D. Thabut

Meta-analyses of FibroTest diagnostic value in chronic liver disease

BackgroundFibroTest (FT) is a biomarker of liver fibrosis initially validated in patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC).The aim was to test two hypotheses, one, that the FT diagnostic value was similar in the three other frequent fibrotic diseases: chronic hepatitis B (CHB), alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); and the other, that the FT diagnostic value was similar for intermediate and extreme fibrosis stages.MethodsThe main end points were the FT area under the ROC curves (AUROCs) for the diagnosis of bridging fibrosis (F2F3F4 vs. F0F1), standardized for the spectrum of fibrosis stages, and the comparison of FT AUROCs between adjacent stages. Two meta-analyses were performed: one combining all the published studies (random model), and one of an integrated data base combining individual data. Sensitivity analysis integrated the independency of authors, lenght of biopsy, prospective design, respect of procedures, comorbidities, and duration between biopsy and serum sampling.ResultsA total of 30 studies were included which pooled 6,378 subjects with both FT and biopsy (3,501 HCV, 1,457 HBV, 267 NAFLD, 429 ALD, and 724 mixed). Individual data were analyzed in 3,282 patients. The mean standardized AUROC was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83–0.86), without differences between causes of liver disease: HCV 0.85 (0.82–0.87), HBV 0.80 (0.77–0.84), NAFLD 0.84 (0.76–0.92), ALD 0.86 (0.80–0.92), mixed 0.85 (0.80–0.93). The AUROC for the diagnosis of the intermediate adjacent stages F2 vs. F1 (0.66; 0.63–0.68, n = 2,055) did not differ from that of the extreme stages F3 vs. F4 (0.69; 0.65–0.72, n = 817) or F1 vs. F0 (0.62; 0.59–0.65, n = 1788).ConclusionFibroTest is an effective alternative to biopsy in patients with chronic hepatitis C and B, ALD and NAFLD. The FT diagnostic value is similar for the diagnosis of intermediate and extreme fibrosis stages.

A prospective assessment of the inter-laboratory variability of biochemical markers of fibrosis (FibroTest) and activity (ActiTest) in patients with chronic liver disease

BackgroundBiochemical markers for liver fibrosis (FibroTest) and necroinflammatory features (ActiTest) are an alternative to liver biopsy in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Our aim was to assess the inter-laboratory variability of these tests, and their 6 components (γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, alanine aminotransferase, α2-macroglobulin, haptoglobin, apolipoprotein A1, and total bilirubin) and to identify factors associated with this variability.ResultsSerum of 24 patients with chronic hepatitis C or severe alcoholic liver disease were prospectively recorded and analyzed in one reference center and in 8 additional laboratories. When γ-glutamyl transpeptidase and alanine aminotransferase were expressed in international units, there was no significant difference between laboratories in the results of FibroTest or ActiTest; kappa statistics were greater than 0.50 with only 0.8% of cases (3/384) with a discordance of more than one stage. The main factor significantly associated with variability was the expression of γ-glutamyl transpeptidase and alanine aminotransferase, as multiples of upper limit of reference values. The use of standardized method with pyridoxal phosphate reduced the variability of alanine aminotransferase expression, and standardized original Szasz method reduced the variability of γ-glutamyl transpeptidase expression.ConclusionsThe variability of FibroTest and ActiTest was acceptable without clinical consequences for the prediction of the stage of liver fibrosis and grade of activity. Standardized methods and assay calibration should be used and expression of alanine aminotransferase and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase in multiples of the upper limit of reference values should not be employed.

Flumazenil vs. placebo in hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

Randomized controlled trials testing flumazenil in hepatic encephalopathy have shown conflicting results.

Concordance in a World without a Gold Standard: A New Non-Invasive Methodology for Improving Accuracy of Fibrosis Markers

Background Assessing liver fibrosis is traditionally performed by biopsy, an imperfect gold standard. Non-invasive techniques, liver stiffness measurements (LSM) and biomarkers [FibroTest® (FT)], are widely used in countries where they are available. The aim was to identify factors associated with LSM accuracy using FT as a non-invasive endpoint and vice versa. Methods The proof of concept was taken using the manufacturers recommendations for excluding patients at high risk of false negative/positive. The hypothesis was that the concordance between LSM and FT, would be improved by excluding high-risk patients. Thereafter, the impact of potential variability factors was assessed by the same methods. Liver biopsy and independent endpoints were used to validate the results. Results Applying manufacturers recommendations in 2,004 patients increased the strength of concordance between LSM and FT (P<0.00001). Among the 1,338 patients satisfying recommendations, the methodology identified a significant LSM operator effect (Pu200a=u200a0.001) and the following variability factors (all P<0.01), related to LSM: male gender, older age, and NAFLD as a cause of liver disease. Biopsy confirmed in 391 patients these results. Conclusion This study has validated the concept of using the strength of concordance between non-invasive estimates of liver fibrosis for the identification of factors associated with variability and precautions of use.

An Accurate Definition of the Status of Inactive Hepatitis B Virus Carrier by a Combination of Biomarkers (FibroTest-ActiTest) and Viral Load

Background The combination of transaminases (ALT), biopsy, HBeAg and viral load have classically defined the inactive status of carriers of chronic hepatitis B. The use of FibroTest (FT) and ActiTest (AT), biomarkers of fibrosis and necroinflammatory activity, has been previously validated as alternatives to biopsy. We compared the 4-year prognostic value of combining FT-AT and viral load for a better definition of the inactive carrier status. Methods and Findings 1,300 consecutive CHB patients who had been prospectively followed since 2001 were pre-included. The main endpoint was the absence of liver-related complications, transplantation or death. We used the manufacturers definitions of normal FT (<u200a=u200a0.27), normal AT (<u200a=u200a0.29) and 3 standard classes for viral load. The adjustment factors were age, sex, HBeAg, ethnic origin, alcohol consumption, HIV-Delta-HCV co-infections and treatment. Results 1,074 patients with baseline FT-AT and viral load were included: 41 years old, 47% African, 27% Asian, 26% Caucasian. At 4 years follow-up, 50 complications occurred (survival without complications 93.4%), 36 deaths occurred (survival 95.0%), including 27 related to HBV (survival 96.1%). The prognostic value of FT was higher than those of viral load or ALT when compared using area under the ROC curves [0.89 (95%CI 0.84–0.93) vs 0.64 (0.55–0.71) vs 0.53 (0.46–0.60) all P<0.001], survival curves and multivariate Cox model [regression coefficient 5.2 (3.5–6.9; P<0.001) vs 0.53 (0.15–0.92; Pu200a=u200a0.007) vs −0.001 (−0.003−0.000;Pu200a=u200a0.052)] respectively. A new definition of inactive carriers was proposed with an algorithm combining “zero” scores for FT-AT (F0 and A0) and viral load classes. This new algorithm provides a 100% negative predictive value for the prediction of liver related complications or death. Among the 275 patients with the classic definition of inactive carrier, 62 (23%) had fibrosis presumed with FT, and 3 died or had complications at 4 year. Conclusion In patients with chronic hepatitis B, a combination of FibroTest-ActiTest and viral load testing accurately defined the prognosis and the inactive carrier status.

Relationship between the Fibrotest and portal hypertension in patients with liver disease

Backgroundu2002 The best technique to estimate portal hypertension (PHT) is to measure the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), which is an invasive method.

Chapter 4 Biomarkers Of Liver Fibrosis

1. Abstract Liver biopsy, due to its limitations and risks, is an imperfect gold standard for assessing the severity of the most frequent chronic liver diseases. This chapter summarized the advantages and the limits of the available biomarkers of liver fibrosis. Among a total of 2237 references, a total of 14 validated biomarkers have been identified between 1991 and 2007. Nine were not patented and five were patented. FibroTest™ (FT) was the most studied test with 33 different populations including 6549 patients and 925 controls. The mean diagnostic value for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis assessed using standardized area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves was 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83–0.86], without significant difference between the causes of liver disease, hepatitis C, hepatitis B, alcoholic or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. High‐risk profiles of false negative/ positive of FT are present in 3% of populations, mainly Gilbert syndrome, hemolysis, and acute inflammation. FT has higher accuracy than aspartate aminotransferase/platelets ratio index (APRI), the most used nonpatented test. No significant difference has been observed between the five patented tests. A quality score has been assessed in order to compare the quality of fibrosis biomarkers. Neither biomarkers nor biopsy are sufficient alone to take definitive decision in a given patient and all the clinical and biological data must be taken into account. Due to the evidence‐based data, health authorities in some countries have already approved validated biomarkers as first‐line procedure for the staging of liver fibrosis. This overview of evidence‐based data suggests that biomarkers could be used as an alternative to liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis stage in the four more common chronic liver diseases: C virus (HCV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and alcoholic liver disease (ALD). Neither biomarkers nor biopsy are sufficient alone to take definitive decision in a given patient and all the clinical and biological data must be taken into account.

Portal myofibroblasts promote vascular remodeling underlying cirrhosis formation through the release of microparticles

Liver fibrosis expanding from portal tracts and vascular remodeling are determinant factors in the progression of liver diseases to cirrhosis. In the present study, we examined the potential contribution of portal myofibroblasts (PMFs) to the vascular changes leading to cirrhosis. The analyses of liver cells based on the transcriptome of rat PMFs, compared to hepatic stellate cell HSC‐derived myofibroblasts in culture, identified collagen, type XV, alpha 1 (COL15A1) as a marker of PMFs. Normal liver contained rare COL15A1‐immunoreactive cells adjacent to the bile ducts and canals of Hering in the portal area. A marked increase in COL15A1 expression occurred together with that of the endothelial marker, von Willebrand factor, in human and rat liver tissue, at advanced stages of fibrosis caused by either biliary or hepatocellular injury. In cirrhotic liver, COL15A1‐expressing PMFs adopted a perivascular distribution outlining vascular capillaries proximal to reactive ductules, within large fibrotic septa. The effect of PMFs on endothelial cells (ECs) was evaluated by in vitro and in vivo angiogenesis assays. PMF‐conditioned medium increased the migration and tubulogenesis of liver ECs as well as human umbilical vein ECs and triggered angiogenesis within Matrigel plugs in mice. In coculture, PMFs developed intercellular junctions with ECs and enhanced the formation of vascular structures. PMFs released vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)A‐containing microparticles, which activated VEGF receptor 2 in ECs and largely mediated their proangiogenic effect. Cholangiocytes potentiated the angiogenic properties of PMFs by increasing VEGFA expression and microparticle shedding in these cells. Conclusion: PMFs are key cells in hepatic vascular remodeling. They signal to ECs through VEGFA‐laden microparticles and act as mural cells for newly formed vessels, driving scar progression from portal tracts into the parenchyma. (Hepatology 2015;61:1041–1055)

Methodological aspects of the interpretation of non-invasive biomarkers of liver fibrosis: a 2008 update.

This review summarizes the methodological aspects of the interpretation of non-invasive biomarkers in liver fibrosis. A scoring system has been updated to better compare the quality of fibrosis biomarkers. Several methodological issues are related to the classical methodology using biopsy, as this is considered the gold standard. However, from evidence-based data, it appears that the methodology needs to change to prevent flawed conclusions among key opinion leaders as well as in obsolete guidelines. As waiting for the perfect biomarker for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis to come along is probably a waste of time, in the meantime, methods can be improved. The main proposals for improving the methodology are, to take into account the spectrum bias, to assess accuracy between adjacent stages, to compare biomarkers in the same patient, to assess the cause of failure among discordant cases and to use specific statistical methods adapted for imperfect gold standards.

Assessment of liver fibrosis: noninvasive means.

Liver biopsy, owing to its limitations and risks, is an imperfect gold standard for assessing the severity of the most frequent chronic liver diseases chronic hepatitis C (HCV), B (HBV) non alcoholic (NAFLD) and alcoholic (ALD) fatty liver diseases. This review summarizes the advantages and the limits of the available biomarkers of liver fibrosis. Among a total of 2,237 references, a total of 14 validated serum biomarkers have been identified between 1991 and 2008. Nine were not patented and five were patented. Two alternatives to liver biopsy were the most evaluated FibroTest and Fibroscan. For FibroTest, there was a total of 38 different populations including 7,985 subjects with both FibroTest and biopsy (4,600 HCV, 1,580 HBV, 267 NAFLD, 524 ALD, and 1014 mixed). For Fibroscan, there was a total of 11 published studies including 2,260 subjects (1,466 HCV, 95 cholestatic liver disease, and 699 mixed). For FibroTest, the mean diagnostic value for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis assessed using standardized area under the ROC curves was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.83-0.86), without a significant difference between the causes of liver disease, hepatitis C, hepatitis B, and alcoholic or non alcoholic fatty liver disease. High-risk profiles of false negative/false positive of FibroTest, mainly Gilbert syndrome, hemolysis and acute inflammation, are present in 3% of the populations. In case of discordance between biopsy and FibroTest, half of the failures can be due to biopsy; the prognostic value of FibroTest is at least similar to that of biopsy in HCV, HBV and ALD. In conclusion this overview of evidence-based data suggests that biomarkers could be used as an alternative to liver biopsy for the first line assessment of fibrosis stage in the four most common chronic liver diseases, namely HCV, HBV, NAFLD and ALD. Neither biomarkers nor biopsy alone is sufficient for taking a definite decision in a given patient; all the clinical and biological data must be taken into account. There is no evidence based data justifying biopsy as a first line estimate of liver fibrosis. Health authorities in some countries have already approved validated biomarkers as the first line procedure for the staging of liver fibrosis.