Open AccessA Pragmatic Approach Identifies a High Rate of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease With Advanced Fibrosis in Diabetes Clinics and At‐Risk Populations in Primary Care
Author(s) -
Patel PreyaJanubhai,
Hossain Fabrina,
Horsfall Leigh Ula,
Banh Xuan,
Hayward Kelly Lee,
Williams Suzanne,
Johnson Tracey,
Bernard Anne,
Brown Nigel Neil,
Lampe Guy,
Buck Lyndall,
Saad Nivene,
Russell Anthony William,
Valery Patricia Casarolli,
Irvine Katharine Margaret,
Clouston Andrew Donald,
Stuart Katherine Anne,
Rosenberg William,
Powell Elizabeth Ellen
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
hepatology communications
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2471-254X
DOI - 10.1002/hep4.1208
Subject(s) - nonalcoholic fatty liver disease , medicine , fibrosis , body mass index , diabetes mellitus , cirrhosis , odds ratio , fatty liver , gastroenterology , liver biopsy , type 2 diabetes , confidence interval , metabolic syndrome , transient elastography , anthropometry , liver fibrosis , biopsy , disease , obesity , endocrinology
Noninvasive serum biomarkers (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score [NFS], fibrosis 4 score [FIB‐4], or enhanced liver fibrosis [ELF] test) are recommended as first‐line tools to determine the risk of advanced fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. We aimed to assess the utility of a pragmatic approach to screening for clinically significant fibrosis in primary care and diabetes clinics. We recruited 252 patients from an endocrine clinic or primary care facility. Anthropometric measurements, ELF test, ultrasound, and liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) were performed. Clinically significant fibrosis was defined as LSM ≥8.2 kPa or ELF ≥9.8. A subgroup of patients underwent liver biopsy (n = 48) or had imaging diagnostic of cirrhosis (n = 14). Patients were 57.3 ± 12.3 years old with a high prevalence of metabolic syndrome (84.5%), type 2 diabetes (82.5%), and body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m 2 (21.8%). LSM met quality criteria in 230 (91.3%) patients. NFS and FIB‐4 combined had a high negative predictive value (90.0%) for excluding LSM ≥8.2 kPa. However, 84.1% of patients had indeterminate or high NFS or FIB‐4 scores requiring further assessment. LSM ≥8.2 kPa and ELF ≥9.8 were present in 31.3% and 28.6% of patients, respectively. Following adjustment for age, BMI, sex, and presence of advanced fibrosis, older age was independently associated with ELF ≥9.8 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.06‐1.24), whereas increasing BMI was independently associated with LSM ≥8.2 kPa (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01‐1.30). Concordant LSM <8.2 kPa and ELF <9.8 and concordant LSM ≥8.2 kPa and ELF ≥9.8 had a high negative predictive value (91.7%) and positive predictive value (95.8%) for excluding and identifying clinically significant fibrosis, respectively. Conclusion: Simple scoring tools alone lack accuracy. LSM accuracy is influenced by severe obesity, whereas age impacts the ELF test. Further studies are required to confirm whether combining LSM and ELF may enhance accuracy and confidence in identifying clinically significant fibrosis. ( Hepatology Communications 2018; 00:000‐000)