METHODS: Consecutive NAFLD patients attending five clinics in Asia were included in this study. The 10-year cardiovascular disease risk was calculated based on the Framingham Heart Study, and patients were categorized as moderate, high, or very high risk for cardiovascular disease on the basis of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologist 2017 Guidelines. The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treatment goal for each of the risk groups was 2.6, 2.6, and 1.8 mmol/L, respectively.
RESULTS: The data for 428 patients were analyzed (mean age 54.4 ± 11.1 years, 52.1% male). Dyslipidemia was seen in 60.5% (259/428), but only 43.2% (185/428) were on a statin. The percentage of patients who were at moderate, high, and very high risk for cardiovascular disease was 36.7% (157/428), 27.3% (117/428), and 36.0% (154/428), respectively. Among patients who were on a statin, 58.9% (109/185) did not achieve the treatment target. Among patients who were not on a statin, 74.1% (180/243) should be receiving statin therapy. The percentage of patients who were not treated to target or who should be on statin was highest among patients at very high risk for cardiovascular disease at 79.6% (78/98) or 94.6% (53/56), respectively.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the suboptimal treatment of dyslipidemia and calls for action to improve the treatment of dyslipidemia in NAFLD patients.
AIM: To study factors associated with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and advanced fibrosis, and medical treatment of biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients.
METHODS: Retrospective study of biopsy-proven NAFLD patients from centres in the GO ASIA Workgroup. Independent factors associated with NASH and with advanced fibrosis on binary logistic regression analyses in a training cohort were used for the development of their corresponding risk score, which were validated in a validation cohort.
RESULTS: We included 1008 patients from nine centres across eight countries (NASH 62.9%, advanced fibrosis 17.2%). Independent predictors of NASH were body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 , diabetes mellitus, dyslipidaemia, alanine aminotransferase ≥88 U/L and aspartate aminotransferase ≥38 U/L, constituting the Asia Pacific NASH risk score. A high score has a positive predictive value of 80%-83% for NASH. Independent predictors of advanced fibrosis were age ≥55 years, diabetes mellitus and platelet count <150 × 109 /L, constituting the Asia-Pacific NAFLD advanced fibrosis risk score. A low score has a negative predictive value of 95%-96% for advanced fibrosis. Only 1.7% of patients were referred for structured lifestyle program, 4.2% were on vitamin E, and 2.4% were on pioglitazone.
CONCLUSIONS: More severe liver disease can be suspected or ruled out based on factors identified in this study. Utilisation of structured lifestyle program, vitamin E and pioglitazone was limited despite this being a cohort of biopsy-proven NAFLD patients with majority of patients having NASH.
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.