The Effect of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease 3.0on Disparities between Patients with and without Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Korea

Purpose@#The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) 3.0 has recently been suggested for determining liver allocation. We aimed to apply MELD 3.0 to a Korean population and to discover differences between patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). @*Materials and Methods@#This study is a retrospective study of 2203 patients diagnosed with liver cirrhosis at Severance Hospital between 2016–2022. Harrell’s concordance index was used to validate the ability of MELD scores to predict 90-day survival. @*Results@#During a mean follow-up of 12.9 months, 90-day survival was 61.9% in all patients, 50.4% in the HCC patients, and 74.8% in the non-HCC patients. Within the HCC patients, the concordance index for patients on the waitlist was 0.653 using MELD, which increased to 0.753 using MELD 3.0. Among waitlisted patients, the 90-day survival of HCC patients was worse than that of non-HCC patients with MELD scores of 31–37 only (69.7% vs. 30.0%, p=0.001). Applying MELD 3.0, the 90-day survival of HCC patients was worse than that of non-HCC patients across a wider range of MELD 3.0 scores, compared to MELD, with MELD 3.0 scores of 21–30 and 31–37 (82.0% vs. 72.5% and 72.3% vs. 24.3%, p=0.02 and p<0.001, respectively). @*Conclusion@#MELD 3.0 predicted 90-day survival of the HCC patients more accurately than original MELD score; however, the disparity between HCC and non-HCC patients increased, particularly in patients with MELD scores of 21–30. Therefore, a novel exception score is needed or the current exception score system should be modified.

Exploration of errors in variance caused by using the first-order approximation in Mendelian randomization

Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic variation as a natural experiment to investigate the causal effects of modifiable risk factors (exposures) on outcomes. Two-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) is widely used to measure causal effects between exposures and outcomes via genome-wide association studies. 2SMR can increase statistical power by utilizing summary statistics from large consortia such as the UK Biobank. However, the first-order term approximation of standard error is commonly used when applying 2SMR. This approximation can underestimate the variance of causal effects in MR, which can lead to an increased false-positive rate. An alternative is to use the second-order approximation of the standard error, which can considerably correct for the deviation of the first-order approximation. In this study, we simulated MR to show the degree to which the first-order approximation underestimates the variance. We show that depending on the specific situation, the first-order approximation can underestimate the variance almost by half when compared to the true variance, whereas the second-order approximation is robust and accurate.