METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an individual patient data meta-analysis of 1780 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD and T2D. The index tests of interest were FIB-4, NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS), aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index, liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by vibration-controlled transient elastography, and AGILE 3+. The target conditions were advanced fibrosis, NASH, and fibrotic NASH(NASH plus F2-F4 fibrosis). The diagnostic performance of noninvasive tests. individually or in sequential combination, was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and by decision curve analysis. Comparison with 2278 NAFLD patients without T2D was also made. In NAFLD with T2D LSM and AGILE 3+ outperformed, both NFS and FIB-4 for advanced fibrosis (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve:LSM 0.82, AGILE 3+ 0.82, NFS 0.72, FIB-4 0.75, aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index 0.68; p < 0.001 of LSM-based versus simple serum tests), with an uncertainty area of 12%-20%. The combination of serum-based with LSM-based tests for advanced fibrosis led to a reduction of 40%-60% in necessary LSM tests. Decision curve analysis showed that all scores had a modest net benefit for ruling out advanced fibrosis at the risk threshold of 5%-10% of missing advanced fibrosis. LSM and AGILE 3+ outperformed both NFS and FIB-4 for fibrotic NASH (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve:LSM 0.79, AGILE 3+ 0.77, NFS 0.71, FIB-4 0.71; p < 0.001 of LSM-based versus simple serum tests). All noninvasive scores were suboptimal for diagnosing NASH.
CONCLUSIONS: LSM and AGILE 3+ individually or in low availability settings in sequential combination after FIB-4 or NFS have a similar good diagnostic accuracy for advanced fibrosis and an acceptable diagnostic accuracy for fibrotic NASH in NAFLD patients with T2D.
METHODS: We analyzed data from 3004 individuals with biopsy-proven metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) across 29 Chinese and 9 international cohorts to validate the acMASH index and develop the acFibroMASH index. Additionally, we utilized the independent external data from a multi-national cohort of 9034 patients with MASLD to examine associations between the acFibroMASH index and the risk of LREs.
RESULTS: In the pooled global cohort, the acMASH index identified MASH with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.802 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.786-0.818). The acFibroMASH index (including the acMASH index plus liver stiffness measurement) accurately identified fibrotic MASH with an AUROC of 0.808 in the derivation cohort and 0.800 in the validation cohort. Notably, the AUROC for the acFibroMASH index was 0.835 (95% CI, 0.786-0.882), superior to that of the FAST score at 0.750 (95% CI, 0.693-0.800; P < .01) in predicting the 5-year risk of LREs. Patients with acFibroMASH >0.39 had a higher risk of LREs than those with acFibroMASH <0.15 (adjusted hazard ratio, 11.23; 95% CI, 3.98-31.66).
CONCLUSIONS: This multi-ethnic study validates the acMASH index as a reliable, noninvasive test for identifying MASH. The newly proposed acFibroMASH index is a reliable test for identifying fibrotic MASH and predicting the risk of LREs.