Search

Noninvasive serum biomarkers (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score [NFS], fibrosis 4 score [FIB-4], or enhanced liver fibrosis [ELF] test) are recommended as first-line tools to determine the risk of advanced fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. We aimed to assess the utility of a pragmatic approach to screening for clinically significant fibrosis in primary care and diabetes clinics. We recruited 252 patients from an endocrine clinic or primary care facility. Anthropometric measurements, ELF test, ultrasound, and liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) were performed. Clinically significant fibrosis was defined as LSM ≥8.2 kPa or ELF ≥9.8. A subgroup of patients underwent liver biopsy (n = 48) or had imaging diagnostic of cirrhosis (n = 14). Patients were 57.3 ± 12.3 years old with a high prevalence of metabolic syndrome (84.5%), type 2 diabetes (82.5%), and body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m2 (21.8%). LSM met quality criteria in 230 (91.3%) patients. NFS and FIB-4 combined had a high negative predictive value (90.0%) for excluding LSM ≥8.2 kPa. However, 84.1% of patients had indeterminate or high NFS or FIB-4 scores requiring further assessment. LSM ≥8.2 kPa and ELF ≥9.8 were present in 31.3% and 28.6% of patients, respectively. Following adjustment for age, BMI, sex, and presence of advanced fibrosis, older age was independently associated with ELF ≥9.8 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.24), whereas increasing BMI was independently associated with LSM ≥8.2 kPa (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30). Concordant LSM

Background Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common cause of incidental liver test abnormalities. General practitioners have a key role in identifying people with NAFLD at risk of significant liver disease. Recent specialist guidelines emphasize the use of fibrosis algorithms or serum biomarkers rather than routine liver tests, to assess advanced fibrosis. This study evaluated primary care clinicians’ current approach to diagnosis, management and referral of NAFLD. Methods A cross-sectional survey of primary care clinicians was undertaken through a structured questionnaire about NAFLD. A convenience sample of general practice clinics and general practice conferences in Metropolitan Brisbane and regional south east Queensland was selected. Results 108 primary care clinicians completed the survey (participation rate 100%). Fifty-one percent of respondents considered the prevalence of NAFLD in the general population to be ≤10%. Twenty-four percent of respondents felt that liver enzymes were sufficiently sensitive to detect underlying NAFLD. Most respondents were unsure whether the FIB-4 score (62.7% unsure) or ELF score (63.7% unsure) could help to identify advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. Although 47% of respondents said they would refer a patient to a Gastroenterologist/Hepatologist if they suspect the patient has NAFLD, 44.1% do not make any referrals. Of concern, 70.6% of clinicians said they were unlikely to refer a patient to Hepatology unless liver function tests are abnormal. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that many primary care clinicians underestimate the prevalence of NAFLD and under-recognise the clinical spectrum of NAFLD and how this is assessed.

Background & Aims There is limited knowledge regarding the longitudinal utility of biomarkers of fibrosis, such as the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) fibrosis score (NFS) or the fibrosis-4 score (FIB-4) score. We examined longitudinal changes in the NFS and the FIB-4 score in patients with NAFLD, with and without clinically significant fibrosis (CSF). Methods We performed a retrospective study of 230 patients with NAFLD, collecting clinical and laboratory records to calculate NFS and FIB-4 scores at 6 monthly intervals for 5 years before hepatology assessment of fibrosis. Linear mixed models with random intercept and slope and adjusted for age at baseline were used to assess the progression of NFS and log-transformed FIB-4 scores over time in subjects with and without CSF, determined by liver stiffness measurements of 8.2 kPa or greater. Results Patients had a median of 11 (minimum, 10; maximum, 11) retrospective observations over a median time period of 5 years (minimum, 4.5 y; maximum, 5 y). Of patients with low baseline NFS and FIB-4 scores, 31.11% and 37.76%, respectively, had CSF at the time of hepatology assessment. There was a correlation between NFS and log10 FIB-4 over time (repeated measure r = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52–0.59). The rate of increase in NFS and log10 FIB-4 was significantly higher in patients with than without CSF (both P Conclusions Noninvasively measured fibrosis scores increase progressively in patients with NAFLD and CSF. Further studies are needed to determine whether repeated measurements can identify patients at risk for CSF.

Aims To examine the relationship between steatosis quantified by controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) values and glycaemic/metabolic control. Methods 230 patients, recruited from an Endocrine clinic or primary care underwent routine Hepatology assessment, with liver stiffness measurements and simultaneous CAP. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify potential predictors of Metabolic Syndrome (MetS), HbA1c ≥ 7%, use of insulin, hypertriglyceridaemia and CAP ≥ 300 dB/m. Results Patients were 56.7 ± 12.3 years of age with a high prevalence of MetS (83.5%), T2DM (81.3%), and BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 (18%). Median CAP score was 344 dB/m, ranging from 128 to 400 dB/m. BMI (aOR 1.140 95% CI 1.068–1.216), requirement for insulin (aOR 2.599 95% CI 1.212–5.575), and serum ALT (aOR 1.018 95% CI 1.004–1.033) were independently associated with CAP ≥ 300 dB/m. Patients with CAP interquartile range Conclusions Our data demonstrate that an elevated CAP reflects suboptimal metabolic control. In diabetic patients with NAFLD, CAP may be a useful point-of-care test to identify patients at risk of poorly controlled metabolic comorbidities or advanced diabetes.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, An observational study describing the number and type of chronic conditions and medications taken by diabetic patients with NAFLD and identifying characteristics that may impact liver disease severity or clinical management. Adults with type 2 diabetes have a high prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and increased risk of developing advanced liver disease. Appropriate management should consider the characteristics of the diabetic NAFLD population, as comorbid conditions and medications may increase the complexity of treatment strategies. Diabetic patients with NAFLD at risk of clinically significant liver disease (as assessed by the FIB-4 or NAFLD fibrosis scores) were recruited consecutively from the Endocrine clinic or primary care. Medical conditions, medication history, anthropometric measurements, and laboratory tests were obtained during assessment. NAFLD severity was classified by transient elastography and liver ultrasound into “no advanced disease” (LSM < 8.2 kPa) or “clinically significant liver disease” (LSM ≥ 8.2 kPa). The most common coexistent chronic conditions were metabolic syndrome (94%), self-reported “depression” (44%), ischaemic heart disease (32%), and obstructive sleep apnoea (32%). Polypharmacy or hyperpolypharmacy was present in 59% and 31% of patients respectively. Elevated LSM (≥ 8.2 kPa) suggesting significant liver disease was present in 37% of this at-risk cohort. Increasing obesity and abdominal girth were both independently associated with likelihood of having significant liver disease. There is a high burden of multimorbidity and polypharmacy in diabetic NAFLD patients, highlighting the importance of multidisciplinary management to address their complex health care needs and ensure optimal medical treatment.