AIM: To determine how to use CAP in interpreting liver stiffness measurements.
METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from an individual patient data meta-analysis on CAP. The main exclusion criteria for the current analysis were unknown aetiology, unreliable elastography measurement and data already used for the same research question. Aetiology-specific liver stiffness measurement cut-offs were determined and used to estimate positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) with logistic regression as functions of CAP.
RESULTS: Two thousand and fifty eight patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (37% women, 18% NAFLD/NASH, 42% HBV, 40% HCV, 51% significant fibrosis ≥ F2). Youden optimised cut-offs were only sufficient for ruling out cirrhosis (NPV of 98%). With sensitivity and specificity-optimised cut-offs, NPV for ruling out significant fibrosis was moderate (70%) and could be improved slightly through consideration of CAP. PPV for significant fibrosis and cirrhosis were 68% and 55% respectively, despite specificity-optimised cut-offs for cirrhosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Liver stiffness measurement values below aetiology-specific cut-offs are very useful for ruling out cirrhosis, and to a lesser extent for ruling out significant fibrosis. In the case of the latter, Controlled Attenuation Parameter can improve interpretation slightly. Even if cut-offs are very high, liver stiffness measurements are not very reliable for ruling in fibrosis or cirrhosis.
METHODS: Individual data were collected from 14 registry centers on patients with biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and in all patients, circulating CK-18 M30 levels were measured. Individuals with a NAFLD activity score (NAS) ≥5 with a score of ≥1 for each of steatosis, ballooning, and lobular inflammation were diagnosed as having definite NASH; individuals with a NAS ≤2 and no fibrosis were diagnosed as having non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL).
RESULTS: A total of 2571 participants were screened, and 1008 (153 with NAFL and 855 with NASH) were finally enrolled. Median CK-18 M30 levels were higher in patients with NASH than in those with NAFL (mean difference 177 U/L; standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.87 [0.69-1.04]). There was an interaction between CK-18 M30 levels and serum alanine aminotransferase, body mass index (BMI), and hypertension ( P