Back

Harmonising APASL and A-TANGO criteria for acute-on-chronic liver failure: identification of complementary high-risk pre-ACLF populations

Verma, N.; Garg, P.; Nair, G. P.; venu, A.; Jarpula, N. S.; Kaur, P.; De, A.; Premkumar, M.; Taneja, S.; Gupta, T.; Valsan, A. K.; Duseja, A.; Jalan, R.

2026-05-24 gastroenterology
10.64898/2026.05.22.26353839 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background & Aims: ACLF is defined differently by APASL (acute hepatic dysfunction) and by organ failure-based frameworks including EASL-CLIF and the recently developed A-TANGO score. Whether these definitions identify competing populations or sequential stages of the same syndrome remains unresolved, with direct implications for the timing of intervention. We tested whether APASL-defined ACLF can be integrated into the A-TANGO framework to identify a clinically actionable patient population. Methods: 4,024 patients hospitalised with acute decompensation of cirrhosis in a multicentre cohort were classified simultaneously by APASL and A-TANGO criteria. Mortality, progression to A-TANGO ACLF among A-TANGO-negative patients, and reversal of ACLF were assessed using Fine-Gray competing-risk models with death as a competing event. EASL-CLIF analyses were performed as sensitivity analyses. Results: A-TANGO-negative/APASL-positive patients comprised 8.7% of the cohort and had higher 90-day mortality than A-TANGO-negative/APASL-negative patients (22.3% vs 14.4%, p=0.001), despite similar 28-day mortality. Once A-TANGO ACLF was established, 28-day mortality was high irrespective of APASL status (45.4% in APASL-positive and 56.0% in APASL-negative patients). Among A-TANGO-negative patients, 53.5% of APASL-positive vs 27.9% of APASL-negative patients progressed to A-TANGO ACLF within 28 days, with APASL positivity independently predicting progression (adjusted sHR: 2.30, 95%CI: 1.90-2.77). Within A-TANGO-negative/APASL-negative patients an A-TANGO OF score [≥]8 independently enriched for progression (52% vs 19%). A-TANGO reversal occurred in 17.1% and was independently reduced by APASL positivity (adjusted sHR: 0.756, 95%CI: 0.586-0.975), while APASL reversal was rare (4.0%). EASL-CLIF sensitivity analyses were directionally consistent. Conclusions: APASL-defined ACLF does not compete with A-TANGO; it occupies an upstream position on the same disease trajectory. A-TANGO-negative/APASL-positive patients and A-TANGO-negative/APASL-negative patients with A-TANGO OF [≥]8 represent complementary pre-ACLF populations suitable for prevention trials and enrichment strategies.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Gut
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
27.4%
2
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 23%
6.9%
3
Hepatology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
Journal of Hepatology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
5
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
JHEP Reports
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
7
American Journal of Gastroenterology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.3%
9
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.9%
10
Gastroenterology
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
11
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.5%
12
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.5%
13
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
14
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
15
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
16
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
17
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
36 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
18
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.9%
19
European Heart Journal
22 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
21
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
202 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
142 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
23
BMJ
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
24
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.6%
25
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
26
Journal of Clinical Investigation
179 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
27
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%