ArticleHepatology communications2024
Relationship between updated MELD and prognosis in alcohol-associated hepatitis: Opportunities for more efficient trial design.
Article in Hepatology communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlcohol-associated hepatitis (AH) is associated with significant mortality. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is used to predict short-term mortality and aid in treatment decisions. MELD is frequently updated in the course of AH. However, once the most updated MELD is known, it is uncertain if previous ones still have prognostic value, which might be relevant for transplant allocation and trial design. We aimed to investigate the predictive performance of updated MELDs in a prospectively collected cohort of patients with AH by the InTeam consortium.
methodsThree hundred seven patients (with 859 MELD values within 60 d of admission) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The main endpoint was time to death or transplant up to 90 days. We used a joint model approach to assess the predictive value of updated MELDs.
resultsUpdated MELD measurements had a strong prognostic value for death/transplant (HR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.14-1.27) (p < 0.0001). Previous MELD values did not add predictive value to the most current MELD. We also showed that MELD at day 28 (MELD28) had a significant predictive value for subsequent mortality/transplant in a landmark analysis (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.12-1.23). We show that the use of an ordinal scale including death, transplant, and MELD28 as a trial outcome could substantially reduce the sample size required to demonstrate short-term benefit of an intervention.
conclusionWe show that updated MELDs during the trajectory of AH predict subsequent mortality or the need for transplant. MELD28 inclusion in an ordinal outcome (together with death or transplant) could increase the efficiency of randomized controlled trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.