4.7 Article

Noninvasive laboratory tests proposed for predicting cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C are also useful in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 608-614

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-009-0046-6

关键词

NASH; Noninvasive test; Cirrhosis discriminant score; HALT-C; Fibrosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several noninvasive tests have been proposed to predict cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C, but not in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We assessed whether noninvasive laboratory tests designed to predict the risk of cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection could be used in patients with NASH. The subjects were 50 patients with biopsy-proved NASH and 100 age- and sex-matched patients with HCV. Aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio (AAR), age-platelet (AP) index, AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), cirrhosis discriminant score (CDS), and the hepatitis C antiviral long-term treatment against cirrhosis (HALT-C) model were calculated. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves of the AAR, AP index, APRI, CDS, and HALT-C model for predicting cirrhosis were respectively 0.813, 0.877, 0.786, 0.949, and 0.908 in patients with NASH and 0.555, 0.652, 0.761, 0.782, and 0.782 in patients with HCV. A CDS cutoff value of less than 5 misclassified none of the 9 patients with NASH who had cirrhosis, while a value of more than 8 misclassified none of the 41 patients with NASH without cirrhosis. With the HALT-C model, a cutoff value of less than 0.6 classified non-cirrhotic NASH, while a cutoff value of 0.97 or higher classified cirrhotic NASH. The use of CDS and HALT-C model could avoid liver biopsy for predicting cirrhosis in 60 and 48% of the patients with NASH, respectively. Noninvasive laboratory tests designed to predict cirrhosis in patients with HCV are also useful in patients with NASH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据