| Literature DB >> 21345221 |
Fernanda Bu Pulzi1, Raul Cisternas, Murilo R Melo, Cristiane Mf Ribeiro, Carlos A Malheiros, João E Salles.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most frequent disease associated with abnormal liver tests that is characterized by a wide spectrum of liver damage, ranging from simple macro vesicular steatosis to steatohepatitis (NASH), cirrhosis or liver carcinoma. Liver biopsy is the most precise test to differentiate NASH from other stages of NAFLD, but it is an invasive and expensive method. This study aimed to create a clinical laboratory score capable of identify individual with NASH in severely obese patients submitted to bariatric surgery.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21345221 PMCID: PMC3055806 DOI: 10.1186/1758-5996-3-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetol Metab Syndr ISSN: 1758-5996 Impact factor: 3.320
Classification into 2 groups according to liver biopsy: NASH and Non-NASH
| Absent NAFLD | 11 (11.6) | Non-NASH Group |
| Steatosis I | 21 (31.8) | |
| Steatosis II | 11 (16.6) | |
| Steatosis III | 10 (15.1) | |
| Fibrosis I | 9 (13.6) | NASH Group |
| Fibrosis II | 3 (4.5) | |
| Fibrosis III | 0 (0) | |
| Fibrosis IV | 1 (1.5) | |
| Total | 66 (100) |
Patients without NAFLD or with steatosis, grade I, II or II were classified as Non-NASH group. Patients with NASH were classified as NASH group. The classification of NAFLD was according to Brunt's score.
Clinical, Laboratory and Imaging characteristics of the groups.
| Gender: % women | 84.9 | 76.9 | 0.503 |
| Age ( years) | 39.8 (± 10.4) | 44.6 (± 12.5) | 0.216* |
| BMI ( Kg/m2) | 46.3 (± 6.45) | 47.0 (± 6.72) | 0.714 |
| HAS (% positive) | 58.5 | 46.2 | 0.423 |
| DM (% positive) | 13.2 | 23.1 | 0.374 |
| CT (mg/dL) | 195.4 (± 37.28) | 210.2 (± 22.3) | 0.094* |
| LDL (mg/dL) | 120 (± 35) | 125.8 (± 22) | 0.488 |
| TG (mg/dL) | 141.3 (± 57.5) | 163 (± 111) | 0.544 |
| HDL (mg/dL) | 49.0 (± 11.9) | 48.9 (± 7.9) | 0.968 |
| FG (mg/dL) | 103.2 (± 23.9) | 100.5 (± 11.6) | 0.589 |
| AST (IU/L) | 23.6 (± 9.2) | 31.6 (± 22.4) | 0.248* |
| ALT (IU/L) | 24.5 (± 13.1) | 44.8 (± 45) | 0.151* |
| GGT (IU/L) | 38.2(24.4) | 46.5(18.5) | 0.229* |
| AAR | 1.000 | 0.7677 | 0.047** |
| ALP (IU/L) | 170.2 (± 79.7) | 159.6 (± 56.5) | 0.659 |
| SM (% positive) | 67.4 | 66.7 | 0.960 |
| US (% abnormal) | 47 | 77 | 0.048** |
Data is expressed as Mean ± SD (except for AAR that has a non-parametric distribution).
Cut-off and ROC curve analysis of each marker that was included in the score systems.
| TC | 200 mg/dL | 66.1% | 0.091 | 83.3% | 58.1% |
| AAR | 1.000 | 68.8% | 0.047 | 83.3% | 46.7% |
| ALT | 30 IU/L | 70.1% | 0.034 | 66.7% | 71.1% |
| GGT | 30 IU/L | 65.5% | 0.084 | 90.9% | 44.2% |
| US | Abnormal | n/a | n/a | 76.9% | 46.9% |
Figure 1ROC curves showing the sensitivity and specify to identify severe steatosis.
Figure 2Number of patients with NASH according to the number of points of a simplified score system.
Figure 3Number of patients with NASH according to the number of points in complete score system.
Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy to identify NASH at liver biopsy.
| Sensitivity (%) | 70 | 10 | 70 | 10 |
| Specificity (%) | 75 | 100 | 88.6 | 100 |
| PPV (%) | 43.8 | 100 | 63.6 | 100 |
| NPV (%) | 90 | 80 | 91.2 | 79.5 |
| Accuracy (%) | 73.9 | 80.4 | 84.4 | 80 |