLF criteria to manage hepatitis b virus-ACLF with and without cirrhosis. The literature supports these definitions to be equally effective in their respective cohorts in identifying patients with high mortality. To overcome the differences and to develop a global consensus, APASL took the initiative and invited the global stakeholders, including opinion leaders from Asia, EASL and AASLD, and other researchers in the field of ACLF to identify the key issues and develop an evidence-based consensus document. The consensus document was presented in a hybrid format at the APASL annual meeting in Kyoto in March 2024. The \u27Kyoto APASL Consensus\u27 presented below carries the final recommendations along with the relevant background information and areas requiring future studies

The dilemma of differentiating between acute hepatitis B and chronic hepatitis B with acute exacerbation: Is quantitative serology the answer?

Background/Aims: Acute exacerbations of chronic hepatitis B (CHB-AEs) are common in endemic areas and are often presumed to be acute hepatitis B (AHB) due to their similarities in clinical and serological pictures, presenting a major diagnostic dilemma. This study aimed to identify laboratory markers for differentiating between the two groups, and to establish the cut-off value for significant markers.&lt;br/&gt;Methods: A retrospective analysis of records was conducted for patients who presented with clinical features of acute hepatitis along with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and IgM antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (IgM anti-HBc) positivity from May 2015 to May 2017. A total of 172 patients were enrolled and grouped as AHB (n=89) and CHB-AE (n=83) based on their history of hepatitis B virus infection and duration of HBsAg persistence. Virological and biochemical parameters were analyzed and compared. Cut-off values, sensitivity, and specificity of the variables were calculated.&lt;br/&gt;Results: The median value of signal by cut-off (S/Co) ratio for IgM anti-HBc was significantly higher in AHB group (30.44) compared to CHB-AE group (8.63) with a sensitivity and specificity of 97% and 84%, respectively, at a cut-off of 20.5 (P&lt;0.01). The mean international normalized ratio (INR) was significantly greater in CHB-AE (1.88±1.24) group compared to AHB group (1.62±0.17) with a sensitivity and specificity of 57.9% and 45.1%, respectively, at a cut-off value of 1.27.&lt;br/&gt;Conclusions: A value of 20.5 S/Co of IgM anti-HBc and 1.27 INR could be helpful in differentiating between AHB and CHB-AE. (Clin Mol Hepatol 2020;26:187-195)</jats:p