Development, validation, and prognostic evaluation of a risk score for long-term liver-related outcomes in the general population: a multicohort study

Liver cirrhosis is a major cause of death worldwide. Cirrhosis develops after a long asymptomatic period of fibrosis progression, with the diagnosis frequently occurring late, when major complications or cancer develop. Few reliable tools exist for timely identification of individuals at risk of cirrhosis to allow for early intervention. We aimed to develop a novel score to identify individuals at risk for future liver-related outcomes. We derived the LiverRisk score from an international prospective cohort of individuals from six countries without known liver disease from the general population, who underwent liver fibrosis assessment by transient elastography. The score included age, sex, and six standard laboratory variables. We created four groups: minimal risk, low risk, medium risk, and high risk according to selected cutoff values of the LiverRisk score (6, 10, and 15). The model's discriminatory accuracy and calibration were externally validated in two prospective cohorts from the general population. Moreover, we ascertained the prognostic value of the score in the prediction of liver-related outcomes in participants without known liver disease with median follow-up of 12 years (UK Biobank cohort). We included 14 726 participants: 6357 (43·2%) in the derivation cohort, 4370 (29·7%) in the first external validation cohort, and 3999 (27·2%) in the second external validation cohort. The score accurately predicted liver stiffness in the development and external validation cohorts, and was superior to conventional serum biomarkers of fibrosis, as measured by area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC; 0·83 [95% CI [0·78-0·89]) versus the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4; 0·68 [0·61-0·75] at 10 kPa). The score was effective in identifying individuals at risk of liver-related mortality, liver-related hospitalisation, and liver cancer, thereby allowing stratification to different risk groups for liver-related outcomes. The hazard ratio for liver-related mortality in the high-risk group was 471 (95% CI 347-641) compared with the minimal risk group, and the overall AUC of the score in predicting 10-year liver-related mortality was 0·90 (0·88-0·91) versus 0.84 (0·82-0·86) for FIB-4. The LiverRisk score, based on simple parameters, predicted liver fibrosis and future development of liver-related outcomes in the general population. The score might allow for stratification of individuals according to liver risk and thus guide preventive care. None. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health