• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Validation model of fibrosis-8 index score to predict significant fibrosis among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

    2022-06-14 06:30:52ThanineePrasoppokakornWahKheongChanVincentWaiSunWongPanyaveePitisuttithumSanjivMahadevaNikRaihanNikMustaphaGraceLaiHungWongHowardHoWaiLeungPimsiriSripongpunSombatTreeprasertsuk
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2022年15期

    Thaninee Prasoppokakorn, Wah-Kheong Chan, Vincent Wai-Sun Wong, Panyavee Pitisuttithum, Sanjiv Mahadeva, Nik Raihan Nik Mustapha, Grace Lai-Hung Wong, Howard Ho-Wai Leung, Pimsiri Sripongpun,Sombat Treeprasertsuk

    Abstract BACKGROUND Identifying hepatic fibrosis is crucial for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)management. The fibrosis-8 (FIB-8) score, recently developed by incorporating four additional variables into the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, showed better performance in predicting significant fibrosis in NAFLD.AIM To validate the FIB-8 score in a biopsy-proven NAFLD cohort and compare the diagnostic performance of the FIB-8 and FIB-4 scores and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) for predicting significant fibrosis.METHODS We collected the data of biopsy-proven NAFLD patients from three Asian centers in three countries. All the patients with available variables for the FIB-4 score (age, platelet count, and aspartate and alanine aminotransferase levels) and FIB-8 score (the FIB-4 variables plus 4 additional parameters: The body mass index (BMI), albumin to globulin ratio, gamma-glutamyl transferase level, and presence of diabetes mellitus) were included. The fibrosis stage was scored using nonalcoholic steatohepatitis CRN criteria, and significant fibrosis was defined as at least fibrosis stage 2.RESULTS A total of 511 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD and complete data were included for validation. Of these 511 patients, 271 (53.0%) were female, with a median age of 51 (interquartile range: 41, 58) years. The median BMI was 29 (26.3, 32.6) kg/m2, and 268 (52.4%) had diabetes.Among the 511 NAFLD patients, 157 (30.7%) had significant fibrosis (≥ F2). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the FIB-8 and FIB-4 scores and NFS for predicting significant fibrosis were 0.774, 0.743, and 0.680, respectively. The FIB-8 score demonstrated significantly better performance for predicting significant fibrosis than the NFS (P = 0.001) and was also clinically superior to FIB-4, although statistical significance was not reached (P = 0.073).The low cutoff point of the FIB-8 score for predicting significant fibrosis of 0.88 showed 92.36%sensitivity, and the high cutoff point of the FIB-8 score for predicting significant fibrosis of 1.77 showed 67.51% specificity.CONCLUSION We demonstrated that the FIB-8 score had significantly better performance for predicting significant fibrosis in NAFLD patients than the NFS, as well as clinically superior performance vs the FIB-4 score in an Asian population. A novel simple fibrosis score comprising commonly accessible basic laboratories may be beneficial to use for an initial assessment in primary care units, excluding patients with significant liver fibrosis and aiding in patient selection for further hepatologist referral.

    Key Words: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; Fibrosis-8 score; Fibrosis-4 score; Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score

    INTRODUCTION

    Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a global health issue and has become the most common liver disease in Western countries, accounting for an estimated 25% of the adult population[1] and affecting an estimated 25%-30% of the adult population in the Asia Pacific region[2]. A meta-analysis in Asia during 1999 to 2019, described the overall pooled incidence rate was 50.9per1000 person-years[3].According to our previous study, the prevalence of significant fibrosis (defined as ≥ F2 fibrosis) is 18.4%in asymptomatic NAFLD patients[4]. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has emerged as the most common cause of cryptogenic cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma worldwide. The presence of hepatic fibrosis is the major determinant of future risk of mortality and liver-related morbidity[5], and detecting significant fibrosis is crucial for NAFLD because no well-accepted and proven therapy is available for this disease to date[6]. However, patients with F2 or higher are at a higher risk of long-term liver-related death than patients with F0-1. Those with significant fibrosis should be intensively followed up or considered to participate in the therapeutic trial for NAFLD.

    Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for evaluating hepatic fibrosis. However, because of several drawbacks, including invasiveness, the risk of bleeding complications, intrinsic sampling and pathologist reader variability[7], and cost, noninvasive tests are more practical. Thus, the 2018 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) practice guidance recommends the use of the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, the NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), vibration-controlled transient elastography, and magnetic resonance elastography[8] to identify those at low or high risk for advanced fibrosis [bridging fibrosis (F3) or cirrhosis (F4)]. Noninvasive tests using only clinical and routine laboratory parameters are inexpensive and particularly important in primary care or resource-limited settings where the pretest probability of advanced fibrosis is low because these scores have good negative predictive values (NPVs) to exclude advanced fibrosis[9]. Therefore, using simple fibrosis scores as an initial assessment in primary care is reasonable. The FIB-4 score comprises four parameters, age, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and platelets, while the NFS score comprises six parameters in addition to those comprising the FIB-4 score, such as the body mass index (BMI),presence of diabetes, and serum albumin level[10].

    According to Sripongpunet al[11], their AASLD 2019 abstract reported a new model for a fibrosis-8 score (FIB-8) score developed by incorporating the following four additional variables: BMI,albumin/globulin (A/G) ratio, gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) level, and diabetes. The subjects were enrolled in the PIVENS and FLINT trials, of which 522 participants all had histologically confirmed NASH[12,13]. The optimal low and high cutoffs for the FIB-8 score to exclude and include F ≥2 were < 0.88 and ≥ 1.77, respectively, with a sensitivity of 95.3% and a specificity of 79.2%. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) of the FIB-8 score were 0.79 and 0.78 in the training and validation datasets, respectively. The FIB-8 score provided significantly better AUROCs than the FIB-4 score (P< 0.001) and NFS (P= 0.005) in the validation dataset for predicting significant and advanced fibrosis in NAFLD patients. Following the study, the field test and validation of the FIB-8 score in a real-world cohort of NAFLD patients revealed that the AUROCs of the FIB-8 score were 0.84 with imputed data (n= 130) and 0.91 when only patients with complete data without imputation were included (n= 31). The FIB-8 score again outperformed the FIB-4 score and NFS, with AUROCs of 0.86vs0.80 and 0.77, respectively, for diagnosing advanced fibrosis (F3)[14].

    To our best knowledge, no validation of the FIB-8 score has been reported in a larger cohort.Therefore, this study was to validate the FIB-8 score in a biopsy-proven NAFLD cohort and compare the diagnostic performance of the FIB-8 and FIB-4 scores and NFS for predicting significant fibrosis.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Study population and data collection

    We collected the data of biopsy-proven NAFLD patients from the following three Asian centers in three countries: (1) Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; (2) The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; and (3) University of Malaya, Malaysia. The data from Thailand were collected from April 2008 to May 2019, those from Hong Kong were collected from July 2006 to November 2017, and those from Malaysia were collected from November 2012 to October 2015.

    NAFLD was diagnosed based on ultrasonographic findings of fatty liver as well as transient elastography and the exclusion of viral hepatitis B and C infection, significant alcohol intake, and current usage of medications causing hepatic steatosis. Only patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD were included. Patients with other causes of chronic liver disease, incomplete histological data, and without significant hepatic steatosis were excluded. The laboratory data for the FIB-4 score (age, platelet count,and aspartate and ALT levels), FIB-8 score [the FIB-4 variables plus 4 additional parameters: The BMI,albumin to globulin ratio, gamma-glutamyl transferase level, and presence of diabetes mellitus (DM)],and the NFS were collected. The time interval between the enrolled laboratories and the date of liver biopsy was within 1 year. The fibrosis stage was scored using the NASH Clinical Research Network(CRN) criteria, and significant fibrosis was defined as at least fibrosis stage 2 (F ≥ 2).

    Noninvasive methods

    We validated the noninvasive methods from the FIB-8 score, FIB-4 score, and NFS and the test variables for predicting significant fibrosis (Table 1)[11,15,16].

    Outcomes

    We aimed to validate the FIB-8 score in a biopsy-proven NAFLD cohort and compare the diagnostic performance of the FIB-8 score, FIB-4 score, and NFS for predicting significant fibrosis (≥ F2) in an Asian cohort.

    Ethical permission

    The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board, Faculty of Medicine,Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand (IRB number 238/59). This is a retrospective study, and signed informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee. The analysis used anonymous clinical data after each patient agreed to treatment by written consent.

    Statistical analysis

    Categorical and continuous variables were compared between patients with and without significant fibrosis using Chi-squared and Student’s t-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (according to the distribution of the data), respectively. Most of the numerical values did not follow a normal distribution and were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges. The diagnostic performance of each scoring system was then evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves, and comparisons between the correlated AUROCs were performed using DeLong’s test[17]. The sensitivities (Sens) and specificities(Spec) of each scoring system were analyzed using the given low and high cutoffs for predicting F2, as reported previously-i.e., 0.88 and 1.77 for the FIB-8 score, 0.81 and 1.81 for the FIB-4 score, and -2.45 and 0.03 for the NFS, respectively[11,18]. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical analysis package (version 18.0.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, United States), Stata (version 15;StataCorp), and R program version 4.1.1. APvalue < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

    RESULTS

    Baseline characteristics

    A total of 1013 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD were included in the database. Of those, 511 patients had complete data on variables, including the NFS and FIB-4 and FIB-8 scores, and were eligible for the current study (Figure 1). Of the 511 patients, 271 (53.0%) were female, with a median age of 51 [interquartile range (IQR): 41, 58] years. The median BMI was 29 (26.3, 32.6) kg/m2, and 268(52.4%) had diabetes. Among the 511 NAFLD patients, 157 (30.7%), 88 (17.2%), and 16 (3.1%) patients had significant fibrosis (≥ F2), advanced fibrosis (≥ F3), and cirrhosis (F4), respectively. The baseline characteristics comparing NAFLD F0-1 and significant fibrosis (F ≥ 2) are shown in Table 2. The significant factors associated with significant fibrosis were an older age [55 (48, 61)vs49.5 (39, 57) years;P< 0.001], the presence of diabetes (71.3%vs44.0%;P< 0.001), higher levels of AST [53.5 (36, 75)vs35(26, 52) U/L;P< 0.001], ALT [75 (50, 111)vs59.5 (40, 98) U/L;P< 0.001] and GGT [81 (48, 151)vs56.5(35, 92) U/L;P< 0.001], a lower platelet count [230 (189, 277)vs266 (226.8, 302) × 109/cu.mm;P< 0.001],lower levels of total cholesterol [182 (159, 209)vs193 (170, 220) mg/dL;P= 0.004] and LDL-cholesterol[107 (85, 132)vs116 (96, 143) mg/dL;P= 0.003], and a higher median Controlled Attenuation Parameter(CAP) [324 (294, 347)vs299 (211, 339) dB/m] (Table 2).

    Performance of the FIB-8 score, FIB-4 score, and NFS for predicting significant fibrosis (≥ F2)

    The AUROCs of the FIB-8 score, FIB-4 score, and NFS for predicting significant fibrosis were 0.774(95%CI: 0.729-0.820), 0.743 (95%CI: 0.695-0.791), and 0.680 (95%CI: 0.630-0.730), respectively (Figure 2).The FIB-8 score showed a significantly better performance for predicting significant fibrosis (≥ F2) than the NFS (P= 0.001) and was numerically higher than the FIB-4 score, but the difference was not statistically significant (P= 0.073). The sensitivities and specificities of the cutoffs specified to exclude and include significant fibrosis for each score are reported in Table 3.

    Diagnostic accuracy of the FIB-8 score, FIB-4 score, and NFS for predicting significant fibrosis (≥ F2)by age group

    The cohort was stratified by age into three groups: Age < 35 (n= 66), 35-65 (n= 412), and > 65 years (n=33). The AUROCs of the FIB-8 score, FIB-4 score, and NFS in patients aged 35-65 years for predicting significant fibrosis were 0.79, 0.76, and 0.68, respectively. This patient group comprised most of the cohort and had similar diagnostic performance results as the entire cohort. However, the FIB-8 score,FIB-4 score, and NFS were poor in patients aged < 35 years (AUROC: 0.55, 0.59, and 0.70, respectively)and > 65 years (AUROC: 0.66, 0.71, and 0.54, respectively). The number of patients in each age groupand center is shown in Supplementary Table 1. A detailed summary of the AUROC, sensitivity,specificity, positive predictive value, and NPV for the FIB-8 score, FIB-4 score, and the NFS is shown in Supplementary Table 2.

    Table 1 Details of the three noninvasive methods used in this study

    DISCUSSION

    Based on the results of the present study, we validated the diagnostic performance of the FIB-8 score,FIB-4 score, and NFS score in 511 biopsy-proven NAFLD patients for predicting significant fibrosis. The main issue affecting the diagnostic ability of new methods for detecting liver fibrosis in NAFLD patients is the prevalence of fibrosis among the particular population. Our results demonstrated that the overall prevalence rates of significant fibrosis (≥ F2), advanced fibrosis (≥ F3), and cirrhosis (F4) were 157(30.7%), 88 (17.2%), and 16 (3.1%), respectively. The mean incidence rates of significant fibrosis from previous publications were 52.5% and 35.4% in the PIVENS plus FLINT trials and a Stanford University trial, respectively[11,14] (Table 4). The remarkable aspects were as follows: (1) Our study had a lower incidence of fibrosis than the first cohort; (2) Among the noninvasive methods, the FIB-8 score and NFS included the BMI in their models, and our cohort had a lower mean BMI than previous reports (30.4 kg/m2vs34.0 and 31.5 kg/m2), which might have resulted in lower percentages of sensitivity and specificity in our cohort than those previously reported; and (3) GGT is a uniquely incorporated variable in the new FIB-8 scoring system. Some reported studies have demonstrated that a higher GGT level is a risk factor for advanced fibrosis in NAFLD[19,20]. Additionally, considering NAFLD patients with type 2 DM, a serum GGT level over 82 U/L was independently associated with advanced fibrosis using noninvasive methods in multivariate analysis (P= 0.004)[21]. In our study, the baseline characteristics correlatively showed that a higher level of median GGT was a significant factor associated with significant fibrosis [81 (IQR: 48, 151)vs56.5 (35, 92);P< 0.001]. We postulated that GGT may be an additional variable predicting significant fibrosis in NAFLD patients. The diagnostic performance of the FIB-8 score exhibited higher accuracy for diagnosing significant fibrosis (≥ F2) than the NFS but was not superior to the FIB-4 score in previous studies or our study; the AUROCs for the FIB-8 score, FIB-4 score, and NFS for predicting significant fibrosis were 0.774, 0.743, and 0.680, respectively (FIB-8vsNFS,P= 0.001; FIB-8vsFIB-4,P= 0.073). The sensitivities of the low cutoff of FIB-8 score to exclude significant fibrosis was 92.36%. Consequently, the high sensitivity and NPV for excluded significant fibrosis may be beneficial in primary care units and to select patients for further hepatologist referral.However, the limited specificity of the high cutoff of FIB-8 score to include significant fibrosis may require further step assessment instance transient elastography.

    Furthermore, our results demonstrated that the FIB-4 score offered better diagnostic performance than the NFS score (P< 0.001). According to meta-analysis results from Castera[10], the FIB-4 score and NFS showed the best diagnostic performance for detecting advanced fibrosis compared with other blood-based models. However, this meta-analysis included studies that used different cut-off thresholds. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis from Castellanaet al[22] reported a head-to-head comparison of the FIB-4 score and NFS from 18 studies that used consistent cutoffs. The FIB-4 score offered higher performance for including and NFS for excluding advanced fibrosis. However, our studies used different cutoffs and aimed to predict significant fibrosis, not advanced fibrosis.Consequently, our cohort was not suitable to compare the FIB-4 score and NFS.

    Table 2 Characteristics of patients with F0-1 fibrosis compared to those with F ≥ 2 fibrosis stage (n = 511)

    Additionally, our results demonstrated the performance of the FIB-8 score, FIB-4 score, and NFS in patients aged > 65 years (AUROC: 0.66, 0.71, and 0.54, respectively). The performance was poor in patients aged < 35 years (AUROC: 0.55, 0.59, and 0.70, respectively). Thus, these scores have insufficient accuracy for use in NAFLD patients in extreme age groups. Similarly, McPhersonet al[23] demonstrated age as a confounding factor for the accurate noninvasive scoring system predicting advanced fibrosis[23]. The FIB-8 score has low accuracy for predicting significant fibrosis in NAFLD patients, similar tothe FIB-4 score and NFS in patients aged < 35 and > 65 years.

    Table 3 Performance of fibrosis-8, fibrosis-4, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score for predicting significant fibrosis (F ≥ 2)in the Asian population (n = 511)

    Table 4 Comparison of study population using the fibrosis-8 score for predicting significant fibrosis (F ≥ 2)

    Figure 1 Flow diagram of the study population. NAFLD: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; FIB-8: Fibrosis-8 score; FIB-4: Fibrosis-4 score; NFS: NAFLD fibrosis score; AASLD: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; GGT: Gamma-glutamyl transferase.

    Our study had limitations. First, we had limited complete data for half of our database because of the lack of either globulin or GGT. In usual clinical practice, clinicians do not routinely check both laboratory parameters, and no added value exists for observing or monitoring these values in patients.The second limitation of our study was the lower incidence of fibrosis in our cohortvsother cohorts.The differences in fibrosis may have diagnostic value for novel fibrosis scores for validation. Validations in larger cohorts are needed.

    Figure 2 Receiver operating characteristic curves of the fibrosis-8 score, fibrosis-4 score, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score for predicting significant fibrosis (F ≥ 2) in the Asian population (n = 511). NAFLD: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; FIB-8: Fibrosis-8 score;FIB-4: Fibrosis-4 score; NFS: NAFLD fibrosis score; AUROC: Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves.

    To our best knowledge, our study is the first to report a new validation model of the FIB-8 score for predicting significant fibrosis among patients with NAFLD in an Asian population. The FIB-8 score yielded higher accuracy in diagnosing significant fibrosis than the NFS. Additionally, the FIB-8 score was non-inferior but insignificantly superior to the FIB-4 score. A novel simple fibrosis score comprising commonly accessible basic laboratories may be additionally used to add previous fibrosis scores for an initial assessment in primary care units and to select patients for further hepatologist referral.

    CONCLUSION

    The new, simple fibrosis FIB-8 score had significantly better performance for predicting significant fibrosis in NAFLD patients than the NFS and was non-inferior but insignificantly superior to the FIB-4 score in the Asian population. A simple fibrosis score comprising commonly accessible basic laboratories may be used for an initial assessment in primary care units and to select patients for further hepatologist referral.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    In the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) population, noninvasive fibrosis scores, such as the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), are generally applied in clinical practice guidelines. The novel fibrosis-8 (FIB-8) score yielded higher accuracy in diagnosing significant fibrosis in a previously reported cohort. A larger cohort may provide more reliability and benefit in clinical practice.

    Research motivation

    A noninvasive fibrosis score in NAFLD patients using only routine laboratory parameters is particularly important in initial assessment in the primary care unit or resource-limited conditions. We proposed the novel FIB-8 score, which incorporates the additional variables body mass index (BMI), the A/G ratio,gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), and diabetes into the FIB-4 score. The additional variables, particularly GGT, may provide better diagnostic accuracy for predicting significant fibrosis in NAFLD patients.

    Research objectives

    We aimed to validate the FIB-8 score among patients with a biopsy-proven NAFLD cohort and to compare the diagnostic performance of the FIB-8 and FIB-4 scores and NFS for predicting significant fibrosis.

    Research methods

    This was a retrospective study involving 1013 biopsy-proven NAFLD patients from 3 Asian centers in 3 countries in an Asian population. All the patients with available baseline biochemical tests for the FIB-8 score calculation and all related variables for predicting liver fibrosis were included.

    Research results

    A total of 1013 patients were included in the final analysis. Of those, 511 patients had complete data on the variables, including the NFS and FIB-4 and FIB-8 scores. One hundred fifty-seven (30.7%) patients had significant fibrosis (≥ F2). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the FIB-8 and FIB-4 scores and NFS for predicting significant fibrosis were 0.774, 0.743, and 0.680, respectively.The FIB-8 score had significantly better performance for predicting significant fibrosis than the NFS (P=0.001) but was not superior to the FIB-4 score (P= 0.073). The low cutoff point of the FIB-8 score for predicting significant fibrosis of 0.88 showed 92.36% sensitivity, and the high cutoff point of the FIB-8 score for predicting significant fibrosis of 1.77 had 67.51% specificity.

    Research conclusions

    The FIB-8 score, which incorporates the additional variables of the BMI, A/G ratio, GGT level, and diabetes into the FIB-4 score, yielded better performance for predicting significant fibrosis in NAFLD patients than the NFS but was not superior to the FIB-4 score in the Asian population. A simple fibrosis score comprising commonly accessible basic laboratories may be used for an initial assessment in primary care units.

    Research perspectives

    Future prospective studies are needed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of various noninvasive scores for predicting significant fibrosis and staging fibrosis.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    We would like to thank the supporting team of the Gut and Obesity in Asia workgroup for the database.Additionally, we would like to thank the research coordinator and statistician, Kanokwan Sornsiri, and Chonlada Phathong, from the Division of Gastroenterology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital.

    FOOTNOTES

    Author contributions:Treeprasertsuk S designed the study; Pitisuttithum P, Chan WK, Wong VWS, and Treeprasertsuk S contributed to data acquisition; Mahadeva S and Wong GLH recruited and managed the patients;Mustapha NRN and Leung HHW performed the histological assessment; Prasoppokakorn T, Pitisuttithum P,Sripongpun P, and Treeprasertsuk S analyzed and interpreted the data; Prasoppokakorn T drafted the manuscript;Chan WK, Sripongpun P, Wong VWS, and Treeprasertsuk S revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content; all the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    Supported byThe Fatty Liver Research Fund, Faculty of Medicine Foundation, Chulalongkorn University.

    Institutional review board statement:The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board,Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, No. 238/59.

    Informed consent statement:This is a retrospective study, and an exemption of a signed informed consent application was approved by the Ethics Committee. The analysis used anonymous clinical data after each patient agreed to treatment by written consent.

    Conflict-of-interest statement:There are no conflicts of interest to report.

    Data sharing statement:No additional data are available.

    STROBE statement:The authors have read the STROBE Statement-a checklist of items, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the STROBE Statement-a checklist of items.

    Open-Access:This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BYNC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is noncommercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/

    Country/Territory of origin:Thailand

    ORCID number:Thaninee Prasoppokakorn 0000-0002-1012-9874; Wah-Kheong Chan 0000-0002-9105-5837; Vincent Wai-Sun Wong 0000-0003-2215-9410; Panyavee Pitisuttithum 0000-0002-3530-3621; Sanjiv Mahadeva 0000-0003-0021-8596; Nik Raihan Nik Mustapha 0000-0002-4326-882X; Grace Lai-Hung Wong 0000-0002-2863-9389; Howard Ho-Wai Leung 0000-0001-9930-1783; Pimsiri Sripongpun 0000-0003-0007-8214; Sombat Treeprasertsuk 0000-0001-6459-8329.

    S-Editor:Fan JR

    L-Editor:A

    P-Editor:Fan JR

    亚洲第一av免费看| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 高清不卡的av网站| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 老女人水多毛片| 少妇高潮的动态图| 午夜福利在线在线| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 久久久久久久久久成人| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 亚洲图色成人| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 99热网站在线观看| av在线播放精品| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 身体一侧抽搐| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频 | 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 久久久欧美国产精品| 免费看不卡的av| 国产av一区二区精品久久 | 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 中文欧美无线码| 欧美bdsm另类| 亚洲av福利一区| 少妇的逼好多水| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 九色成人免费人妻av| 一级a做视频免费观看| 欧美另类一区| 91精品国产国语对白视频| av卡一久久| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂 | 国产欧美亚洲国产| 日本免费在线观看一区| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 插逼视频在线观看| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 欧美+日韩+精品| 日日啪夜夜撸| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 国产美女午夜福利| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的 | 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| av网站免费在线观看视频| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 久久久久网色| av视频免费观看在线观看| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 亚洲内射少妇av| a 毛片基地| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 男女国产视频网站| a级毛色黄片| 91狼人影院| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 黄色日韩在线| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| av在线观看视频网站免费| 国产综合精华液| 91精品国产九色| 国产精品.久久久| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 日本黄大片高清| 国产成人精品婷婷| 青春草国产在线视频| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 六月丁香七月| 国产成人a区在线观看| 91久久精品电影网| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 免费看日本二区| 亚洲中文av在线| 久久久成人免费电影| av不卡在线播放| 美女中出高潮动态图| 国产乱人视频| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 少妇 在线观看| 亚洲性久久影院| 最黄视频免费看| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 观看免费一级毛片| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 国产综合精华液| 国产91av在线免费观看| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 性色av一级| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 亚洲国产av新网站| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 国产精品免费大片| 免费看日本二区| .国产精品久久| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 久久av网站| 欧美bdsm另类| 婷婷色综合www| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看 | 免费观看a级毛片全部| 久久 成人 亚洲| 久久人人爽人人片av| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 午夜福利在线在线| 嫩草影院入口| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看 | 免费观看性生交大片5| 亚洲不卡免费看| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 免费大片18禁| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费 | 大码成人一级视频| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的 | 少妇丰满av| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 熟女av电影| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 免费观看av网站的网址| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 美女主播在线视频| 五月天丁香电影| 欧美+日韩+精品| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| av专区在线播放| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 亚洲精品一二三| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 免费看光身美女| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www | 99久国产av精品国产电影| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 91狼人影院| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 欧美性感艳星| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 久久久久久伊人网av| 高清av免费在线| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 高清毛片免费看| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| a 毛片基地| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| av一本久久久久| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 久久 成人 亚洲| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 男女边摸边吃奶| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 中文天堂在线官网| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| kizo精华| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | 色综合色国产| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 只有这里有精品99| 在线免费十八禁| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 老熟女久久久| freevideosex欧美| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 黄色配什么色好看| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图 | 乱系列少妇在线播放| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 国产视频首页在线观看| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 少妇人妻 视频| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 国产视频内射| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看 | 久久婷婷青草| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 欧美3d第一页| 午夜日本视频在线| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 午夜免费观看性视频| 美女国产视频在线观看| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 少妇的逼好多水| av在线app专区| 美女主播在线视频| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 国产探花极品一区二区| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 成人免费观看视频高清| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www | 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 午夜视频国产福利| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 777米奇影视久久| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 七月丁香在线播放| 久久午夜福利片| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡 | 久久6这里有精品| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 亚洲av福利一区| av在线app专区| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| av国产精品久久久久影院| 精品午夜福利在线看| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 日日啪夜夜爽| 伦精品一区二区三区| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 日韩av免费高清视频| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 亚洲精品一二三| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 日本一二三区视频观看| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 秋霞伦理黄片| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 国产极品天堂在线| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| av一本久久久久| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 国产高清三级在线| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 性色av一级| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 最黄视频免费看| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 久久久久久人妻| 人妻一区二区av| 男人舔奶头视频| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜 | 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 国产一级毛片在线| 午夜免费观看性视频| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 国产精品.久久久| 日本色播在线视频| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 色5月婷婷丁香| 国产精品成人在线| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 一级毛片电影观看| 亚洲精品第二区| 国产成人一区二区在线| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 99热网站在线观看| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 身体一侧抽搐| 一级a做视频免费观看| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 亚洲精品一二三| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 日本wwww免费看| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 中文欧美无线码| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 在线精品无人区一区二区三 | 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 午夜福利在线在线| 嫩草影院入口| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 成人国产麻豆网| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 高清不卡的av网站| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 身体一侧抽搐| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 国产乱来视频区| 黄色一级大片看看| 亚洲国产av新网站| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 久久久欧美国产精品| 中文欧美无线码| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 永久免费av网站大全| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 成年av动漫网址| 在线看a的网站| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂 | 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 免费大片18禁| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 搡老乐熟女国产| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 久久久久国产网址| 国产成人91sexporn| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 欧美bdsm另类| 高清不卡的av网站| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 久久影院123| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 超碰97精品在线观看| 国产黄片美女视频| 精品午夜福利在线看| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 三级经典国产精品| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 国产69精品久久久久777片| av天堂中文字幕网| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 精品人妻视频免费看| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频 | 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 免费看日本二区| 三级国产精品片| 黄色配什么色好看| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 欧美区成人在线视频| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 亚洲图色成人| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 免费观看性生交大片5| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 日韩国内少妇激情av| av免费在线看不卡| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 久久97久久精品| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 99热网站在线观看| 美女高潮的动态| av.在线天堂| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 久久人人爽人人片av| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 插逼视频在线观看| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 国产淫语在线视频| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 丝袜喷水一区| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 久久午夜福利片| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 99热这里只有精品一区| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 成人无遮挡网站| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| xxx大片免费视频| 精品久久久噜噜| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www | 久久 成人 亚洲| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 欧美性感艳星| 免费看不卡的av| 欧美另类一区| 午夜免费观看性视频| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 国产淫语在线视频| 高清av免费在线| 欧美97在线视频| 国产男女内射视频| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 青春草国产在线视频| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 精品久久久精品久久久| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡 | 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 午夜福利在线在线| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| .国产精品久久| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 久久久精品94久久精品| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 精品午夜福利在线看| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 免费看av在线观看网站| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 成人无遮挡网站| 免费av不卡在线播放| 亚洲成人手机| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频 | 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| av不卡在线播放| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看 | 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 大香蕉久久网| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 嫩草影院入口| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 日本一二三区视频观看| 在线看a的网站| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 国产 精品1| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| a 毛片基地| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 日本黄色片子视频|