Janique Arnts1, Benedict T K Vanlerberghe1, Sylvia Roozen2, Cleo L Crunelle3,4, Ad A M Masclee1,5, Steven W M Olde-Damink5,6,7, Ron M A Heeren8, Alexander van Nuijs4, Hugo Neels4, Frederik Nevens9, Jef Verbeek9. 1. From the, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, (JA, BTKV, AAMM), Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Governor Kremers Centre-Maastricht University Medical Centre, (SR), Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Psychiatry, (CLC), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium. 4. Toxicological Center, (CLC, AN, HN), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 5. NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, (AAMM, SWMO-D), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Surgery, (Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 7. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, (RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany. 8. Division of Imaging Mass Spectrometry, (RMAH), Maastricht MultiModal Molecular Imaging (M4I) Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, (FN, JV), University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol-related liver disease is the most frequent cause of cirrhosis and a major indication for liver transplantation. Several alcohol use biomarkers have been developed in recent years and are already in use in several centers. However, in patients with liver disease their diagnostic performance might be influenced by altered biomarker formation by hepatic damage, altered excretion by kidney dysfunction and diuretics use, and altered deposition in hair and nails. We systematically reviewed studies on the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers of alcohol use in patients with liver disease and performed a detailed study quality assessment. METHODS: A structured search in PubMed/Medline/Embase databases was performed for relevant studies, published until April 28, 2019. The risk of bias and applicability concerns was assessed according to the adapted quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist. RESULTS: Twelve out of 6,449 studies met inclusion criteria. Urinary ethyl glucuronide and urinary ethyl sulfate showed high sensitivity (70 to 89 and 73 to 82%, respectively) and specificity (93 to 99 and 86 to 89%, respectively) for assessing any amount of alcohol use in the past days. Serum carbohydrate-deficient transferrin showed low sensitivity but higher specificity (40 to 79 and 57 to 99%, respectively) to detect excessive alcohol use in the past weeks. Whole blood phosphatidylethanol showed high sensitivity and specificity (73 to 100 and 90 to 96%, respectively) to detect any amount of alcohol use in the previous weeks. Scalp hair ethyl glucuronide showed high sensitivity (85 to 100%) and specificity (97 to 100%) for detecting chronic excessive alcohol use in the past 3 to 6 months. Main limitations of the current evidence are the lack of an absolute gold standard to assess alcohol use, heterogeneous study populations, and the paucity of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary and scalp hair ethyl glucuronide are currently the most validated alcohol use biomarkers in patients with liver disease with good diagnostic accuracies. Phosphatidylethanol is a highly promising alcohol use biomarker, but so far less validated in liver patients. Alcohol use biomarkers can complement each other regarding diagnostic time window. More validation studies on alcohol use biomarkers in patients with liver disease are needed.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol-related liver disease is the most frequent cause of cirrhosis and a major indication for liver transplantation. Several alcohol use biomarkers have been developed in recent years and are already in use in several centers. However, in patients with liver disease their diagnostic performance might be influenced by altered biomarker formation by hepatic damage, altered excretion by kidney dysfunction and diuretics use, and altered deposition in hair and nails. We systematically reviewed studies on the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers of alcohol use in patients with liver disease and performed a detailed study quality assessment. METHODS: A structured search in PubMed/Medline/Embase databases was performed for relevant studies, published until April 28, 2019. The risk of bias and applicability concerns was assessed according to the adapted quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist. RESULTS: Twelve out of 6,449 studies met inclusion criteria. Urinary ethyl glucuronide and urinary ethyl sulfate showed high sensitivity (70 to 89 and 73 to 82%, respectively) and specificity (93 to 99 and 86 to 89%, respectively) for assessing any amount of alcohol use in the past days. Serum carbohydrate-deficient transferrin showed low sensitivity but higher specificity (40 to 79 and 57 to 99%, respectively) to detect excessive alcohol use in the past weeks. Whole blood phosphatidylethanol showed high sensitivity and specificity (73 to 100 and 90 to 96%, respectively) to detect any amount of alcohol use in the previous weeks. Scalp hair ethyl glucuronide showed high sensitivity (85 to 100%) and specificity (97 to 100%) for detecting chronic excessive alcohol use in the past 3 to 6 months. Main limitations of the current evidence are the lack of an absolute gold standard to assess alcohol use, heterogeneous study populations, and the paucity of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary and scalp hair ethyl glucuronide are currently the most validated alcohol use biomarkers in patients with liver disease with good diagnostic accuracies. Phosphatidylethanol is a highly promising alcohol use biomarker, but so far less validated in liver patients. Alcohol use biomarkers can complement each other regarding diagnostic time window. More validation studies on alcohol use biomarkers in patients with liver disease are needed.
Authors: Cleo L Crunelle; Michel Yegles; Mireille De Doncker; Delphine Cappelle; Adrian Covaci; Alexander L N van Nuijs; Hugo Neels Journal: Forensic Sci Int Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 2.395
Authors: Annette Thierauf; Ariane Wohlfarth; Volker Auwärter; Markus Grosse Perdekamp; Friedrich Martin Wurst; Wolfgang Weinmann Journal: Forensic Sci Int Date: 2010-07-23 Impact factor: 2.395
Authors: K Borucki; R Schreiner; J Dierkes; K Jachau; D Krause; S Westphal; F M Wurst; C Luley; H Schmidt-Gayk Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Juan Pablo Arab; Manhal Izzy; Lorenzo Leggio; Ramon Bataller; Vijay H Shah Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 73.082