4.8 Article

The diagnostic value of biomarkers (AshTest) for the prediction of alcoholic steato-hepatitis in patients with chronic alcoholic liver disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 1175-1185

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2006.02.010

关键词

necrosis activity; alanine aminotransferase; alpha-macroglobulin; aspartate aminotransferase; apolipoprotein A-I; biopsy; fibrosis; haptoglobin; AshTest; FibroTest; ActiTest; ROC curve; alcoholic liver disease; alcoholic steato-hepatitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: The aim was to identify a panel of biomarkers (AshTest) for the diagnosis of alcoholic steatohepatitis (ASH), in patients with chronic alcoholic liver disease. Methods: Biomarkers were assessed in patients with an alcohol intake > 50 g/d, in a training group, and in two validation groups. Diagnosis of ASH (polymorphonuclear infiltrate and hepatocellular necrosis) and its histological severity (four classes: none, mild, moderate and severe) were assessed blindly. Results: Two hundred and twenty-five patients were included, 70 in the training group, 155 in the validation groups, and 299 controls. AshTest was constructed using a combination of the six components of FibroTest-ActiTest plus aspartate aminotransferase. The AshTest area under the ROC curves for moderate-severe ASH was 0.90 in the training group, 0.88 and 0.89 in the validation groups. The median AshTest value was 0.005 in controls, 0.05 in patients without or with mild ASH, 0.64 in moderate, and 0.84 in severe ASH grade 3, (P < 0.05 between all groups). At a 0.50 cut-off, the sensitivity of AshTest was 0.80 and the specificity was 0.84. Conclusions: In heavy drinkers, AshTest is a simple and non-invasive quantitative estimate of alcoholic hepatitis. The use of AshTest may reduce the need for liver biopsy, and therefore allow an earlier treatment of alcoholic hepatitis. (c) 2006 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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