Diagnostic role of the fibrosis-4 index and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score as a noninvasive tool for liver fibrosis scoring.
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Oct 2024
25 Oct 2024
Historique:
medline:
29
10
2024
pubmed:
29
10
2024
entrez:
29
10
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is characterized by liver fibrosis, which serves as a crucial indicator of its progression and prognosis. Owing to the limitations of biopsy, which is the gold standard for measuring liver fibrosis, a reliable and noninvasive marker is required. We evaluated the diagnostic role of the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score (NFS) in patients with NAFLD with varying severities of liver fibrosis. The FIB-4 index and NFS were calculated using laboratory data from 121 patients who underwent liver biopsies between January 2022 and December 2023. The results were compared with those of the Scheuer scoring system for liver biopsies (F0, F1 + F2, and F3 + F4) to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the FIB-4 index and the liver disease fibrosis score in detecting and staging liver fibrosis. Twenty-one patients had advanced fibrosis (F3-F4), and 100 had minimal or mild fibrosis (F0-F2). The degree of liver fibrosis increased with decreased albumin, alanine aminotransferase and platelet count levels, and increasing age. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the FIB-4 index and NFS revealed that the areas under the curve for the FIB-4 index and NFS were 0.895 (95% confidence interval: 0.836-0.954) and 0.882 (95% confidence interval: 0.813-0.952), respectively. The FIB-4 indices showed 95.24% sensitivity at a cutoff point of 1.30, and 85% specificity at a cutoff point of 2.67, while the NFS indices showed 95.24% sensitivity at -1.455 cutoff point and 95% specificity at a cutoff point of 0.676. The FIB-4 index and NFS may replace biopsy for the detection of fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39470560
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000040214
pii: 00005792-202410250-00088
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Alanine Transaminase
EC 2.6.1.2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e40214Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Zambrano-Huailla R, Guedes L, Stefano JT, et al. Diagnostic performance of three non-invasive fibrosis scores (Hepamet, FIB-4, NAFLD fibrosis score) in NAFLD patients from a mixed Latin American population. Ann Hepatol. 2020;19:622–6.
Eslam M, Sanyal AJ, George J. MAFLD: a consensus-driven proposed nomenclature for metabolic associated fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2020;158:1999–2014.e1.
Eslam M, Newsome PN, Sarin SK, et al. A new definition for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: an international expert consensus statement. J Hepatol. 2020;73:202–9.
Kuchay MS, Choudhary NS, Mishra SK. Pathophysiological mechanisms underlying MAFLD. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14:1875–87.
Campos-Murguía A, Ruiz-Margáin A, González-Regueiro JA, Macías-Rodríguez RU. Clinical assessment and management of liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26:5919–43.
Wang XM, Zhang XJ, Ma L. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance technology in detecting steatosis or fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97:e10605.
Hsu C, Caussy C, Imajo K, et al. Magnetic resonance vs transient elastography analysis of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and pooled analysis of individual participants. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17:630–7.e8.
Park CC, Nguyen P, Hernandez C, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography vs transient elastography in detection of fibrosis and non-invasive measurement of steatosis in patients with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2017;152:598–607.e2.
Albhaisi S, Sanyal AJ. Applying non-invasive fibrosis measurements in NAFLD/NASH: progress to date. Pharmaceut Med. 2019;33:451–63.
Wong VW, Adams LA, de Lédinghen V, Wong GL, Sookoian S. Non-invasive biomarkers in NAFLD and NASH—current progress and future promise. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;15:461–78.
Pokorska-Śpiewak M, Kowalik-Mikołajewska B, Aniszewska M, Pluta M, Marczyńska M. Is liver biopsy still needed in children with chronic viral hepatitis? World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:12141–9.
Castera L, Friedrich-Rust M, Loomba R. Noninvasive assessment of liver disease in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:1264–81.e4.
De Carli MA, De Carli LA, Correa MB, Junqueira G, Tovo CV, Coral GP. Performance of noninvasive scores for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis in morbidly obese with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;32:420–5.
Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine J, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;67:328–57.
Zhang YH, Zhao Y, Rajapaksa US, et al. Association of non-invasive markers of liver fibrosis with HCV coinfection and antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV. PLoS One. 201625;11:e0158037.
Lee J, Vali Y, Boursier J, et al. Prognostic accuracy of FIB-4, NAFLD fibrosis score and Apri for NAFLD-related events: a systematic review. Liver Int. 2021;41:261–70.
Vilar-Gomez E, Chalasani N. Non-invasive assessment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: clinical prediction rules and blood-based biomarkers. J Hepatol. 2018;68:305–15.
Chinese Society of Hepatology, Chinese Medical Association. Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of metabolic dysfunction-associated (non-alcoholic) fatty liver disease [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2024;32:418–34.
Boursier J, Hagström H, Ekstedt M, et al. Non-invasive tests accurately stratify patients with NAFLD based on their risk of liver-related events. J Hepatol. 2022;76:1013–20.
Boursier J, Guillaume M, Leroy V, et al. New sequential combinations of non-invasive fibrosis tests provide an accurate diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in NAFLD. J Hepatol. 2019;71:389–96.
Patel YA, Gifford EJ, Glass LM, et al. Identifying nonalcoholic fatty liver disease advanced fibrosis in the Veterans Health Administration. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:2259–66.
Rigor J, Diegues A, Presa J, Barata P, Martins-Mendes D. Noninvasive fibrosis tools in NAFLD: validation of Apri, BARD, FIB-4, NAFLD fibrosis score, and Hepamet fibrosis score in a Portuguese population. Postgrad Med. 2022;134:435–40.
Tanase DM, Gosav EM, Costea CF, et al. The intricate relationship between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), insulin resistance (IR), and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). J Diabetes Res. 2020;2020:3920196.
Boursier J, Canivet CM, Costentin C, et al. Impact of Type 2 diabetes on the accuracy of noninvasive tests of liver fibrosis with resulting clinical implications. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21:1243–51.e12.
Stine JG, Rinella ME. Age and non-invasive markers of fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: time to adjust the clock? Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:752–4.
Shah K, Soni PN, Soni S, Biya F. A study of prevalence, frequency and risk factors of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in type 2 diabetes patients. Int J Sci. 2023;12:75–7.
Yamane R, Yoshioka K, Hayashi K, et al. Prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and its association with age in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. World J Hepatol. 2022;14:1226–34.