Rachel Morra

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.

Screening for Liver Fibrosis by Using a Noninvasive Biomarker in Patients With Diabetes

BACKGROUND & AIMS Patients with diabetes are at risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease leading to advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, and liver cancer. We examined the efficacy of a screening strategy with a noninvasive fibrosis biomarker (FibroTest) in patients with diabetes. METHODS We prospectively studied 1131 consecutive patients without a history of liver disease seen for diabetes. The biomarker data were obtained, and patients with presumed advanced fibrosis were reinvestigated by a hepatologist using elastography and, if necessary, ultrasonography, endoscopy, or liver biopsy. RESULTS The biomarker predicted advanced fibrosis in 63 of 1131 (5.6%) patients. A total of 45 patients was reinvestigated, and advanced fibrosis was confirmed in 32 patients, a 2.8% (32/1131) prevalence of confirmed advanced fibrosis, 5 cases of cirrhosis, and 4 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma. In the population with type 2 diabetes who were 45 years or older, the prevalence of confirmed advanced fibrosis was 4.3% (30/696), and hepatocellular carcinoma was 5.7 of 1000 (4/696). CONCLUSIONS The fibrosis biomarker might be used for the detection of advanced fibrosis in patients with type 2 diabetes.

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.

FibroMAX™: towards a new universal biomarker of liver disease?

Among the noninvasive alternatives to liver biopsy, several studies have demonstrated the predictive value and a better benefit-to-risk ratio than biopsy of five combinations of simple serum biochemical markers (the super combination being FibroMAX™ [BioPredictive, Paris, France) in patients at risk of chronic liver diseases: FibroTest™ (BioPredictive) for the quantitative assessment of fibrosis; SteatoTest™ (BioPredictive) for the quantitative assessment of steatosis; ActiTest™ (BioPredictive) for the quantitative assessment of necroinflammatory activity in chronic viral hepatitis C and B; NashTest™ (BioPredictive) for the categorical diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; and AshTest™ for the quantitative assessment of alcoholic steatohepatitis (also known in the USA as HCV-FibroSURE™, HBV-FibroSURE™, ASH-FibroSURE™ and NASH-FibroSURE™; LabCorp, NC, USA). The possible causes of false-negative and false-positive results are also better identified. These tests, which are now available in 50 countries, can facilitate the screening and management of the most frequent liver diseases.

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.

FibroTest has better diagnostic and prognostic values than the aspartate aminotransferase‐to‐platelet ratio index in patients with chronic hepatitis C

enzymes. We and others have shown that liver enzymes, especially alanine aminotransferase, may be lower in older patients with HCV3,4 despite having increased fibrosis. Because alanine aminotransferase is in the denominator, it may also explain the poor performance in older patients. Unfortunately, we are not given this information in the current report. We do agree that FIB-4 may not be applicable to all patients with HCV and congratulate Kurosaki and associates for their important observation. Until FIB-4 is validated in additional populations, it should be used with caution in making clinical decisions in patients with chronic HCV. Nevertheless, this study does provide additional support for its use as a noninvasive index to accurately assess fibrosis in the majority of patients chronically infected with HCV, especially those under 50 years of age.

The diagnostic value of combining carbohydrate-deficient transferrin, fibrosis, and steatosis biomarkers for the prediction of excessive alcohol consumption.

Background and aim The validity of biomarkers of excessive alcohol drinking (EAD) (30 g/day or more), such as carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT%), is confounded by liver disease severity. The aim was to improve the accuracy of the percentage of CDT by taking into account the presence of fibrosis and steatosis, estimated using biomarkers FibroTest and SteatoTest. Methods Three hundred and twenty consecutive patients, 97 with alcoholic liver disease (ALD), and 223 non-ALD, were included. In ALD, 58% had advanced fibrosis and 58% had steatosis; in non-ALD, 25% had advanced fibrosis and 25% had steatosis. Results The mean percentage of CDT was lower in ALD with advanced fibrosis [2.4 (SE=0.2)] versus without [4.1 (0.3) P<0.0001], and lower in ALD with steatosis versus without (2.4 vs. 3.9; P=0.0007). Among non-ALD, there was no difference in the percentage of CDT according to fibrosis or steatosis. &ggr;-glutamyl-transpeptidase was higher in patients with advanced fibrosis or with steatosis both in ALD and non-ALD. Aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT) was higher in ALD patients with fibrosis versus without (2.5 vs. 1.3 P<0.0001) but not in non-ALD (1.01 vs. 0.98). AST/ALT was higher in ALD patients with steatosis versus without (2.2 vs. 1.6 P=0.04) and the inverse was observed in non-ALD (0.6 vs. 1.1 P<0.0001). In the entire population the percentage of CDT, &ggr;-glutamyl-transpeptidase, AST/ALT was associated with EAD, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve =0.89 (95% CI: 0.84–0.93), 0.93 (0.89–0.93) and 0.77 (0.71–0.82). An algorithm combining the percentage of CDT, FibroTest and SteatoTest permitted to obtain area under the receiver operating characteristic curve=0.92 versus 0.88 for the percentage of CDT (P=0.004) with 87.4% of patients classified correctly. Conclusion Biomarkers of EAD are confounded by fibrosis and steatosis. Accuracy of the percentage of CDT is significantly increased when combined with biomarkers of fibrosis and steatosis.