4.7 Article

A 3-step approach to predict advanced fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: impact on diagnosis, patient burden, and medical costs

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-22767-z

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A novel 3-step approach was developed to predict advanced fibrosis in NAFLD patients, showing significant reductions in referral rates and healthcare costs in a study involving 284 patients recruited from two medical centers.
A 2-step approach, Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) followed by vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), has been proposed to predict advanced fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We aimed to develop a novel 3-step approach for predicting advanced fibrosis. We enrolled 284 biopsy-confirmed NAFLD patients from two tertiary care centers and developed subgroups (n = 190), including 3.7% of patients with advanced fibrosis, assuming a primary care setting. In the 3-step approach, patients with intermediate-to-high FIB-4 in the first step underwent an enhanced liver fibrosis test or measurement of type IV collagen 7S domain as the second step, and VCTE was performed if the second step value was higher than the cutoff. In 284 cases, a tertiary care cohort with 36.3% advanced fibrosis, the 3-step approach showed significantly higher specificity and positive predictive value than the 2-step approach. In the subgroup with 3.7% advanced fibrosis, the 3-step approach significantly reduced the referral rate to specialists, the number of high-risk patients (i.e., liver biopsy candidates), and healthcare costs by 12.5% to 15.8%. The 3-step approach may improve the diagnostic performance to predict advanced fibrosis in NAFLD, which could lower rates of referrals to specialists, liver biopsies, and medical costs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available