Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2026

A Three-Dimensional Spheroid Model to Investigate the Tumor-Stromal Interaction in Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: September 30, 2021
Consensus versus Outcome-based Definitions of Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure: Implications for Risk Stratification
Nipun Verma1, Tingting Qi2,3, Pratibha Garg1
1Department of Hepatology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Background And Aims:
Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) lacks a universally accepted definition, and recent efforts have proposed consensus organ failure criteria. In this study, we aimed to compare the clinical validity of a recently proposed consensus ACLF framework with the outcome-calibrated A-TANGO classification.
Methods:
We performed a multinational cohort study including 2,398 patients from the TIH cohort (India) and 2,568 from the CATCH-LIFE cohort (China) who were hospitalized with acute decompensation of cirrhosis. ACLF was defined using A-TANGO and an operationalized version of the 2025 consensus framework. Outcomes were 28- and 90-day mortality. Analyses assessed case capture, overlap, mortality risk, sensitivity, specificity, and net reclassification improvement (NRI).
Results:
ACLF prevalence differed substantially by definition. In TIH, A-TANGO classified 79.2% as ACLF versus 42.3% by the consensus definition; in CATCH-LIFE, the corresponding values were 31.4% versus 5.8%, respectively. Most consensus ACLF cases were captured by A-TANGO, which additionally classified 26%-37% of patients as having ACLF. These patients had substantial mortality (28-day: 18.1%-26.9%; 90-day: 33.2%-37.9%), significantly higher than those negative by both frameworks and comparable to established ACLF risk thresholds. A-TANGO showed higher sensitivity for 28-day mortality (TIH: 94.1% vs. 67.8%; CATCH-LIFE: 76.1% vs. 25.6%), whereas consensus criteria were more specific. Reclassification analyses showed improved discrimination with A-TANGO (NRI: 17.1% in TIH; 27.4% in CATCH-LIFE). Within the consensus non-ACLF group, A-TANGO further stratified patients into distinct risk groups with stepwise increase in mortality.
Conclusions:
In conclusion, the two frameworks identify fundamentally different populations. The consensus definition significantly reduces sensitivity and under-recognizes high-risk patients. Compared with consensus definitions, the outcome-calibrated framework better supports diagnosis, clinical decision-making, risk stratification, and trial design in ACLF.
Related Concept Videos
Effect of Hepatic Disease on Pharmacokinetics: Pathophysiologic Assessment and Liver Function Test
Effect of Hepatic Disease on Pharmacokinetics: Drug Dosing and Hepatic Blood Flow
Cirrhosis I: Introduction
Acute Kidney Injury I: Introduction
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Cirrhosis II: Pathophysiology