NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundAlthough cirrhosis is a serious long-term health condition (LTC), it tends to receive little attention from healthcare policymakers. Here, we sought to describe how cirrhosis compares to other LTCs to inform priority-setting discussions.MethodsWe analysed data from the Our Future Health (OFH) study, a cohort of ∼1.7 million individuals from England, United Kingdom. Self-reported diagnosis status for cirrhosis and 15 benchmark LTCs (including type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, Parkinson's disease, chronic kidney disease, schizophrenia, and stage 4 cancer) were ascertained from the enrolment questionnaire. Each LTC was profiled with respect to: sociodemographic characteristics; mortality; comorbidity burden; and late diagnosis. Furthermore, information on each LTC's trajectory (i.e., increasing, stable, or decreasing over time) was determined from background mortality data over the last decade.ResultsThe study cohort included 1,613,777 participants, of whom 2,606 (0.2%) reported a diagnosis of cirrhosis. Mortality elevation for participants with cirrhosis versus without was substantial (HR: 7.46; PConclusionCirrhosis is an anomaly LTC with respect to its deprivation, comorbidity, mortality, upward trajectory, and late diagnosis profile. Our data provide comparative evidence to inform priority-setting discussions with policymakers.Impact and implicationsVarious levers are available to policy makers for reducing incidence of liver cirrhosis. However, other health conditions are often prioritised by policy makers ahead of cirrhosis; the decision-making process around this is not always transparent nor grounded in evidence. This study explores the characteristics of cirrhosis relative to other long-term conditions through a public-health lens. Our findings may guide priority-setting discussions between policy makers, advocates and other stakeholders and may shift current discourse onto a more empirical footing.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.