BACKGROUND: Patients with biopsy-proven NASH and especially those with fibrosis are at risk for progressive liver disease, emphasizing the clinical importance of developing non-invasive biomarkers for NASH and NASH-related fibrosis. AIM: This study examines the performance of a new biomarker panel for NASH and NASH-related fibrosis with a combination of clinical and laboratory variables. METHODS: Enrolled patients had biopsy-proven NAFLD. Clinical data, laboratory data, and serum samples were collected at the time of biopsy. Fasting serum was assayed for adiponectin, resistin, glucose, M30, M65, Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 (Timp-1), ProCollagen 3 N-terminal peptide (PIIINP), and hyaluronic acid (HA). Regression models predictive of NASH, NASH-related fibrosis, and NASH-related advanced fibrosis were designed and cross-validated. RESULTS: Of the 79 enrolled NAFLD patients, 40 had biopsy-proven NASH and 39 had non-NASH NAFLD. Clinical and laboratory data were from this cohort were used to develop a NAFLD Diagnostic Panel that includes three models (models for NASH, NASH-related fibrosis, and NASH-related advanced fibrosis). The model for predicting NASH includes diabetes, gender, BMI, triglycerides, M30 (apoptosis), and M65-M30 (necrosis) [AUC: 0.81, 95% CI, 0.70-0.89, 300 p value <9E 301 (-06)]. The NASH-related fibrosis prediction model includes the same predictors [AUC: 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.88, 307 p value <0.00014]. Finally, the NASH-related advanced fibrosis model includes type 2 diabetes, serum triglycerides, Timp-1, and AST [AUC: 0.81, 95% CI, 0.70-0.89; p value, 0.000062]. CONCLUSIONS: This NAFLD Diagnostic Panel based on a clinical and laboratory data has good performance characteristics and is easy to use. This biomarker panel could become useful in the management of patients with NAFLD.
BACKGROUND:Patients with biopsy-proven NASH and especially those with fibrosis are at risk for progressive liver disease, emphasizing the clinical importance of developing non-invasive biomarkers for NASH and NASH-related fibrosis. AIM: This study examines the performance of a new biomarker panel for NASH and NASH-related fibrosis with a combination of clinical and laboratory variables. METHODS: Enrolled patients had biopsy-proven NAFLD. Clinical data, laboratory data, and serum samples were collected at the time of biopsy. Fasting serum was assayed for adiponectin, resistin, glucose, M30, M65, Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 (Timp-1), ProCollagen 3 N-terminal peptide (PIIINP), and hyaluronic acid (HA). Regression models predictive of NASH, NASH-related fibrosis, and NASH-related advanced fibrosis were designed and cross-validated. RESULTS: Of the 79 enrolled NAFLD patients, 40 had biopsy-proven NASH and 39 had non-NASH NAFLD. Clinical and laboratory data were from this cohort were used to develop a NAFLD Diagnostic Panel that includes three models (models for NASH, NASH-related fibrosis, and NASH-related advanced fibrosis). The model for predicting NASH includes diabetes, gender, BMI, triglycerides, M30 (apoptosis), and M65-M30 (necrosis) [AUC: 0.81, 95% CI, 0.70-0.89, 300 p value <9E 301 (-06)]. The NASH-related fibrosis prediction model includes the same predictors [AUC: 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.88, 307 p value <0.00014]. Finally, the NASH-related advanced fibrosis model includes type 2 diabetes, serum triglycerides, Timp-1, and AST [AUC: 0.81, 95% CI, 0.70-0.89; p value, 0.000062]. CONCLUSIONS: This NAFLD Diagnostic Panel based on a clinical and laboratory data has good performance characteristics and is easy to use. This biomarker panel could become useful in the management of patients with NAFLD.
Authors: V Ratziu; P Giral; M Munteanu; D Messous; A Mercadier; M Bernard; R Morra; F Imbert-Bismut; E Bruckert; T Poynard Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: T Itagaki; I Shimizu; X Cheng; Y Yuan; A Oshio; K Tamaki; H Fukuno; H Honda; Y Okamura; S Ito Journal: Gut Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Indra Neil Guha; Julie Parkes; Paul Roderick; Dipanker Chattopadhyay; Richard Cross; Scott Harris; Philip Kaye; Alastair D Burt; Steve D Ryder; Guruprasad P Aithal; Christopher P Day; William M Rosenberg Journal: Hepatology Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Z M Younossi; T Gramlich; Y C Liu; C Matteoni; M Petrelli; J Goldblum; L Rybicki; A J McCullough Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Xiaobo Wang; Ze Zheng; Jorge Matias Caviglia; Kathleen E Corey; Tina M Herfel; Bishuang Cai; Ricard Masia; Raymond T Chung; Jay H Lefkowitch; Robert F Schwabe; Ira Tabas Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Harpal S Randeva; Bee K Tan; Martin O Weickert; Konstantinos Lois; John E Nestler; Naveed Sattar; Hendrik Lehnert Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 19.871