Maja Thiele1, Bjørn Stæhr Madsen2, Janne Fuglsang Hansen3, Sönke Detlefsen4, Steen Antonsen5, Aleksander Krag2. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and OPEN, Odense Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense C, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark. Electronic address: maja.thiele@rsyd.dk. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and OPEN, Odense Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense C, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark. 3. Department of Infectious Diseases, Odense University Hospital, Odense C, Denmark. 4. Department of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, Odense C, Denmark. 5. Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Odense University Hospital Svendborg, Svendborg, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Alcohol is the leading cause of cirrhosis and liver-related mortality, but we lack serum markers to detect compensated disease. We compared the accuracy of the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis test (ELF), the FibroTest, liver stiffness measurements (made by transient elastography and 2-dimensional shear-wave elastography), and 6 indirect marker tests in detection of advanced liver fibrosis (Kleiner stage ≥F3). METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 10 liver fibrosis markers (patented and not), all performed on the same day. Patients were recruited from primary centers (municipal alcohol rehabilitation, n = 128; 6% with advanced fibrosis) and secondary health care centers (hospital outpatient clinics, n = 161; 36% with advanced fibrosis) in the Region of Southern Denmark from 2013 through 2016. Biopsy-verified fibrosis stage was used as the reference standard. The primary aim was to validate ELF in detection of advanced fibrosis in patients with alcoholic liver disease recruited from primary and secondary health care centers, using the literature-based cutoff value of 10.5. Secondary aims were to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ELF for significant fibrosis and cirrhosis and to determine whether combinations of fibrosis markers increase diagnostic yield. RESULTS: The ELF identified patients with advanced liver fibrosis with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.89-0.96); findings did not differ significantly between patients from primary vs secondary care (P = .917). ELF more accurately identified patients with advanced liver fibrosis than indirect marker tests, but ELF and FibroTest had comparable diagnostic accuracies (AUROC of FibroTest, 0.90) (P = .209 for comparison with ELF). Results from the ELF and FibroTest did not differ significantly from those of liver stiffness measurement in intention-to-diagnose analyses (AUROC for transient elastography, 0.90), but did differ in the per-protocol analysis (AUROC for transient elastography, 0.97) (P = .521 and .004 for comparison with ELF). Adding a serum marker to transient elastography analysis did not increase accuracy. For patients in primary care, ELF values below 10.5 and FibroTest values below 0.58 had negative predictive values for advanced liver fibrosis of 98% and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In a prospective, direct comparison of tests, ELF and FibroTest identified advanced liver fibrosis in alcoholic patients from primary and secondary care with high diagnostic accuracy (AUROC values of 0.90 or higher using biopsy as reference). Advanced fibrosis can be ruled out in primary health care patients based on an ELF value below 10.5 or a FibroTest value below 0.58.
BACKGROUND & AIMS:Alcohol is the leading cause of cirrhosis and liver-related mortality, but we lack serum markers to detect compensated disease. We compared the accuracy of the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis test (ELF), the FibroTest, liver stiffness measurements (made by transient elastography and 2-dimensional shear-wave elastography), and 6 indirect marker tests in detection of advanced liver fibrosis (Kleiner stage ≥F3). METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 10 liver fibrosis markers (patented and not), all performed on the same day. Patients were recruited from primary centers (municipal alcohol rehabilitation, n = 128; 6% with advanced fibrosis) and secondary health care centers (hospital outpatient clinics, n = 161; 36% with advanced fibrosis) in the Region of Southern Denmark from 2013 through 2016. Biopsy-verified fibrosis stage was used as the reference standard. The primary aim was to validate ELF in detection of advanced fibrosis in patients with alcoholic liver disease recruited from primary and secondary health care centers, using the literature-based cutoff value of 10.5. Secondary aims were to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ELF for significant fibrosis and cirrhosis and to determine whether combinations of fibrosis markers increase diagnostic yield. RESULTS: The ELF identified patients with advanced liver fibrosis with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.89-0.96); findings did not differ significantly between patients from primary vs secondary care (P = .917). ELF more accurately identified patients with advanced liver fibrosis than indirect marker tests, but ELF and FibroTest had comparable diagnostic accuracies (AUROC of FibroTest, 0.90) (P = .209 for comparison with ELF). Results from the ELF and FibroTest did not differ significantly from those of liver stiffness measurement in intention-to-diagnose analyses (AUROC for transient elastography, 0.90), but did differ in the per-protocol analysis (AUROC for transient elastography, 0.97) (P = .521 and .004 for comparison with ELF). Adding a serum marker to transient elastography analysis did not increase accuracy. For patients in primary care, ELF values below 10.5 and FibroTest values below 0.58 had negative predictive values for advanced liver fibrosis of 98% and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In a prospective, direct comparison of tests, ELF and FibroTest identified advanced liver fibrosis in alcoholicpatients from primary and secondary care with high diagnostic accuracy (AUROC values of 0.90 or higher using biopsy as reference). Advanced fibrosis can be ruled out in primary health care patients based on an ELF value below 10.5 or a FibroTest value below 0.58.
Authors: Katharina Staufer; Emina Halilbasic; Walter Spindelboeck; Magdalena Eilenberg; Gerhard Prager; Vanessa Stadlbauer; Andreas Posch; Petra Munda; Rodrig Marculescu; Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch; Judith Stift; Carolin Lackner; Michael Trauner; Rudolf E Stauber Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Matias A Avila; Jean-François Dufour; Alexander L Gerbes; Fabien Zoulim; Ramon Bataller; Patrizia Burra; Helena Cortez-Pinto; Bin Gao; Ian Gilmore; Philippe Mathurin; Christophe Moreno; Vladimir Poznyak; Bernd Schnabl; Gyongyi Szabo; Maja Thiele; Mark R Thursz Journal: Gut Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Fredrik Åberg; Christopher J Danford; Maja Thiele; Mats Talbäck; Ditlev Nytoft Rasmussen; Z Gordon Jiang; Niklas Hammar; Patrik Nasr; Mattias Ekstedt; Anna But; Pauli Puukka; Aleksander Krag; Jouko Sundvall; Iris Erlund; Veikko Salomaa; Per Stål; Stergios Kechagias; Rolf Hultcrantz; Michelle Lai; Nezam Afdhal; Antti Jula; Satu Männistö; Annamari Lundqvist; Markus Perola; Martti Färkkilä; Hannes Hagström Journal: Hepatol Commun Date: 2021-03-08