4.8 Article

Prediction of liver histological lesions with biochemical markers in patients with chronic hepatitis B

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 222-230

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-8278(03)00171-5

关键词

alpha-macroglobulins; apolipoprotein A1; biopsy; diagnosis; fibrosis; haptoglobins; histology; hepatitis B; receiver operating characteristic curve; transaminases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Aims: Liver biopsy is the gold standard for assessing hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related histology. The aim was to determine the diagnostic utility of noninvasive serum markers in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Methods: The aminotransferases and indices including alpha(2)-macroglobulin, apolipoprotein A1, haptoglobin, gamma-glutamyl-transpeptidase (GGT), and total bilirubin (Fibrotest), and ALT (Actitest) were compared with liver histology. The primary outcomes were A2-A3 activity and F2-F4 fibrosis (METAVIR). Results: Two hundred and nine patients were included. Forty-one patients (20%) had A2-A3 activity and 61 (29%) had F2-F4 fibrosis. AST and GGT (P < 0.001) were independently associated with A2-A3 activity. AST, ALT, and Actitest accurately predicted activity ((areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUROC), 0.81-0.82 +/- 0.04)); an AST or ALT <= 30 IU/l excluded significant activity with 96% certainty. Fibrotest accurately predicted F2-F4 fibrosis (AUROC, 0.78 +/- 0.04). Fibrotest scores (range, 0-1.0) <= 0.20 and >0.80 had negative and positive predictive values of 92%, respectively. Restricting biopsy to patients with intermediate scores (>0.20 and less than or equal to0.80) may prevent liver biopsies in 46 % of patients while maintaining 92 % accuracy. Conclusions: The aminotransferases and an index including five biochemical markers are accurate noninvasive markers of HBV-related activity and fibrosis, respectively. (C) 2003 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier Science 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