DESIGN: We prospectively recruited 496 patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease who underwent VCTE by both M and XL probes within 1 week before liver biopsy.
RESULTS: 391 (78.8%) and 433 (87.3%) patients had reliable liver stiffness measurement (LSM) (10 successful acquisitions and IQR:median ratio ≤0.30) by M and XL probes, respectively (p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves was similar between the two probes (0.75-0.88 for F2-4, 0.83-0.91 for F4). When used in the same patient, LSM by XL probe was lower than that by M probe (mean difference 2.3 kPa). In contrast, patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 had higher LSM regardless of the probe used. When M and XL probes were used in patients with BMI <30 and ≥30 kg/m2, respectively, they yielded nearly identical median LSM at each fibrosis stage and similar diagnostic performance. Severe steatosis did not increase LSM or the rate of false-positive diagnosis by XL probe.
CONCLUSION: High BMI but not severe steatosis increases LSM. The same LSM cut-offs can be used without further adjustment for steatosis when M and XL probes are used according to the appropriate BMI.
METHODS: This international study included seven adult cohorts with suspected NAFLD who underwent liver biopsy, LSM and blood sampling during routine clinical practice or screening for trials. The population was randomly divided into a training set and an internal validation set, on which the best-fitting logistic regression model was built, and performance and goodness of fit were assessed, respectively. Furthermore, both scores were externally validated on two large cohorts. Cut-offs for high sensitivity and specificity were derived in the training set to rule-out and rule-in cirrhosis or AF and then tested in the validation set and compared to FIB-4 and LSM.
RESULTS: Each score combined LSM, AST/ALT ratio, platelets, sex and diabetes status, as well as age for Agile 3+. Calibration plots for Agile 4 and Agile 3+ indicated satisfactory to excellent goodness of fit. Agile 4 and Agile 3+ outperformed FIB-4 and LSM in terms of AUROC, percentage of patients with indeterminate results and positive predictive value to rule-in cirrhosis or AF.
CONCLUSIONS: The two novel non-invasive scores improve identification of cirrhosis or AF among individuals with NAFLD attending liver clinics and reduce the need for liver biopsy in this population.
IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Non-invasive tests currently used to identify patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis, such as fibrosis-4 index and liver stiffness measurement by vibration-controlled transient elastography, have high negative predictive values but high false positive rates, while results are indeterminate for a large number of cases. This study provides scores that will help the clinician diagnose advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. These new easy-to-implement scores will help liver specialists to better identify (1) patients who need more intensive follow-up, (2) patients who should be referred for inclusion in therapeutic trials, and (3) which patients should be treated with pharmacological agents when effective therapies are approved.
DESIGN: Individual patient data meta-analysis of studies evaluating LSM-VCTE against liver histology was conducted. FIB-4 and NFS were computed where possible. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) were calculated. Biomarkers were assessed individually and in sequential combinations.
RESULTS: Data were included from 37 primary studies (n=5735; 45% women; median age: 54 years; median body mass index: 30 kg/m2; 33% had type 2 diabetes; 30% had advanced fibrosis). AUROCs of individual LSM-VCTE, FIB-4 and NFS for advanced fibrosis were 0.85, 0.76 and 0.73. Sequential combination of FIB-4 cut-offs (<1.3; ≥2.67) followed by LSM-VCTE cut-offs (<8.0; ≥10.0 kPa) to rule-in or rule-out advanced fibrosis had sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) of 66% (63-68) and 86% (84-87) with 33% needing a biopsy to establish a final diagnosis. FIB-4 cut-offs (<1.3; ≥3.48) followed by LSM cut-offs (<8.0; ≥20.0 kPa) to rule out advanced fibrosis or rule in cirrhosis had a sensitivity of 38% (37-39) and specificity of 90% (89-91) with 19% needing biopsy.
CONCLUSION: Sequential combinations of markers with a lower cut-off to rule-out advanced fibrosis and a higher cut-off to rule-in cirrhosis can reduce the need for liver biopsies.
METHODS: Using the Qualtrics XM and WJX platforms, questionnaires were sent online to MAFLD-ICD-11 coding collaborators, authors of papers, and relevant association members.
RESULTS: A total of 890 international experts in various fields from 61 countries responded to the survey. We also achieved full coverage of provincial-level administrative regions in China. 77.1% of respondents agreed that MAFLD should be represented in ICD-11 by updating NAFLD, with no significant regional differences (77.3% in Asia and 76.6% in non-Asia, p = 0.819). Over 80% of respondents agreed or somewhat agreed with the need to assign specific codes for progressive stages of MAFLD (i.e. steatohepatitis) (92.2%), MAFLD combined with comorbidities (84.1%), or MAFLD subtypes (i.e., lean, overweight/obese, and diabetic) (86.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: This global survey by a collaborative panel of clinical, coding, health management and policy experts, indicates agreement that MAFLD should be coded in ICD-11. The data serves as a foundation for corresponding adjustments in the ICD-11 revision.