4.7 Article

The novel cutoff points for the FIB4 index categorized by age increase the diagnostic accuracy in NAFLD: a multi-center study

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 11, Pages 1216-1224

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-018-1474-y

Keywords

Advanced fibrosis; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; Non-invasive fibrosis marker; FIB4 index; Diagnostic accuracy

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K09010] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The FIB4 index is clinically useful, but because its formula includes age, the appropriate cutoff point may differ by age group. Here, new FIB4 index cutoff points were validated using cohort data from 14 hepatology centers in Japan. Methods The FIB4 index was determined in biopsy-confirmed NAFLD patients (n = 1050) who were divided into four groups: <= 49, 50-59, 60-69, and >= 70 years. ROC analysis predicted advanced fibrosis in each age group; low and high cutoff points were defined by a sensitivity and specificity of 90%. The new and conventional cutoffs were compared for detecting advanced fibrosis. Results The modified low and high cutoff points were 1.05 and 1.21 in <= 49 years, 1.24 and 1.96 in 50-59 years, 1.88 and 3.24 in 60-69 years, and 1.95 and 4.56 in >= 70 years. In >= 60 years, the false-negative rate was increasedusing the modified high cutoff point, and the high cutoff point was better with the conventional cutoff point. The new proposed low and high cutoff points are 1.05 and 1.21 in <= 49 years, 1.24 and 1.96 in 50-59 years, 1.88 and 2.67 in 60-69 years, and 1.95 and 2.67 in >= 70 years; these cutoff points improved the accuracy of advanced fibrosis diagnosis. Conclusions FIB4 index cutoff points for predicting advanced fibrosis in NAFLD increased with age. Cutoff points modified by age improved the diagnostic accuracy of estimations of advanced liver fibrosis using the FIB4 index.

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