• <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

    a级毛片a级免费在线| 免费av不卡在线播放| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 综合色丁香网| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 久久久久久久久中文| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 中国国产av一级| 欧美性感艳星| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| av.在线天堂| 国产三级中文精品| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 在线国产一区二区在线| 色5月婷婷丁香| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 日本免费a在线| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 成年版毛片免费区| eeuss影院久久| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 一级黄片播放器| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 老司机影院成人| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 69人妻影院| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 国产av在哪里看| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 免费av观看视频| 小说图片视频综合网站| 国产三级中文精品| 美女免费视频网站| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 国产午夜精品论理片| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 国产高潮美女av| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 国产av在哪里看| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 国产在线男女| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区 | 嫩草影视91久久| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 人人妻人人看人人澡| ponron亚洲| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 少妇丰满av| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 日韩高清综合在线| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 91在线观看av| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 69av精品久久久久久| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 免费av不卡在线播放| 色吧在线观看| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 中文字幕久久专区| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 在线播放无遮挡| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 日本在线视频免费播放| 国产黄片美女视频| 深夜a级毛片| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 国产精品野战在线观看| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 久久精品夜色国产| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 俺也久久电影网| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 亚洲五月天丁香| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 99热这里只有精品一区| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 看片在线看免费视频| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 久久久久九九精品影院| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 日韩强制内射视频| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 色哟哟·www| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 欧美人与善性xxx| 精品人妻视频免费看| a级毛片a级免费在线| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 久久久久久伊人网av| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 一本一本综合久久| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 成人国产麻豆网| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 91av网一区二区| 91狼人影院| 欧美区成人在线视频| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 十八禁网站免费在线| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 伦精品一区二区三区| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 成人国产麻豆网| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 看片在线看免费视频| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 91在线观看av| 午夜a级毛片| 欧美zozozo另类| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 99热6这里只有精品| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 国产精品无大码| 一夜夜www| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 中国国产av一级| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 午夜激情福利司机影院| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 深夜a级毛片| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 直男gayav资源| 欧美人与善性xxx| 日日啪夜夜撸| 精品久久久久久久末码| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 在线a可以看的网站| 亚州av有码| 一级黄片播放器| .国产精品久久| 色综合站精品国产| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 久久6这里有精品| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 日本五十路高清| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 国产老妇女一区| 舔av片在线| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 精品人妻视频免费看| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 成人三级黄色视频| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 国产精品久久视频播放| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 中文字幕久久专区| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 精品人妻视频免费看| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 老女人水多毛片| 国产老妇女一区| 精品国产三级普通话版| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 国产一区二区三区av在线 | 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 尾随美女入室| 日韩强制内射视频| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 久久这里只有精品中国| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 在线观看一区二区三区| 1024手机看黄色片| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 免费大片18禁| 国产精品野战在线观看| 亚洲av美国av| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 日本与韩国留学比较| 久久九九热精品免费| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 日本 av在线| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 欧美3d第一页| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 亚洲最大成人av| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 中文资源天堂在线| 免费观看在线日韩| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 一级黄色大片毛片| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 国产成人aa在线观看| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 国产精品一及| 51国产日韩欧美| 搞女人的毛片| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 香蕉av资源在线| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放 | 亚洲最大成人中文| 色吧在线观看| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 一级av片app| 在线观看66精品国产| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 男女那种视频在线观看| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 51国产日韩欧美| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 日日啪夜夜撸| 春色校园在线视频观看| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 久久这里只有精品中国| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 99热全是精品| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 一本精品99久久精品77| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 一本久久中文字幕| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 天堂√8在线中文| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 悠悠久久av| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放 | 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 亚洲av一区综合| 99热全是精品| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 最好的美女福利视频网| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 综合色av麻豆| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 国产视频内射| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| avwww免费| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 69人妻影院| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 午夜a级毛片| 三级毛片av免费| 91在线观看av| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 日本一二三区视频观看| 久久草成人影院| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 国产探花极品一区二区| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 久久精品人妻少妇| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| eeuss影院久久| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 六月丁香七月| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 高清毛片免费看| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 成年免费大片在线观看| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| h日本视频在线播放| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 天堂√8在线中文| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 变态另类丝袜制服| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 69av精品久久久久久| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 尾随美女入室| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 久久99热这里只有精品18| av天堂在线播放| 国产精品,欧美在线| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 春色校园在线视频观看| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 观看免费一级毛片| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 我要搜黄色片| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说 | 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| av福利片在线观看| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 嫩草影院新地址| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 久久久精品大字幕| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 亚洲四区av| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 国产三级在线视频| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 久久久久九九精品影院| 男女那种视频在线观看| 国产精品无大码| 我要搜黄色片| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| av天堂在线播放| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 久久久久国内视频| 久久久精品大字幕| 国产不卡一卡二| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 此物有八面人人有两片| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 简卡轻食公司| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 国产不卡一卡二| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 在线播放无遮挡| 精品午夜福利在线看| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 九九热线精品视视频播放| av在线老鸭窝| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 如何舔出高潮| 国产黄片美女视频| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 最好的美女福利视频网| 老司机影院成人| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 亚洲最大成人av| 男女那种视频在线观看| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 69人妻影院| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 亚洲第一电影网av| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 热99re8久久精品国产| .国产精品久久| 亚洲18禁久久av| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 国产高潮美女av| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 日本一本二区三区精品| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 久久九九热精品免费| 搞女人的毛片| а√天堂www在线а√下载| av在线老鸭窝| 国产精品一及| 国产高清三级在线| 黄色一级大片看看| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 国产免费男女视频| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 一本久久中文字幕| 看免费成人av毛片| 国产精品久久视频播放| 国产在视频线在精品| 在线观看一区二区三区| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 一a级毛片在线观看| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 国产黄片美女视频| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 一区二区三区四区激情视频 | 日本黄大片高清| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 亚洲最大成人中文| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 在线观看一区二区三区| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 99热只有精品国产| 如何舔出高潮| 国产 一区精品| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| www日本黄色视频网| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 春色校园在线视频观看| 22中文网久久字幕| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 麻豆国产av国片精品|