Retrospective cohort study links inflammatory cytokines and liver function in HBV-ACLF, suggesting IL-6/IL-10 ratios as prognostic biomarkers.
To investigate the association between inflammatory cytokines and liver function indices in hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (HBV-ACLF) patients and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T therapy recipients, with the aim of identifying prognostic biomarkers and elucidating the pathophysiological roles of inflammatory cytokines in HBV-ACLF. This retrospective cohort study analyzed clinical data from three groups: 68 patients with confirmed HBV-ACLF, 30 patients with pre-HBV-ACLF, and 372 hematologic malignancy patients receiving CAR-T therapy with preserved liver function at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. Serum interleukin (IL)-10 levels demonstrated a progressive increase across the groups [healthy controls: 0.15 (0.10;2.18) pg/mL; pre-HBV-ACLF: 3.80 (2.38;11.83) pg/mL; HBV-ACLF: 5.95 (3.90;14.75) pg/mL; p < 0.001]. Patients with clinical improvement exhibited significantly lower IL-10 concentrations and higher IL-6/IL-10 ratios compared to those with disease progression (p < 0.05). Notably, IL-6 levels remained stable across clinical stages, with HBV-ACLF patients without secondary infection showing lower IL-6 levels than pre-HBV-ACLF patients (p < 0.05). Following CAR-T therapy, hematologic patients displayed significantly elevated IL-6 levels, accompanied by increases in AST and INR prolongation, whereas TBIL and ALT remained stable (p > 0.05). Consistent with HBV-ACLF observations, improved CAR-T recipients demonstrated significantly lower IL-6/IL-10 ratios than progression patients (p < 0.05). IL-10 exhibits stage-dependent dynamics in HBV-ACLF pathogenesis and progression, closely mirroring hepatic functional deterioration. The IL-6/IL-10 ratio serves as a prognostic biomarker for both HBV-ACLF and CAR-T therapy-related liver injury, with lower ratios indicating better clinical outcomes. Not applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: