Abstract:Global incidence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 63 studies and 1,201,807 personsJournal of HepatologyVol. 79Issue 2PreviewThe prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasing. We aimed to estimate the pooled global NAFLD incidence. Full-Text PDF We read with interest the systematic review and meta-analysis by Le et al. which demonstrates the rapidly increasing worldwide incidence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) likely associated with the obesity epidemic.[1]Le MH Le DM Baez TC Wu Y Ito T Lee EY Global incidence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 63 studies and 1,201,807 persons.J Hepatol. 2023; 79: 287-295Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar Recently, we have demonstrated that NAFLD is the second most common cause of liver disease in patients admitted to hospital with decompensated cirrhosis in the UK (14.4% of admissions).[2]The Trainee Collaborative for Research and Audit in Hepatology UKRegional variation in characteristics of patients with decompensated cirrhosis admitted to hospitals in the UK.Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023; 8: 604-606Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar We strongly agree that targeted public health interventions to reduce the incidence and prevalence of NAFLD combined with optimal outpatient management strategies are needed to mitigate against NAFLD-related complications.[3]McPherson S Armstrong MJ Cobbold JF Corless L Anstee QM Aspinall RJ et al.Quality standards for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): consensus recommendations from the British Association for the Study of the Liver and British Society of Gastroenterology NAFLD Special Interest Group.Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 7: 755-769Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (28) Google Scholar However, efforts to better characterise and stratify this cohort are similarly required. Utilising more robust phenotypic data should allow for the development of NAFLD-specific risk prediction models and may encourage implementation of precision approaches to improve overall patient outcomes. We analysed data from a UK multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study, including patients admitted to hospitals with decompensated cirrhosis in November 2019[4]The Trainee Collaborative for Research and Audit in Hepatology UKAdmission care bundles for decompensated cirrhosis are poorly utilised across the UK: results from a multi-centre retrospective study.Clin Med (Lond). 2023; 23: 193-200Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar (Table S1 provides regional submission data). We compared admissions for patients with NAFLD to the rest of the predominately alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) cohort. Details of methods and statistical analyses are presented in the supplementary materials. The NAFLD cohort were significantly older (69.0 (IQR 62.3-77.0) vs. 55.5 (IQR 47.0-65.0), p <0.0001∗) and less likely to be male (50.6% vs. 63.5%, p = 0.001∗) (Table 1A). Whilst we note Le et al. demonstrated a higher incidence of NAFLD amongst male patients, this may reflect previous findings that mortality is comparable across male and female patients with NAFLD, reflecting a similar prevalence of advanced disease.[5]Simon T.G. Roelstraete B. Khalili H. Hagström H. Ludvigsson J.F. Mortality in biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: results from a nationwide cohort.Gut. 2021; 70: 1375-1382Crossref PubMed Scopus (248) Google Scholar No differences were demonstrated in the proportion of admissions with a previous history of decompensation or known liver disease, or a history of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between cohorts. Patients admitted with NAFLD were significantly less likely to regularly consume alcohol (18.0% vs. 61.8%, p <0.0001∗) than the rest of the predominant ARLD cohort (Table 1A). However, alcohol consumption has been shown to be underreported in previous cohorts of NAFLD and markers of alcohol use may have highlighted individual’s regularly consuming alcohol above recommended limits.[6]Staufer K Huber-Shonauer U Strebinger G Pimingstorfer P Suesse S Scherzer TM et al.Ethyl glucuronide in hair detects a high rate of harmful alcohol consumption in presumed non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.J Hepatol. 2022; 77: 918-930Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar Admissions for patients with NAFLD were predominantly related to the management of ascites (40.9% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.02∗) or encephalopathy (25.6% vs. 15.8%, p = 0.002∗), and less likely to be for jaundice (2.8% vs. 17.2%, p <0.0001∗) (Table 1A). Ascites is associated with the highest risk of readmission for patients with NAFLD.[7]Paik JM Eberly KE Kabbara K Harring M Younossi Y Henry L et al.Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with greater risk of 30-day hospital readmission in the United States (U.S.).Ann Hepatol. 2023; 28: 101108Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar Patient-centred elective outpatient paracentesis provision is therefore a requisite component of modern hepatology services. Recently, data has implicated the premature onset of encephalopathy in NAFLD, while the association of hyperammonaemia with deleterious outcomes is also well-described.[8]Thomsen KL Eriksen PL Kerbert AJC De Chiara F Jalan R Vilstrup H Role of ammonia in NAFLD: an unusual suspect.JHEP Reports. 2023; 5: 100780Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar A high index of suspicion for encephalopathy is required in this cohort, in addition to a low threshold in initiating therapies for hyperammonaemia. The reduction in the proportion of patients admitted with jaundice likely reflects the cohort of patients from the predominately ARLD cohort presenting with alcohol-related hepatitis.Table 1Characterising UK NAFLD admissions.A) VariableNNAFLD, n = 176NAlternate aetiology of liver disease, n = 1,048p valueAge17669.0 (62.3-77.0)1,04855.5 (47.0-65.0)<0.0001∗Male sex17689 (50.6%)1,048665 (63.5%)0.001∗Current alcohol use12222 (18.0%)813502 (61.8%)<0.0001∗Previously known liver disease176151 (85.8%)1,048890 (84.9%)0.82Previous known decompensation176116 (65.9%)1,048706 (67.4%)0.73Known HCC17610 (5.7%)1,04854 (5.2%)0.72Reason for admission Ascites17672 (40.9%)1,048336 (32.1%)0.02∗ Encephalopathy17645 (25.6%)1,048166 (15.8%)0.002∗ Gastrointestinal bleeding17619 (10.8%)1,048161 (15.4%)0.13 Jaundice1765 (2.8%)1,048180 (17.2%)<0.0001∗ Sepsis17610 (5.7%)1,04869 (6.6%)0.74Prognostic scores MELD score14713.0 (11.0-18.0)95517.0 (12.0-21.0)<0.0001∗ UKELD score14753.0 (51.0-60.0)95557.0 (52.0-62.0)<0.0001∗ Child-Pugh score1398.0 (7.0-10.0)9329.0 (8.0-11.0)0.0005∗Post 24-hour care Managed by a specialist176125 (71.0%)1,048776 (74.1%)0.41 Predominately managed on a specialist ward17693 (52.8%)1,043597 (57.2%)0.29 Critical care admission during stay1769 (5.1%)1,048123 (11.7%)0.008∗ Transfer to another centre1765 (2.8%)1,04819 (1.8%)0.37 Admission mortality17127 (15.8%)1,029160 (15.6%)0.91 Length of stay1427.0 (4.0-13.0)8597.00 (3.0-13.0)0.60B) VariableNSurvivors, n = 144NNon-survivors, n = 27p valueAge14469.0 (62.0-76.0)2773.0 (65.0-78.0)0.17Male sex14472 (50.0%)2715 (55.6%)0.68Current alcohol use10220 (19.6%)172 (11.8%)0.74Previously known liver disease144125 (86.8%)2722 (81.5%)0.54Previous known decompensation14496 (66.7%)2717 (63.0%)0.83Known HCC1448 (5.6%)272 (7.4%)0.66Reason for admission Ascites14459 (41.0%)2711 (40.7%)>0.9999 Encephalopathy14438 (26.4%)275 (18.5%)0.47 Gastrointestinal bleeding14416 (11.1%)272 (7.4%)0.74 Jaundice1444 (2.8%)271 (3.7%)0.58 Sepsis14410 (6.9%)270 (0.0%)0.37Prognostic scores MELD score11913.0 (10.0-17.0)2321.0 (15.0-27.0)<0.0001∗ UKELD score11953.0 (50.0-57.0)2359.0 (54.0-61.0)0.0001∗ Child-Pugh score1138.0 (7.0-9.0)2210.0 (8.8-11.0)0.0002∗Post 24-hour care Managed by a specialist144100 (69.4%)2721 (77.8%)0.49 Predominately managed on a specialist ward14478 (54.2%)2712 (44.4%)0.40 Critical care admission during stay1445 (3.5%)274 (14.8%)0.04A) Comparison of admissions for patients with NAFLD compared to patients with alternate aetiologies of liver disease. B) Comparison of NAFLD admissions resulting in patient survival with those that did not. Non-normally continuous data were analysed using Mann-Whitney U tests and presented as median (IQR). Categorical data were analysed using Fisher’s exact tests and presented as number (%). ∗Statistical significance set as per Benjamini-Hochberg procedure with a false discovery rate of 0.05.HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; UKELD, UK end-stage liver disease. Open table in a new tab A) Comparison of admissions for patients with NAFLD compared to patients with alternate aetiologies of liver disease. B) Comparison of NAFLD admissions resulting in patient survival with those that did not. Non-normally continuous data were analysed using Mann-Whitney U tests and presented as median (IQR). Categorical data were analysed using Fisher’s exact tests and presented as number (%). ∗Statistical significance set as per Benjamini-Hochberg procedure with a false discovery rate of 0.05. HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; UKELD, UK end-stage liver disease. Following admission, no differences were noted between cohorts in the proportion of patients managed by a specialist Gastroenterologist/Hepatologist on specialist wards, or in patients transferred to specialist centres. No differences were demonstrated between patient cohorts for mortality during admission (15.8% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.91) despite admissions with NAFLD having significantly lower prognostic scores and being less likely to access critical care (5.1% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.008∗) (Table 1A). Whilst this may reflect the older age of this cohort and concomitant comorbidity, previous concerns have been raised regarding limited access to critical care for patients with ARLD with stigma amongst healthcare professionals suggested as a potential barrier for this cohort.[9]Mitchison H. Saksena S. Hudson M. NCEPOD and alcohol-related liver disease, what are the views of those who deliver the service? A survey of consultants and trainees in North Eastern England.J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2018; 48: 293-298Crossref PubMed Google Scholar Understanding potential barriers to patients with NAFLD accessing critical care is required to optimise management. Admissions for patients with NAFLD were not more likely to result in mortality after adjustment for age, critical care admission or MELD score (adjusted odds ratio 1.16; 95% CI 0.65-2.00; Fig. S1). Whilst comparisons between non-survivors and survivors are likely underpowered, conventional prognostic models discriminated admission survival (Table 1B). However, no prognostic scores significantly outperformed other models (p = 0.41), with no model achieving an AUC of greater than 0.8 (Fig. S2). After exclusion of admissions resulting in mortality or critical care admission, length of stay was no different to the rest of the cohort (Table 1A). Limitations of these analyses are discussed in the supplementary materials and include the retrospective design, coverage of only a single month, incomplete coverage of the UK with potential selection bias, lack of data regarding comorbidities and the subjective nature of aetiology assignment. Whilst accepting these limitations, this study is representative of a large, real-world cohort. With the likely increased incidence of patients being admitted to hospital with decompensated NAFLD, further work to understand how to optimally manage this cohort are necessary. This cohort is older, often more co-morbid and will likely require a tailored approach to their care. Understanding barriers to providing best care, including access to critical care, is essential when developing the hepatology services of the future. We are grateful for the funding support provided by Guts-UK. We are grateful for the support and endorsement from the British Society of Gastroenterology, British Association for the Study of the Liver, Scottish Society of Gastroenterology and the Welsh Association for Gastroenterology and Endoscopy. The authors declare no conflicts of interest that pertain to this work. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details. The following are the supplementary data to this article. Download .pdf (.35 MB) Help with pdf files Multimedia component 1 Download .pdf (.31 MB) Help with pdf files Multimedia component 2 Download .docx (.03 MB) Help with docx files Multimedia component 3

Abstract:A recent study by Kunutsor and Laukkanen, published in the Journal of Infection, described a possible link between high levels of liver injury markers at admission and the severity and death of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)1Kunutsor S.K. Laukkanen J.A. Markers of liver injury and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Infect. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.045Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (28) Google Scholar. This study suggests that underlying liver disease may be a risk factor for COVID-19. Cirrhosis patients, especially those with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), are in immunocompromised status and at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality2Bernardi M. Moreau R. Angeli P. Schnabl B. Arroyo V Mechanisms of decompensation and organ failure in cirrhosis: from peripheral arterial vasodilation to systemic inflammation hypothesis.J Hepatol. 2015; 63: 1272-1284https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2015.07.004Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (444) Google Scholar. However, the information of clinical characteristics and outcomes in these patients with COVID-19 is scarce. Furthermore, there is not much experience in managing COVID-19 in cirrhosis patients. Here, we described the clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics, treatments and outcomes of 17 COVID-19 patients with cirrhosis. We retrospectively analyzed 17 cirrhosis patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from February 1, 2020 to Match 15, 2020 in Wuhan Tongji hospital, Wuhan Jin Yin-tan hospital and Wuhan Puai hospital. We collect hospital admissions, laboratory tests, radiological tests, treatments and outcomes from clinical electronic medical records. All patients had a history of cirrhosis, confirmed by imaging and liver biopsy results. CSPH was confirmed by hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) > 10 mmHg. COVID-19 was confirmed by detecting nucleic acids of SARS-CoV-2 in throatswab specimens. Severe COVID-19 was defined according to previous study3Liu F. Long X. Zhang B. Zhang W. Chen X. Zhang Z ACE2 expression in pancreas may cause pancreatic damage after SARS-CoV-2 infection.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.040Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (434) Google Scholar. Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) was defined according to guidelines4Sarin S.K. Choudhury A. Sharma M.K. Maiwall R. Al M.M. Rahman S. et al.Acute-on-chronic liver failure: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific association for the study of the liver (APASL): an update.Hepatol Int. 2019; 13: 353-390https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-019-09946-3Crossref PubMed Scopus (516) Google Scholar. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for continuous variables, and the Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used for categorical variables. Our study cohort included 17 cirrhosis patients with COVID-19 (6 CSPH patients and 11 non-CSPH patients), with a median age of 56 years (interquartile range, 51 to 64). Most patients had a history of HBV/HCV infection (14/17, 82.4%), and were in the state of Child-Pugh classification A (15/17, 88.2%) (Table 1). Chest CT showed typical COVID-19 pneumonia features5Ai T., Yang Z., Hou H., Zhan C., Chen C., Lv W., et al. Correlation of chest CT and RT-PCR testing in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: a report of 1014 cases. Radiology2020200642. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200642.Google Scholar in 17 patients (Fig. 1) and the main symptoms of COVID-19 in these patients were fever and cough, with a mean incubation period of 5 days (interquartile range, 4–6 days). There were no significant differences in age, etiology and stage of cirrhosis, symptoms and incubation period of COVID-19 between CSPH and non-CSPH patients.Table 1Clinical characteristics of cirrhosis patients with COVID-19.Variable, n (%) or median (IQR)Normal rangeOverall (n = 17)CSPH (n = 6)Non-CSPH (n = 11)p valueAge–56 (51–64)59 (50–61)57 (53–65)0.5820Male–13 (76.5)5 (83.3)8 (72.7)0.4927Etiology of liver diseaseHBV–12 (70.6)5 (83.3)7 (63.6)0.3607HCV–2 (11.8)1 (16.7)1 (9.1)Others–3 (17.6)0 (0)3 (27.3)Incubation period, days2–75 (4–6)5 (4–7)5 (3–6)0.4718Child-pugh classificationA–15 (88.2)4 (66.7)11 (100)0.1252B–1 (5.9)1 (16.7)0 (0)C–1 (5.9)1 (16.7)0 (0)Presenting symptomsFever–13 (76.5)5 (83.3)8 (72.7)0.6223Short of breath–4 (23.5)2 (33.3)2 (18.2)0.4816Cough–11 (64.7)4 (66.7)7 (63.6)0.9006Fatigue–6 (35.3)2 (33.3)4 (36.4)0.1249Diarrhea–4 (23.5)1 (16.7)3 (27.3)0.6223Headache–2 (11.8)1 (16.7)1 (9.1)0.6431ComplicationsEGVB–1 (5.9)1 (16.7)0 (0)0.1626Cardiac injury–2 (11.8)1 (16.7)1 (9.1)0.6431ARDS–5 (29.4)3 (50.0)2 (18.2)0.1688ACLF–2 (11.8)2 (33.3)0 (0)0.1103Acute kidney injury–8 (47.1)4 (66.7)4 (36.4)0.2316Shock–2 (11.8)1 (16.7)1 (9.1)0.6431Laboratory findingsWBC (× 109/L)3.5–9.54.5 (3.69–5.76)5.0 (3.3–6.0)4.5 (3.7–5.5)0.3988Lymphocyte count, × 109/L1.10–3.200.72 (0.62–1.12)0.61 (0.47–0.9)0.86 (0.68–1.28)0.0487Neutrophil count, × 109/L1.80–6.303.29 (2.19–4.28)3.78 (1.88–4.54)3.14 (2.49–4.17)0.2834Platelet count, × 109/L125.0–350.098 (68–136)60.5 (51.2–67.5)133 (105–145)<0.0001Hemoglobin, g/L130–175121 (109–138)110 (101–119)129 (112–140)0.0154ALT, U/L7.0–40.047 (29–72)65.5 (50–78)37 (25–58)0.2158AST, U/L13.0–35.047 (41–91)76.5 (49–117)47 (38–75)0.1375T-BIL, μmol/L0–21.014.3 (10.4–32.2)37.2 (22.2–52.9)10.8 (10.1–16.7)0.0347Albumin, g/L40.0–55.037.5 (34.8–39.5)36.2 (34.0–39.1)37.6 (34.8–39.3)0.2158Creatinine, μmol/L41.0–73.077.0 (60.0–88.0)71.5 (61.3–85.5)77.0 (62.0–93.0)0.2640BUN, mmol/L2.6–7.57.2 (5.6–8.3)7.2 (5.9–8.0)7.8 (5.7–9.5)0.3061PT, s11.5–14.514.5 (13.7–15.9)15.9 (15.6–16.2)13.8 (12.8–14.6)0.0090APTT, s29.0–42.042.0 (34.7–44.9)45.9 (43.5–48.9)39.3 (34.2–42.6)0.0329INR0.8–1.21.1 (1.03–1.2)1.24 (1.19–1.27)1.03 (1.0–1.08)0.0831D-dimer, mg/L0–1.51.4 (0.6–2.6)2.7 (1.7–9.6)0.6 (0.3–1.3)0.5657PCT (ng/mL)0.02–0.050.06 (0.04–0.13)0.87 (0.09–1.87)0.06 (0.04–0.06)0.0791CRP (mg/L)0–5.029.3 (7.3–45.4)21.3 (5.3–24.2)39.1 (15.8–48.9)0.4183Ferritin, ng/mL4.63–204915 (433–1353)915 (687–1144)567 (418–1316)0.2583TreatmentsOxygen support–6 (35.3)4 (66.7)2 (18.2)0.0456Mechanical ventilation–2 (11.8)1 (16.7)1 (9.1)0.6431Antiviral treatment–15 (88.2)6 (100.0)9 (81.8)0.2662Antimicrobial treatment–13 (76.5)4 (66.7)9 (81.8)0.4816Hepatoprotective agents–11 (64.7)6 (100.0)5 (45.4)0.0245Glucocorticoids–1 (5.9)0 (0.0)1 (9.1)0.1628Endoscopic sclerotherapy–1 (5.9)1 (16.7)0 (0)0.1626SeverityMild–11 (64.7)2 (33.3)9 (81.8)0.0456Severe–6 (35.3)4 (66.7)2 (18.2)OutcomeICU admission–3 (17.6)2 (33.3)1 (9.1)0.2102Dead–3 (17.6)2 (33.3)1 (9.1)0.2102CSPH=Clinically significant portal hypertension, HBV=hepatitis B virus, HCV=Hepatitis C virus, EGVB=Esophageal gastric variceal bleeding, ARDS=Acute respiratory distress syndrome, ACLF=Acute-on-chronic liver failure, WBC=White blood cells, ALT=Alanine aminotransferase, AST=Aspartate aminotransferase, T-BIL=Total bilirubin, BUN=Blood urea nitrogen, PT=Prothrombin time, APTT=Activated partial thromboplastin time, INR=International standard ratio, PCT=Procalcitonin, CRP=C-reactive protein, ICU= Intensive care unit. Open table in a new tab CSPH=Clinically significant portal hypertension, HBV=hepatitis B virus, HCV=Hepatitis C virus, EGVB=Esophageal gastric variceal bleeding, ARDS=Acute respiratory distress syndrome, ACLF=Acute-on-chronic liver failure, WBC=White blood cells, ALT=Alanine aminotransferase, AST=Aspartate aminotransferase, T-BIL=Total bilirubin, BUN=Blood urea nitrogen, PT=Prothrombin time, APTT=Activated partial thromboplastin time, INR=International standard ratio, PCT=Procalcitonin, CRP=C-reactive protein, ICU= Intensive care unit. In laboratory tests, abnormalities were observed in indicators related to cirrhosis and infection, such as platelet count, hemoglobin, coagulation function, procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, and ferritin. For example, 14 had hypoproteinemia, 12 patients had lymphopenia, and 9 patients had thrombocytopenia. Meanwhile, compared with non-CSPH patients, patients with CSPH showed lower lymphocyte, platelet and hemoglobin, higher total bilirubin, longer prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < 0.05). During the course of COVID-19, the most frequent complications were abnormal liver function (64.7%), kidney injury (47.1%), and ARDS (29.4%), and all CSPH patients showed abnormal liver function. Notably, one CSPH patient developed esophageal gastric variceal bleeding (EGVB), which is one of the most serious complications. In addition, 66.7% (4/6) of CSPH patients were severe cases, compared with 18.2% (2/11) of non-CSPH patients (P = 0.025). In the course of treatment, antiviral (88.2%), antimicrobial (76.5%), hepatoprotective (64.7%) and oxygen (35.3%) therapy were the most commonly used, and CSPH patients had a higher proportion of hepatoprotective therapy (6/6 vs 5/11, P = 0.025) and oxygen therapy (4/6 vs 2/11, P = 0.046) than non-CSPH patients. Also, the endoscopic sclerotherapy was applied to deal with EGVB. In addition, 3 patients (17.6%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and died. Many researches have shown that the liver is a target organ for SARS-CoV-2, and some patients with COVID-19 suffered from liver injury, although this may not lead to serious clinical consequences6Zhang Y. Zheng L. Liu L. Zhao M. Xiao J. Zhao Q Liver impairment in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective analysis of 115 cases from a single center in Wuhan city.China. Liver Int. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.14455Crossref Scopus (346) Google Scholar. However, for patients with pre-existing liver disease, there may be a greater risk after SARS-CoV-2 infection. For example, Ji et al. reported that non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients with COVID-19 had a higher rate of disease progression7Ji D. Qin E. Xu J. Zhang D. Cheng G. Wang Y. et al.Implication of non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases (NAFLD) in patients with COVID-19: a preliminary analysis.J Hepatol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2020.03.044Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (392) Google Scholar. Cirrhosis patients tend to be at high risk of COVID-19 due to their specific characteristics8Riordan S.M. Williams R. The intestinal flora and bacterial infection in cirrhosis.J Hepatol. 2006; 45: 744-757https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2006.08.001Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (96) Google Scholar. On the blood test findings, many indicators were abnormal, which may be caused by the characteristics of cirrhosis, and these may be markers of the severity of COVID-19, such as decreased platelets and lymphocytes9Lippi G. Plebani M. Henry B.M Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: a meta-analysis.Clin Chim Acta. 2020; 506: 145-148https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022Crossref PubMed Scopus (1152) Google Scholar,10Tan L. Wang Q. Zhang D. Ding J. Huang Q. Tang Y.Q. et al.Lymphopenia predicts disease severity of COVID-19: a descriptive and predictive study.Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020; 5: 33https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-020-0148-4Crossref PubMed Scopus (1142) Google Scholar, which were more obvious in CSPH patients. Consistent with these findings, 35.3% of COVID-19 patients with cirrhosis in our study were severe illness, and the proportion of CSPH patients was 64.7%, suggesting that cirrhosis, especially CSPH, may play an important role in the progression of COVID-19. However, it is encouraging to note that the mortality of in this study was not high, possibly because our center has rich experience in the treatment of cirrhosis and CSPH, as well as in the treatment of other organs in conjunction with the multidisciplinary team. When treating COVID 19 patients with cirrhosis, other complications such as EGVB, heart damage, and kidney damage should also be noted in the control of pulmonary symptoms. However, only 17 cirrhosis patients with COVID-19 were included in this study, due to the low overall incidence of cirrhosis patients. More cases and comparative studies should be analyzed for more robust results. Nonetheless, our results suggest that cirrhosis, especially CSPH, may aggravate the severity of COVID-19. The authors disclose no conflicts. XC and ZZ conceived this study. XL, GJ, ZZ, BZ and WZ treated the patients. ZZ and FL made a statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. This retrospective study was authorized by the Ethic Committee of Wuhan Tongji Hospital. This study was funded by the State Key Project on Infection Disease of China (No. 2018ZX10723204–003).

Defining Characteristics and Outcomes for Patients with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Admitted to Hospital with Decompensated Cirrhosis

Hospital admission with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with increased all-cause mortality independent of cardiovascular risk factors

National study of NAFLD management identifies variation in delivery of care in the UK between 2019 to 2022

Assessing the disease burden of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in the real world – big data and big numbers

The Liverpool alcohol‐related liver disease algorithm identifies twice as many emergency admissions compared to standard methods when applied to Hospital Episode Statistics for England

Acute Decompensation Events Differentially Impact the Risk of Nosocomial Infections and Short-Term Outcomes in Patients with Cirrhosis

Clinical Utility of the Treatment Eligibility Score HEPSANET for Chronic Hepatitis B in Asia

Prevalence and Prognostic Value of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Patients Hospitalized With Decompensated Chronic Heart Failure

Establishment of Prognostic Scoring Models for Different Etiologies of Acute Decompensation in Hospitalized Patients with Cirrhosis

Decompensated liver cirrhosis: assessment of complications and mortality in hospitalised patients

Global incidence of adverse clinical events in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Incidence and Predictors of Liver-Related Events in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Discharge Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients with New Onset Decompensated Cirrhosis

Clinically Significant Portal Hypertension in Cirrhosis Patients with COVID-19: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes

Cirrhosis is an independent predictor for COVID-19 mortality: A meta-analysis of confounding cofactors-controlled data

Burden of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease-Related Cirrhosis and Other Chronic Liver Diseases from 1990 to 2019 in China and Disease Burden Trend Prediction to 2030.

PATIENTS WITH ULCERATIVE COLITIS AFFECTED BY NON-ALCOHOLIC FATTY LIVER DISEASE HAVE A GREATER RISK OF MORTALITY AND WORSE CLINICAL OUTCOMES

Global Disparities in Mortality and Liver Transplantation in Hospitalised Patients with Cirrhosis: a Prospective Cohort Study for the CLEARED Consortium

PATIENTS WITH CROHN'S DISEASE AFFECTED BY NON-ALCOHOLIC FATTY LIVER DISEASE HAVE A GREATER RISK OF MORTALITY AND WORSE CLINICAL OUTCOMES

Sociodemographic characteristics, complications requiring hospital admission and causes of in-hospital death in patients with liver cirrhosis admitted at a district hospital in Ghana

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with greater risk of 30-day hospital readmission in the United States (U.S.)