Pauline Verhaegh1, Roisin Bavalia1, Bjorn Winkens2, Ad Masclee1, Daisy Jonkers1, Ger Koek3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Methodology and Statistic, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: gh.koek@mumc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is a rapidly increasing health problem. Liver biopsy analysis is the most sensitive test to differentiate between nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and simple steatosis (SS), but noninvasive methods are needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of noninvasive tests for differentiating NASH from SS, focusing on blood markers. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the PubMed, Medline and Embase (1990-2016) databases using defined keywords, limited to full-text papers in English and human adults, and identified 2608 articles. Two independent reviewers screened the articles and identified 122 eligible articles that used liver biopsy as reference standard. If at least 2 studies were available, pooled sensitivity (sensp) and specificity (specp) values were determined using the Meta-Analysis Package for R (metafor). RESULTS: In the 122 studies analyzed, 219 different blood markers (107 single markers and 112 scoring systems) were identified to differentiate NASH from simple steatosis, and 22 other diagnostic tests were studied. Markers identified related to several pathophysiological mechanisms. The markers analyzed in the largest proportions of studies were alanine aminotransferase (sensp, 63.5% and specp, 74.4%) within routine biochemical tests, adiponectin (sensp, 72.0% and specp, 75.7%) within inflammatory markers, CK18-M30 (sensp, 68.4% and specp, 74.2%) within markers of cell death or proliferation and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (sensp, 69.0% and specp, 72.7%) within the metabolic markers. Two scoring systems could also be pooled: the NASH test (differentiated NASH from borderline NASH plus simple steatosis with 22.9% sensp and 95.3% specp) and the GlycoNASH test (67.1% sensp and 63.8% specp). CONCLUSION: In the meta-analysis, we found no test to differentiate NASH from SS with a high level of pooled sensitivity and specificity (≥80%). However, some blood markers, when included in scoring systems in single studies, identified patients with NASH with ≥80% sensitivity and specificity. Replication studies and more standardized study designs are urgently needed. At present, no marker or scoring system can be recommended for use in clinical practice to differentiate NASH from simple steatosis.
BACKGROUND & AIMS:Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is a rapidly increasing health problem. Liver biopsy analysis is the most sensitive test to differentiate between nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and simple steatosis (SS), but noninvasive methods are needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of noninvasive tests for differentiating NASH from SS, focusing on blood markers. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the PubMed, Medline and Embase (1990-2016) databases using defined keywords, limited to full-text papers in English and human adults, and identified 2608 articles. Two independent reviewers screened the articles and identified 122 eligible articles that used liver biopsy as reference standard. If at least 2 studies were available, pooled sensitivity (sensp) and specificity (specp) values were determined using the Meta-Analysis Package for R (metafor). RESULTS: In the 122 studies analyzed, 219 different blood markers (107 single markers and 112 scoring systems) were identified to differentiate NASH from simple steatosis, and 22 other diagnostic tests were studied. Markers identified related to several pathophysiological mechanisms. The markers analyzed in the largest proportions of studies were alanine aminotransferase (sensp, 63.5% and specp, 74.4%) within routine biochemical tests, adiponectin (sensp, 72.0% and specp, 75.7%) within inflammatory markers, CK18-M30 (sensp, 68.4% and specp, 74.2%) within markers of cell death or proliferation and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (sensp, 69.0% and specp, 72.7%) within the metabolic markers. Two scoring systems could also be pooled: the NASH test (differentiated NASH from borderline NASH plus simple steatosis with 22.9% sensp and 95.3% specp) and the GlycoNASH test (67.1% sensp and 63.8% specp). CONCLUSION: In the meta-analysis, we found no test to differentiate NASH from SS with a high level of pooled sensitivity and specificity (≥80%). However, some blood markers, when included in scoring systems in single studies, identified patients with NASH with ≥80% sensitivity and specificity. Replication studies and more standardized study designs are urgently needed. At present, no marker or scoring system can be recommended for use in clinical practice to differentiate NASH from simple steatosis.
Authors: Giada Sebastiani; Keyur Patel; Vlad Ratziu; Jordan J Feld; Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri; Massimo Pinzani; Salvatore Petta; Annalisa Berzigotti; Peter Metrakos; Naglaa Shoukry; Elizabeth M Brunt; An Tang; Jeremy F Cobbold; Jean-Marie Ekoe; Karen Seto; Peter Ghali; Stéphanie Chevalier; Quentin M Anstee; Heather Watson; Harpreet Bajaj; James Stone; Mark G Swain; Alnoor Ramji Journal: Can Liver J Date: 2022-02-04
Authors: Patrick H Alizai; Isabella Lurje; Andreas Kroh; Sophia Schmitz; Tom Luedde; Julia Andruszkow; Ulf P Neumann; Florian Ulmer Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2019-02-03 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Özgür M Koc; Geert Robaeys; Halit Topal; Rob Bielen; Dana Busschots; Johan Fevery; Ger H Koek; Frederik Nevens Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 2.327
Authors: Wonbeak Yoo; Donjeta Gjuka; Heather L Stevenson; Xiaoling Song; Hong Shen; Suk Young Yoo; Jing Wang; Michael Fallon; George N Ioannou; Stephen A Harrison; Laura Beretta Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.240