Sympathetic nervous activation, mitochondrial dysfunction and outcome in acutely decompensated cirrhosis: the metabolomic prognostic models (CLIF-C MET).
cirrhosis
liver failure
liver metabolism
Journal
Gut
ISSN: 1468-3288
Titre abrégé: Gut
Pays: England
ID NLM: 2985108R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
16
09
2022
accepted:
25
01
2023
medline:
10
7
2023
pubmed:
15
2
2023
entrez:
14
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Current prognostic scores of patients with acutely decompensated cirrhosis (AD), particularly those with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), underestimate the risk of mortality. This is probably because systemic inflammation (SI), the major driver of AD/ACLF, is not reflected in the scores. SI induces metabolic changes, which impair delivery of the necessary energy for the immune reaction. This investigation aimed to identify metabolites associated with short-term (28-day) death and to design metabolomic prognostic models. Two prospective multicentre large cohorts from Europe for investigating ACLF and development of ACLF, CANONIC (discovery, n=831) and PREDICT (validation, n=851), were explored by untargeted serum metabolomics to identify and validate metabolites which could allow improved prognostic modelling. Three prognostic metabolites strongly associated with death were selected to build the models. 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylglycol sulfate is a norepinephrine derivative, which may be derived from the brainstem response to SI. Additionally, galacturonic acid and hexanoylcarnitine are associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. Model 1 included only these three prognostic metabolites and age. Model 2 was built around 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylglycol sulfate, hexanoylcarnitine, bilirubin, international normalised ratio (INR) and age. In the discovery cohort, both models were more accurate in predicting death within 7, 14 and 28 days after admission compared with MELDNa score (C-index: 0.9267, 0.9002 and 0.8424, and 0.9369, 0.9206 and 0.8529, with model 1 and model 2, respectively). Similar results were found in the validation cohort (C-index: 0.940, 0.834 and 0.791, and 0.947, 0.857 and 0.810, with model 1 and model 2, respectively). Also, in ACLF, model 1 and model 2 outperformed MELDNa 7, 14 and 28 days after admission for prediction of mortality. Models including metabolites (CLIF-C MET) reflecting SI, mitochondrial dysfunction and sympathetic system activation are better predictors of short-term mortality than scores based only on organ dysfunction (eg, MELDNa), especially in patients with ACLF.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Current prognostic scores of patients with acutely decompensated cirrhosis (AD), particularly those with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), underestimate the risk of mortality. This is probably because systemic inflammation (SI), the major driver of AD/ACLF, is not reflected in the scores. SI induces metabolic changes, which impair delivery of the necessary energy for the immune reaction. This investigation aimed to identify metabolites associated with short-term (28-day) death and to design metabolomic prognostic models.
METHODS
METHODS
Two prospective multicentre large cohorts from Europe for investigating ACLF and development of ACLF, CANONIC (discovery, n=831) and PREDICT (validation, n=851), were explored by untargeted serum metabolomics to identify and validate metabolites which could allow improved prognostic modelling.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Three prognostic metabolites strongly associated with death were selected to build the models. 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylglycol sulfate is a norepinephrine derivative, which may be derived from the brainstem response to SI. Additionally, galacturonic acid and hexanoylcarnitine are associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. Model 1 included only these three prognostic metabolites and age. Model 2 was built around 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylglycol sulfate, hexanoylcarnitine, bilirubin, international normalised ratio (INR) and age. In the discovery cohort, both models were more accurate in predicting death within 7, 14 and 28 days after admission compared with MELDNa score (C-index: 0.9267, 0.9002 and 0.8424, and 0.9369, 0.9206 and 0.8529, with model 1 and model 2, respectively). Similar results were found in the validation cohort (C-index: 0.940, 0.834 and 0.791, and 0.947, 0.857 and 0.810, with model 1 and model 2, respectively). Also, in ACLF, model 1 and model 2 outperformed MELDNa 7, 14 and 28 days after admission for prediction of mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Models including metabolites (CLIF-C MET) reflecting SI, mitochondrial dysfunction and sympathetic system activation are better predictors of short-term mortality than scores based only on organ dysfunction (eg, MELDNa), especially in patients with ACLF.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36788015
pii: gutjnl-2022-328708
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328708
pmc: PMC10359524
doi:
Substances chimiques
hexanoylcarnitine
14919-34-7
Methoxyhydroxyphenylglycol
534-82-7
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1581-1591Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
J Hepatol. 2020 Oct;73(4):842-854
pubmed: 32673741
Gut. 2022 Jan;71(1):163-175
pubmed: 33431576
Front Immunol. 2019 Mar 19;10:476
pubmed: 30941129
Bioinformatics. 2015 May 1;31(9):1493-5
pubmed: 25527831
Gastroenterology. 2021 Dec;161(6):1887-1895.e4
pubmed: 34481845
Pharmacotherapy. 2017 Sep;37(9):1023-1032
pubmed: 28632924
Hepatology. 2016 Oct;64(4):1249-64
pubmed: 27483394
Liver Transpl. 2022 Dec;28(12):1831-1840
pubmed: 36017804
Gut. 2022 Jan;71(1):148-155
pubmed: 33436495
Gut. 2018 Dec;67(12):2181-2191
pubmed: 28928275
N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 4;359(10):1018-26
pubmed: 18768945
Gastroenterology. 2013 Jun;144(7):1426-37, 1437.e1-9
pubmed: 23474284
Gastroenterology. 2019 Jul;157(1):149-162
pubmed: 30905652
J Hepatol. 2021 May;74(5):1097-1108
pubmed: 33227350
Gastroenterology. 2019 Apr;156(5):1381-1391.e3
pubmed: 30576643
Hepatology. 2001 Feb;33(2):464-70
pubmed: 11172350
Gut. 2017 Mar;66(3):541-553
pubmed: 28053053
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Apr;21(4):1031-1040.e3
pubmed: 35436625
Nat Protoc. 2011 Jun 30;6(7):1060-83
pubmed: 21720319
Hepatology. 2015 Jul;62(1):243-52
pubmed: 25877702
Metabolomics. 2021 Dec 20;18(1):6
pubmed: 34928464
Crit Care. 2019 May 14;23(1):169
pubmed: 31088568
J Hepatol. 2014 Nov;61(5):1038-47
pubmed: 24950482
J Hepatol. 2021 Sep;75(3):610-622
pubmed: 33951535
Sci Data. 2021 Dec 3;8(1):311
pubmed: 34862403
Sci Rep. 2022 Jan 31;12(1):1650
pubmed: 35102215
J Hepatol. 2020 Apr;72(4):688-701
pubmed: 31778751
Gut. 2022 Jan;71(1):5-6
pubmed: 33632711
Gut. 2021 Feb;70(2):379-387
pubmed: 32241903
Gastroenterology. 2019 Apr;156(5):1248-1249
pubmed: 30849314
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Mar;18(3):167-180
pubmed: 33257833
J Hepatol. 2022 Jan;76(1):93-106
pubmed: 34450236
J Hepatol. 2021 Mar;74(3):670-685
pubmed: 33301825
J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2014 Sep 1;966:34-47
pubmed: 24815365
Curr Biol. 2015 Nov 2;25(21):R1051-R1056
pubmed: 26528750