Jérôme Boursier1, Maeva Guillaume2, Vincent Leroy3, Marie Irlès4, Marine Roux5, Adrien Lannes6, Juliette Foucher4, Floraine Zuberbuhler6, Cyrielle Delabaudière7, Justine Barthelon8, Sophie Michalak9, Jean-Baptiste Hiriart4, Jean-Marie Peron2, Theophile Gerster8, Brigitte Le Bail10, Jeremie Riou11, Gilles Hunault5, Wassil Merrouche4, Frederic Oberti6, Laurence Pelade8, Isabelle Fouchard6, Christophe Bureau2, Paul Calès6, Victor de Ledinghen12. 1. Service d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers, Angers, France; Laboratoire HIFIH, UPRES 3859, SFR 4208, Université d'Angers, Angers, France. Electronic address: JeBoursier@chu-angers.fr. 2. Service d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France; Institut CARDIOMET, Fédération Hospitalo-Universitaire IMPACT, Toulouse, France. 3. Service d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France; INSERM U1209, Université Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France. 4. Service d'Hépatologie, Hôpital Haut-Lévêque, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Pessac, France. 5. Laboratoire HIFIH, UPRES 3859, SFR 4208, Université d'Angers, Angers, France. 6. Service d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers, Angers, France; Laboratoire HIFIH, UPRES 3859, SFR 4208, Université d'Angers, Angers, France. 7. Service d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 8. Service d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France. 9. Laboratoire HIFIH, UPRES 3859, SFR 4208, Université d'Angers, Angers, France; Département de Pathologie Tissulaire et Cellulaire, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers, Angers, France. 10. Service d'Anatomopathologie, Hôpital Pellegrin, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Pessac, France. 11. MINT UMR INSERM 1066, CNRS 6021, Angers University, France. 12. Service d'Hépatologie, Hôpital Haut-Lévêque, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Pessac, France; INSERM U1053, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Advanced liver fibrosis is an important diagnostic target in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) as it defines the subgroup of patients with impaired prognosis. The non-invasive diagnosis of advanced fibrosis is currently limited by the suboptimal positive predictive value and the grey zone (representing indeterminate diagnosis) of fibrosis tests. Here, we aimed to determine the best combination of non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in NAFLD. METHODS: A total of 938 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD were randomized 2:1 into derivation and validation sets. All patients underwent liver stiffness measurement with vibration controlled transient elastography (VCTE) and blood fibrosis tests (NAFLD fibrosis score, Fibrosis-4 [FIB4], Fibrotest, Hepascore, FibroMeter). FibroMeterVCTE, which combines VCTE results and FibroMeter markers in a single test, was also calculated in all patients. RESULTS: For the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis, VCTE was significantly more accurate than the blood tests (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]: 0.840 ± 0.013, p ≤0.005). FibroMeter was the most accurate blood test (AUROC: 0.793 ± 0.015, p ≤0.017). The combinatory test FibroMeterVCTE outperformed VCTE and blood tests (AUROC: 0.866 ± 0.012, p ≤0.005). The sequential combination of FIB4 then FibroMeterVCTE (FIB4-FMVCTE algorithm) or VCTE then FibroMeterVCTE (VCTE-FMVCTE algorithm) provided an excellent diagnostic accuracy of 90% for advanced fibrosis, with liver biopsy only required to confirm the diagnosis in 20% of cases. The FIB4-FMVCTE and VCTE-FMVCTE algorithms were significantly more accurate than the pragmatic algorithms currently proposed. CONCLUSION: The sequential combination of fibrosis tests in the FIB4-FMVCTE and VCTE-FMVCTE algorithms provides a highly accurate solution for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in NAFLD. These algorithms should now be validated for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis in diabetology or primary care settings. LAY SUMMARY: The evaluation of liver fibrosis is mandatory in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), as advanced fibrosis identifies the subgroup of patients with impaired prognosis. FibroMeterVCTE is a new fibrosis test combining blood markers and the result of vibration controlled transient elastography (VCTE) into a single diagnostic test. Our results show that FibroMeterVCTE outperforms other blood fibrosis tests and VCTE alone for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in a large multi-centric cohort of 938 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD. Sequential algorithms using a simple blood test or VCTE as a first-line procedure, then FibroMeterVCTE as a second-line test accurately classified 90% of patients.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Advanced liver fibrosis is an important diagnostic target in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) as it defines the subgroup of patients with impaired prognosis. The non-invasive diagnosis of advanced fibrosis is currently limited by the suboptimal positive predictive value and the grey zone (representing indeterminate diagnosis) of fibrosis tests. Here, we aimed to determine the best combination of non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in NAFLD. METHODS: A total of 938 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD were randomized 2:1 into derivation and validation sets. All patients underwent liver stiffness measurement with vibration controlled transient elastography (VCTE) and blood fibrosis tests (NAFLD fibrosis score, Fibrosis-4 [FIB4], Fibrotest, Hepascore, FibroMeter). FibroMeterVCTE, which combines VCTE results and FibroMeter markers in a single test, was also calculated in all patients. RESULTS: For the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis, VCTE was significantly more accurate than the blood tests (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]: 0.840 ± 0.013, p ≤0.005). FibroMeter was the most accurate blood test (AUROC: 0.793 ± 0.015, p ≤0.017). The combinatory test FibroMeterVCTE outperformed VCTE and blood tests (AUROC: 0.866 ± 0.012, p ≤0.005). The sequential combination of FIB4 then FibroMeterVCTE (FIB4-FMVCTE algorithm) or VCTE then FibroMeterVCTE (VCTE-FMVCTE algorithm) provided an excellent diagnostic accuracy of 90% for advanced fibrosis, with liver biopsy only required to confirm the diagnosis in 20% of cases. The FIB4-FMVCTE and VCTE-FMVCTE algorithms were significantly more accurate than the pragmatic algorithms currently proposed. CONCLUSION: The sequential combination of fibrosis tests in the FIB4-FMVCTE and VCTE-FMVCTE algorithms provides a highly accurate solution for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in NAFLD. These algorithms should now be validated for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis in diabetology or primary care settings. LAY SUMMARY: The evaluation of liver fibrosis is mandatory in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), as advanced fibrosis identifies the subgroup of patients with impaired prognosis. FibroMeterVCTE is a new fibrosis test combining blood markers and the result of vibration controlled transient elastography (VCTE) into a single diagnostic test. Our results show that FibroMeterVCTE outperforms other blood fibrosis tests and VCTE alone for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in a large multi-centric cohort of 938 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD. Sequential algorithms using a simple blood test or VCTE as a first-line procedure, then FibroMeterVCTE as a second-line test accurately classified 90% of patients.
Authors: Sonja Lang; Fedja Farowski; Anna Martin; Hilmar Wisplinghoff; Maria J G T Vehreschild; Marcin Krawczyk; Angela Nowag; Anne Kretzschmar; Claus Scholz; Philipp Kasper; Christoph Roderburg; Frank Lammert; Tobias Goeser; Hans-Michael Steffen; Münevver Demir Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ines C M Simoes; Justyna Janikiewicz; Judith Bauer; Agnieszka Karkucinska-Wieckowska; Piotr Kalinowski; Agnieszka Dobrzyń; Andrzej Wolski; Maciej Pronicki; Krzysztof Zieniewicz; Paweł Dobrzyń; Marcin Krawczyk; Hans Zischka; Mariusz R Wieckowski; Yaiza Potes Journal: Nutrients Date: 2019-11-24 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Viera Kupčová; Michaela Fedelešová; Jozef Bulas; Petra Kozmonová; Ladislav Turecký Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Yasaman Vali; Jenny Lee; Jérôme Boursier; René Spijker; Joanne Verheij; M Julia Brosnan; Quentin M Anstee; Patrick M Bossuyt; Mohammad Hadi Zafarmand Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 4.241