4.6 Article

Longitudinal increase in albumin-bilirubin score is associated with non-malignancy- related mortality and quality of life in patients with liver cirrhosis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263464

关键词

-

资金

  1. ROHTO Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the longitudinal increase in ALBI score is closely associated with non-malignancy-related mortality and quality of life, providing evidence for the prevention of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis.
Due to the developments in the treatment for hepatitis, it is possible to prevent the progression of liver fibrosis and improve patients' prognosis even if it has already led to liver cirrhosis (LC). Consequently, a two-step study was conducted. To begin with, a retrospective study was conducted to identify the potential predictors of non-malignancy-related mortality from LC. Then, we prospectively analyzed the validity of these parameters as well as their association with patients' quality of life. In the retrospective study, 89 cases were included, and the multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that age (P = 0.012), model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (P = 0.012), and annual rate of change of the albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with LC prognosis. In the prospective study, 70 patients were included, and the patients were divided into cirrhosis progression and non-progression groups. The univariate logistic regression analysis indicated the serum procollagen type III N-terminal peptide level (P = 0.040) and MELD score (P = 0.010) were significantly associated with the annual rate of change of the ALBI score. Furthermore, the mean Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire score worsened from 5.3 to 4.9 in the cirrhosis progression group (P = 0.034). In conclusion, a longitudinal increase in the ALBI score is closely associated with non-malignancy-related mortality and quality of life.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据