Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Pennisi G, Enea M, Falco V, Aithal GP, Palaniyappan N, Yilmaz Y, et al.
    Hepatology, 2023 Jul 01;78(1):195-211.
    PMID: 36924031 DOI: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000351
    BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of simple, noninvasive tests (NITs) in NAFLD patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

    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.

  2. Mózes FE, Lee JA, Selvaraj EA, Jayaswal ANA, Trauner M, Boursier J, et al.
    Gut, 2021 May 17.
    PMID: 34001645 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324243
    OBJECTIVE: Liver biopsy is still needed for fibrosis staging in many patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The aims of this study were to evaluate the individual diagnostic performance of liver stiffness measurement by vibration controlled transient elastography (LSM-VCTE), Fibrosis-4 Index (FIB-4) and NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease) Fibrosis Score (NFS) and to derive diagnostic strategies that could reduce the need for liver biopsies.

    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.

  3. Feng G, Mózes FE, Ji D, Treeprasertsuk S, Okanoue T, Shima T, et al.
    PMID: 39362618 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.07.045
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and fibrotic MASH are significant health challenges. This multi-national study aimed to validate the acMASH index (including serum creatinine and aspartate aminotransferase concentrations) for MASH diagnosis and develop a new index (acFibroMASH) for non-invasively identifying fibrotic MASH and exploring its predictive value for liver-related events (LREs).

    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.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links