• <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 ?

    Understanding celiac disease monitoring patterns and outcomes after diagnosis: A multinational,retrospective chart review study

    2021-06-05 07:09:58KnutEALundinCiaranKellyDavidSandersKristinaChenSheenaKayaniyilSisiWangRajviWaniCaitlinBarrettShakiraYoosufEllenPettersenRobertSambrookDanielLeffler
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2021年20期

    Knut EA Lundin, Ciaran P Kelly, David S Sanders, Kristina Chen, Sheena Kayaniyil, Sisi Wang, Rajvi J Wani,Caitlin Barrett, Shakira Yoosuf, Ellen S Pettersen, Robert Sambrook, Daniel A Leffler

    Abstract

    Key Words: Celiac disease; Outcomes research; Endoscopy; Real-world; General practice;Villous atrophy

    INTRODUCTION

    Celiac disease is a chronic, immune-mediated disorder that affects genetically susceptible individuals. The only accepted current standard of care for celiac disease is a life-long gluten-free diet (GFD). Previous studies have reported that adherence rates to a GFD range between 42 % and 91 %[1 ,2 ]. Inadequately managed celiac disease can lead to health complications such as malnutrition, osteoporosis, neurologic complaints,and lymphoma[2 ]. It has been hypothesized that long-term management and regular follow-up of patients with celiac disease will improve adherence to a GFD, and improve disease outcomes including mucosal healing and symptom resolution. For this reason, long-term management and regular follow-up of patients with celiac disease are advocated by current practice guidelines[3 ,4 ], yet it is unclear how these are actually implemented in practice. It is understood, however, that practice patterns vary widely both between countries and between practices.

    Given that celiac disease is a chronic disorder, it is important to understand realworld, long-term outcomes and routine monitoring practices; however, there are few published data in these areas. Therefore, the aims of this multinational study were twofold. First, to understand, in real-world clinical practice, patterns of patient followup and management and how these practices vary by country. The second aim was to characterize patient outcomes, specifically related to ongoing symptoms and ongoing villous atrophy after diagnosis. Together, these data may be helpful in informing clinical practice, studies, and interventions aimed at improving celiac disease outcomes, and for quality improvement initiatives.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    A retrospective chart review study was conducted using medical chart data of patients diagnosed with celiac disease. Three large gastroenterology centers with substantial expertise in celiac disease participated, capturing patients in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Norway. Each site contributed 100 patients. Ethics approval was obtained before data collection commenced.

    Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed celiac disease[3 ,5 ,6 ], were diagnosed between 2008 and 2012 , and had at least one follow-up visit before 31 December 2017 . This study period was selected to allow for at least five years of follow-up after diagnosis. Patients were excluded if they had initiated a GFD before receiving a diagnosis of celiac disease.

    Using the database of patients at each site, the assigned staff at each center identified eligible patients by first looking at the date of diagnosis. The data abstractor reviewed and identified eligible patients who were diagnosed in December 2012 , and then continued review of eligibility for patients consecutively backwards from that date (back to a diagnosis date in 2008 ). After examining the date of diagnosis, other inclusion/exclusion criteria were assessed to verify patient eligibility for the study. All three sites were explicitly asked to follow the same approach regarding selection of consecutive patients to avoid selection bias. The assigned staff at each site responsible for data abstraction then entered de-identified data for eligible patients into a custom electronic case report form. All data collected were based on the patient’s pre-existing medical record. No direct personal identifiers were attached to the abstracted data.Data describing patient demographic and clinical characteristics, biopsy/serology tests and results, symptoms, and comorbidities were captured at diagnosis and for each clinic visit occurring within the study period (i.e.,before the study end date of December 31 , 2017 ).

    In terms of diagnostic testing, available serology results were collected, including tissue transglutaminase-immunoglobulin (Ig) A, IgA endomysial antibody, total serum IgA, deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) IgA, DGP IgG, and DGP IgA-IgG. As not all pathology reports across sites utilized Marsh-Oberhuber classification, a descriptive assessment of biopsy results was recorded as follows: normal, increased intraepithelial lymphocytes only, mild/partial villous atrophy, subtotal villous atrophy, total/complete atrophy, and other.

    Analysis

    Data are summarized by descriptive statistics [mean, standard deviation (SD), median,and interquartile range for continuous variables, and number and percentage for categorical variables]. Gastrointestinal symptoms and extraintestinal comorbidities/complications (termed extraintestinal manifestations) are described at diagnosis and during study follow-up.

    The presence of symptoms during the follow-up period was characterized specifically for patients who had a symptom at diagnosis and a record of symptoms at least once during follow-up. For each patient, the duration of the follow-up period was calculated as the time from diagnosis to the last follow-up visit within the study period. The mean number of visitsperpatient and the number of follow-up visitsperpatient with biopsy data were summarized overall and by country.

    Following the classification proposed by Kurienet al[2 ], subsets of study patients with available symptom (defined as diarrhea, abdominal pain, abdominal distention,poor appetite, weight loss, tiredness/lethargy, brain fog, malabsorption and/or bloating) and biopsy data were grouped into four main disease states at diagnosis and at each follow-up visit: Class 1 (no symptoms and normal duodenal histology); class 2 (no symptoms and abnormal duodenal histology); class 3 (symptoms and normal duodenal histology); class 4 (symptoms and abnormal duodenal histology). This classification provides an intuitive framework for assessing celiac disease outcomes and may help to identify patients with the highest risk of complications. In addition,biopsy results reported as mild/partial/subtotal/total/complete villous atrophy were considered as abnormal histology; all other findings were considered normal for this classification. Those with ‘other’ biopsy findings were excluded in the classification.

    Analyses were based on available data. Descriptive statistics were restricted to the subset of patients for whom data were available, with relevant denominator information provided in the results. All analyses were conducted in SAS 9 .4 .

    RESULTS

    A total of 300 patients with celiac disease were included in this study, comprising 100 patients from each of the three participating gastroenterology referral centers in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Norway. Table 1 presents the demographic and clinical characteristics of included patients at diagnosis.

    Patients were, on average, 39 years of age at diagnosis, with 24 patients (8 %) less than 18 years of age; there were 216 females in the study (72 .0 %). The study populations across the three sites were quite similar with respect to age, gender, and ethnicity distributions (Table 1 ). Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most common reason leading to diagnosis. There was a significantly greater proportion of patients in the United Kingdom (57 .0 %, n = 57 ) who presented with extraintestinal manifestations at diagnosis compared with patients in the United States (17 .0 %) and Norway (17 .0 %)(P< 0 .0001 ). Nutritional deficiency was the most commonly reported extraintestinal manifestation in the United States and Norway, whereas in the United Kingdom anemia was most frequently documented at diagnosis (Table 2 ). Almost all (n = 299 ,99 .7 %) patients had an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) conducted at diagnosis,and two patients (0 .7 %) had an enteroscopy. Overall, 90 .7 % (n = 272 ) of patients had serologic testing concurrently with biopsy, and these findings were similar across patients at the three sites. Biopsy results are presented in Table 1 . Serology results at diagnosis and during the follow-up period are presented in Supplemental Table 1 .

    The types of gastrointestinal and extraintestinal manifestations and associated conditions at diagnosis and during follow-up were similar across sites and are presented in Table 2 . At diagnosis, 256 patients (85 .3 %) and 228 patients (76 .0 %) had at least one gastrointestinal or extraintestinal manifestation, respectively. The most common symptoms across all sites were diarrhea, abdominal pain and bloating and the most common laboratory findings included nutrient deficiencies, anemia and low bone mineral density. Interestingly, both weight loss and weight gain were more commonly reported in the United States compared to the United Kingdom and Norway. There were 147 patients (49 .0 %) who presented with diarrhea, 124 (41 .3 %)who presented with abdominal pain, and 90 (30 .0 %) who presented with bloating. In addition, 104 patients (34 .7 %) had documentation of a nutritional deficiency, and 34 patients (11 .3 %) presented with another autoimmune disease, in addition to celiac disease, at diagnosis. During follow-up, diarrhea [n= 100 (33 .3 %)], abdominal pain[n= 93 (31 .0 %)], and bloating [n = 76 (25 .3 %)] continued to be the most frequently reported gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the 256 patients who had gastrointestinal symptoms at diagnosis, 175 (68 .4 %) had at least one visit reporting gastrointestinal symptoms during the follow-up period.

    The duration of follow-up and average number of follow-up visits for the overall study population and by country are presented in Table 3 . Patients were followed-up for a mean of 29 .9 mo (SD: 22 .1 ) and there were, on average, three follow-up visitsperpatient during the study period. Patients from the United States site had the longest follow-up duration during the study period (mean: 38 .7 mo), compared with the United Kingdom and Norway sites (mean: 26 .5 and 24 .5 mo, respectively; P < 0 .0001 ).Overall referral patterns to other specialists were captured, indicating that approximately 80 % of patients were referred to a dietician at least once during the follow-up period. Details on the last-recorded follow-up with the patient indicated that almost half (48 %) of all patients had a follow-up appointment scheduled. Some were discharged (approximately 10 %) or were referred to another specialist (approximately 19 %), otherwise, the last follow-up decision was recorded as ‘unknown’ or ‘other’.

    After EGD, bone densitometry was the next most frequently reported procedure during follow-up, performed in 89 patients (29 .7 %) from the overall study population.Bone densitometry was performed at least once in 45 United States patients (45 .0 %)during the follow-up period, compared with patients who received this procedure in

    the United Kingdom and Norway [n= 22 (22 .0 %) for both United Kingdom and Norway patients;P< 0 .001 ]. As this procedure is not performed in the gastroenterology unit, the results of these tests were not routinely available.

    Table 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients at diagnosis, by country

    A summary of endoscopies with duodenal biopsy performed during the follow-up period, overall and by country, is also presented in Table 3 . Of the 300 patients included in this study, 150 (50 .0 %) had at least one endoscopy with duodenal biopsy during the follow-up period. Of these 150 patients, 116 (77 .3 %) had a single follow-up endoscopy with biopsy during the follow-up period and most (14 .7 %, n = 22 /150 ) of the remaining 34 patients had two follow-up endoscopies. A significantly higher proportion of Norway patients received a follow-up biopsy (82 .0 %, n = 82 ) compared with patients in the United Kingdom (42 .0 %, n = 42 ) and United States (26 .0 %, n = 26 )(P< 0 .0001 ).

    The proportion of patients in the four disease state classes at diagnosis and at last follow-up with available data within the study period are presented in Figure 1 . Of patients in classes 2 or 4 at diagnosis (n = 295 ) and who had a follow-up biopsy(n= 150 ), 53 (36 .6 %) continued to have villous atrophy (classes 2 or 4 ) at their last follow-up visit with biopsy data. The proportions were similar for the United Kingdom, United States, and Norway sites, where 39 .0 % (n = 16 ), 40 .0 % (n = 10 ), and 34 .6 % (n = 27 ) of patients, respectively, remained in classes 2 or 4 based on the last available biopsy data within the study period.

    Overall, there were 54 patients who were in class 1 (no symptoms and normal duodenal histology) by the last follow-up visit with biopsy data. Of the patients with data available for the classification at diagnosis and at the last follow-up, the proportion of patients in class 1 during the follow-up period was slightly higher in Norwegian patients [n= 34 (43 .6 %)] compared with patients from the United Kingdom[n= 12 (29 .3 %)] and the United States [n = 8 (32 .0 %)].

    DISCUSSION

    This real-world study characterizes patients with celiac disease over time, and provides insight into routine monitoring practices from three large referral centers in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Norway. The majority of patients were female, which is consistent with other reports on the demographics of the celiac disease patient population[7 ,8 ]. Patients were followed for a mean of 29 .9 mo (median 25 mo) and there were, on average, three follow-up visitsperpatient. Over two thirds of patients had a documentation of gastrointestinal symptoms during the follow-up period, which may indicate inadequate control of celiac disease despite patients being on a GFD. In addition, the fact that a higher proportion of patients from the United Kingdom site presented with extraintestinal manifestations at diagnosis, compared with patients from the United States and Norway sites, indicates that differences may exist in diagnostic or referral practices between different countries. This is particularly true for the United Kingdom site, which was known to see a greater number of patients with neurological manifestations of celiac disease. It is therefore likely that the differences in extraintestinal manifestations at diagnosis between the countries are due to a combination of referral bias and ascertainment bias at the individual sites, such that some manifestations may be evaluated more frequently at some sites than others.

    While the study did collect information on extraintestinal manifestations, including liver abnormalities, it did not specifically assess metabolic disorders of patients with celiac disease. Given that an increased risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with celiac disease on a GFD has been reported[9 ], it would be valuable for future long-term studies to examine such metabolic disorders in this patient population. Country/site-specific differences were also evident in the routine monitoring of patients after diagnosis. While the United States patients had the longest follow-up duration within the study period, compared with Norwegian and United Kingdom patients, a higher proportion of Norwegian patients received a follow-up biopsy, indicating differences in diagnostic or referral practices across the different sites/countries that may not necessarily be reflective of differences in national guidelines.

    Table 2 Presentation of gastrointestinal and extraintestinal manifestations at diagnosis and at follow-up visits, by country

    In this study, half of patients received at least one follow-up biopsy after diagnosis within the study period, with significant variability between sites. While there is currently no consistent recommendation to perform routine follow-up biopsy on all patients, recent European guidelines suggest a follow-up biopsy in adults one to twoyears after diagnosis and after starting a GFD to assess mucosal healing, as treatment of ongoing mucosal injury is less well defined and depends on likely etiology[3 ].

    Table 3 Descriptive characteristics of follow-up visits and endoscopies during the follow-up period, overall and by country

    The grouping of patients into four disease state classes in this study allows for examination of the persistence of celiac disease symptoms as well as mucosal recovery/healing. Patients in this study with ongoing mucosal injury likely represent a combination of ongoing gluten exposure, slow recovery post diagnosis, and refractory celiac disease. Analysis of specific etiologies of ongoing villous atrophy, however, is outside the scope of this manuscript. Study results indicated that 36 .6 % of patients overall had presence of villous atrophy (classes 2 or 4 ) at the last follow-up visit with available biopsy data, with similar findings across sites. While it is unclear how many of these patients would progress to histologic remission given longer follow-up, these data suggest that a substantial proportion of patients may not be achieving therapeutic goals, even at specialized celiac disease centers. Furthermore, it is important to note that among those with at least one follow-up visit only half of patients had a follow-up biopsy to examine mucosal recovery. While the proportion of patients with persistent villous atrophy may be partially related to referral bias, the inclusion of patients diagnosed only at tertiary centers should have mitigated this. Conversely, patients who are not followed-up or who receive care at less well-equipped centers may have even higher rates of inadequate disease control.

    The reasons for the variability in follow-up, both within and between centers, are unclear. However, it seems that many of the patients in this study were either not continuing to see their gastroenterologist or not having a follow-up biopsy, which would limit the ability to assess continued presence of symptoms and villous atrophy.Yet, previous studies reported that having a follow-up biopsy did not impact longterm outcomes when compared with those who did not have a follow-up biopsy,possibly due to lack of effective interventions to address ongoing villous atrophy[10 ,11 ].

    Figure 1 Number of patients grouped into the four disease state classes at diagnosis and at last follow-up with available biopsy data.Class 1 : no symptoms and normal duodenal histology; Class 2 : No symptoms and abnormal duodenal histology; Class 3 : Symptoms and normal duodenal histology;Class 4 : Symptoms and abnormal duodenal histology. 1 Patients with biopsy result indicated as ‘other’ in the data collection form were excluded from this classification.

    Potential country differences in healthcare policies may also be at play here. Indeed one previous study conducted in Norway reported that only 6 % of patients had prevalence of villous atrophy after a median follow-up of 8 .1 years[10 ]. The authors of this Norwegian study indicated that this may be partially driven by the fact that, in Norway, patients diagnosed with celiac disease automatically qualify for a reimbursement to cover the extra costs associated with following a GFD. In another study,from Australia, rates of mucosal remission and response were 50 % and 85 % at one and five years, respectively[12 ]. In addition, Pekki et al[11 ] reported that 42 % (n = 200 ) of the 476 patients examined in Finland, who had a repeat biopsy, continued to have atrophy after one year of follow-up[11 ]. In yet another study from Finland, the authors reported that 96 % (n = 177 ) of patients had villous recovery after a mean of 11 years of follow-up while adhering to a GFD[13 ]. The present study, however, did not find a large difference by country for the proportion of patients with continued presence of villous atrophy during follow-up.

    Strengths of this study are the inclusion of patients with biopsy-proven celiac disease, the multinational sample, and the use of consecutively diagnosed patients,which should have reduced selection bias. However, future research may be warranted to examine whether patterns of care are different in community-based compared with tertiary centers, and whether there are potential differences in outcomes for patients diagnosed by serology alone and followed-up in general practice. Given that the sites in this study were large gastroenterology referral centers,it is anticipated that they should be reflective of practice patterns in similar centers within the countries studied, and where there were commonalities between the centers, these are likely generalizable. However, as this cannot be tested, it is also likely that the selected sites may not be truly representative of the country, and these findings would need to be confirmed by further research within each country. In addition, patterns of care are reflective of those in gastroenterology referral centers,and may be more rigorous than patterns of care in general practice.

    Limitations of this study include the lack of information regarding adherence to a GFD, as this information is often not readily available in patient charts, although most patients (approximately 80 %) were referred to a dietician at least once during the follow-up period. Future studies may be able to assess GFD adherence objectively through the presence of gluten immunogenic peptides in the urine[14 ]. There is also the possibility that variation in pathology assessment and reporting may influence inter center results; although, good interobserver agreement for the detection of villous atrophy has been reported[15 ]. In addition, the majority of patients included in this study were diagnosed on the basis of symptoms, with approximately 12 % diagnosed by screening alone. While asymptomatic patients may have different outcomes, related in part to GFD adherence, the current study was not designed to address this.However, it would be valuable for future studies to consider and compare outcomes based on whether diagnosis was based on asymptomaticvssymptomatic disease.

    Further, it is unclear what proportion of patients in this study were diagnosed elsewhere and referred to one of the participating gastroenterology centers owing to lack of healing. This may have resulted in a higher proportion of patients with villous atrophy compared with a community setting. In addition, this study captured patient visits to the gastroenterologist only, and any continued management with another healthcare provider (e.g.,general practitioner, dietician) was not captured. Therefore,the results of this study are reflective of follow-up and outcomes for patients with celiac disease aspertheir management by the gastroenterologist. While it is expected that most patients will continue to be managed by a gastroenterologist, particularly if they continue to experience symptoms and have no evidence of mucosal healing,management by a general practitioner or other specialist (e.g.,dietician) may occur in parallel. In addition, given that the inclusion criteria required selection of patients with at least one follow-up visit within the study period, to report on follow-up patterns and outcomes, the study is unable to provide information on patients who did not return to the gastroenterologist for a follow-up visit during the study period. Further,comparisons made between sites/countries relied on standard parameters assessed across sites including celiac serologies (but heterogeneous in the frequency of retesting), symptoms assessment, GFD adherence and nutritional values. However,differences across the sites and the standard of practice would largely be the driver of follow-up endoscopy/biopsy, and the authors recognize this limitation in adequately comparing outcomes across patients.

    There is a lack of clarity in guidelines on types of clinicians who are most appropriate to administer follow-up care and management for patients with celiac disease, and this may be especially important given increasing activity of nontraditional practitioners. Results from a patient survey indicated that 27 % of patients had not visited a healthcare provider about celiac disease over the past five years, with almost half of these patients reporting that they felt that they were managing their celiac disease effectively on their own[16 ]. Therefore, despite the present study focusing specifically on management by gastroenterologists, it may be that some patients choose to manage celiac disease on their own and do not return for regularly scheduled visits.

    This study provides valuable insight into the monitoring patterns and outcomes of patients with celiac disease managed at large referral centers in real-world practice.Overall, the monitoring of patients, including the rate of follow-up biopsy, varied across the participating sites, with a higher proportion of Norwegian patients receiving a follow-up biopsy compared with patients in the United Kingdom and United States. Differences were also observed in the presentation of extraintestinal manifestations at diagnosis across the sites. In addition, the study results indicate that a large proportion of patients continue to have villous atrophy and continue to experience symptoms after diagnosis; a finding that was consistent across sites.Pharmacological management may be required for patients who are adherent to a GFD but who still experience symptoms and mucosal injury.

    CONCLUSION

    In general, patients are not routinely monitored for the outcome of a GFD on symptoms, which may have an impact on intestinal health and can be a burden to patients. Overall, these data suggest that more routine follow-up assessment of celiac disease activity is needed. The inconsistent rates of mucosal assessment may be of concern, especially as many patients do not achieve histological remission. Novel, less invasive measures for assessment of ongoing villous atrophy, in combination with adjunctive pharmacologic therapy, may be needed to improve outcomes in patients with celiac disease.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    好男人电影高清在线观看| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 超碰97精品在线观看| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | 不卡一级毛片| 老司机福利观看| 成人18禁在线播放| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 看免费av毛片| 久久久久久人人人人人| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 老司机靠b影院| 久久久久久人人人人人| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 91大片在线观看| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 曰老女人黄片| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 伦理电影免费视频| 成人精品一区二区免费| 手机成人av网站| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 欧美日韩黄片免| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 91成年电影在线观看| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 国产精品电影一区二区三区 | 精品高清国产在线一区| 一本综合久久免费| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 午夜激情av网站| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址 | 一个人免费看片子| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月 | 一级片免费观看大全| 国产色视频综合| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 两性夫妻黄色片| 成人手机av| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 桃花免费在线播放| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 午夜福利视频精品| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 少妇 在线观看| 嫩草影视91久久| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 久久久国产成人免费| 日本av免费视频播放| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 不卡av一区二区三区| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 91字幕亚洲| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 久久亚洲真实| 久久九九热精品免费| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 中国美女看黄片| 无人区码免费观看不卡 | 国产97色在线日韩免费| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 91字幕亚洲| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 精品久久久精品久久久| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 国产在线观看jvid| 国产精品九九99| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 三级毛片av免费| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 日韩视频在线欧美| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 久久性视频一级片| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 久久 成人 亚洲| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www | 丝袜喷水一区| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 国产男女内射视频| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 777米奇影视久久| 99九九在线精品视频| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 色综合婷婷激情| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 久久亚洲真实| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区 | 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 亚洲精品一二三| 国产福利在线免费观看视频| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 亚洲三区欧美一区| av视频免费观看在线观看| 亚洲九九香蕉| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 怎么达到女性高潮| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 日本欧美视频一区| 91av网站免费观看| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 精品亚洲成国产av| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频 | 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 伦理电影免费视频| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 久久久国产成人免费| 国产高清videossex| 国产精品国产高清国产av | 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕 | 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 国产精品二区激情视频| 青草久久国产| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 1024香蕉在线观看| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 久久久国产成人免费| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 999精品在线视频| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 久久香蕉激情| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕 | 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 满18在线观看网站| 国产激情久久老熟女| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 久久久精品免费免费高清| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| videosex国产| 桃花免费在线播放| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| av欧美777| 久久久久国内视频| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 日本五十路高清| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 另类精品久久| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 国产又爽黄色视频| 男女边摸边吃奶| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 一区二区三区激情视频| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 大香蕉久久成人网| 天堂8中文在线网| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 国精品久久久久久国模美| www.自偷自拍.com| 亚洲九九香蕉| 老司机福利观看| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 国产精品.久久久| 久久九九热精品免费| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 国产单亲对白刺激| 老司机亚洲免费影院| h视频一区二区三区| 午夜视频精品福利| 黄色成人免费大全| www.999成人在线观看| 一进一出抽搐动态| 不卡av一区二区三区| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 国产1区2区3区精品| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| tocl精华| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| av电影中文网址| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看 | 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 国产av国产精品国产| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 成人精品一区二区免费| avwww免费| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 精品久久久精品久久久| tube8黄色片| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 美女福利国产在线| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| netflix在线观看网站| 色在线成人网| 大型av网站在线播放| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| www.自偷自拍.com| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 少妇 在线观看| 十八禁网站免费在线| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 在线播放国产精品三级| 黄色成人免费大全| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 日韩视频在线欧美| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 国产野战对白在线观看| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 天堂8中文在线网| 老熟女久久久| 久久99一区二区三区| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址 | 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 亚洲精品一二三| 操美女的视频在线观看| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 亚洲中文av在线| 国产男女内射视频| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| tocl精华| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 99久久人妻综合| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 国产av国产精品国产| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 成年动漫av网址| 精品久久久久久电影网| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 国产av精品麻豆| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| avwww免费| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 满18在线观看网站| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 蜜桃在线观看..| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 老司机靠b影院| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 欧美中文综合在线视频| av线在线观看网站| 成人手机av| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 成人永久免费在线观看视频 | 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 久久香蕉激情| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 久久人妻av系列| av欧美777| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 国产精品 国内视频| 午夜91福利影院| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 一级黄色大片毛片| 黄频高清免费视频| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 久久中文看片网| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 99久久人妻综合| 久久久国产成人免费| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| cao死你这个sao货| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 两个人看的免费小视频| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 欧美在线黄色| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 深夜精品福利| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 日韩免费av在线播放| 亚洲人成电影观看| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 欧美午夜高清在线| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| videosex国产| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 久久久国产一区二区| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | av福利片在线| 精品国产亚洲在线| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 香蕉丝袜av| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 桃花免费在线播放| 日本五十路高清| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 国产精品成人在线| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 亚洲九九香蕉| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 两个人看的免费小视频| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 伦理电影免费视频| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 午夜久久久在线观看| 日韩视频在线欧美| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区 | 999精品在线视频| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 精品国产亚洲在线| 久久九九热精品免费| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 国产色视频综合| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 天堂动漫精品| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| www.999成人在线观看| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 免费观看av网站的网址| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 麻豆av在线久日| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 另类精品久久| 日韩有码中文字幕| 久久久久久人人人人人| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 免费不卡黄色视频| 丝袜喷水一区| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 一区福利在线观看| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 国产福利在线免费观看视频| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| www日本在线高清视频| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 在线 av 中文字幕| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 中文欧美无线码| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 久久久久视频综合| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www | 十八禁人妻一区二区| 在线观看www视频免费| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 美女福利国产在线| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 丝袜在线中文字幕| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 久久狼人影院| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 无限看片的www在线观看| a级毛片在线看网站| 国产成人欧美| 桃花免费在线播放| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 久久久久视频综合| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 国产成人精品在线电影| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 91国产中文字幕| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 亚洲综合色网址| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 精品国产国语对白av| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 国产1区2区3区精品| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 宅男免费午夜| 精品国产国语对白av|