4.7 Article

Serial combination of non-invasive tools improves the diagnostic accuracy of severe liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 46, Issue 6, Pages 617-627

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.14219

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The accuracy of available non-invasive tools for staging severe fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is still limited. Aim: To assess the diagnostic performance of paired or serial combination of non-invasive tools in NAFLD patients. Methods: We analysed data from 741 patients with a histological diagnosis of NAFLD. The GGT/PLT, APRI, AST/ALT, BARD, FIB-4, and NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) scores were calculated according to published algorithms. Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) was performed by FibroScan. Results: LSM, NFS and FIB-4 were the best non-invasive tools for staging F3-F4 fibrosis (AUC 0.863, 0.774, and 0.792, respectively), with LSM having the highest sensitivity (90%), and the highest NPV (94%), and NFS and FIB-4 the highest specificity (97% and 93%, respectively), and the highest PPV (73% and 79%, respectively). The paired combination of LSM or NFS with FIB-4 strongly reduced the likelihood of wrongly classified patients (ranging from 2.7% to 2.6%), at the price of a high uncertainty area (ranging from 54.1% to 58.2%), and of a low overall accuracy (ranging from 43% to 39.1%). The serial combination with the second test used in patients in the grey area of the first test and in those with high LSM values (> 9.6 KPa) or low NFS or FIB-4 values (< -1.455 and < 1.30, respectively) overall increased the diagnostic performance generating an accuracy ranging from 69.8% to 70.1%, an uncertainty area ranging from 18.9% to 20.4% and a rate of wrong classification ranging from 9.2% to 11.3%. Conclusion: The serial combination of LSM with FIB-4/NFS has a good diagnostic accuracy for the non-invasive diagnosis of severe fibrosis in NAFLD.

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