Search

Introduction: Liver fibrosis is a risk factor for liver‐related adverse outcomes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Recently, the non‐invasive Hepamet fibrosis score (HFS) has been validated as a tool capable to identify with good diagnostic accuracy subjects with advanced liver fibrosis. It is unsettled whether HFS is capable to identify individuals at higher risk of CVD. To investigate whether individuals with liver fibrosis measured with HFS have higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in adults participating in the CATAnzaro MEtabolic RIsk factors (CATAMERI) study. Methods: Participants (n = 2948) were divided into three groups according to HFS: low risk of fibrosis (<0.12); intermediate risk of fibrosis (≥0.12 to <0.47); high risk of fibrosis (≥0.47). The association between the liver fibrosis risk and MI was analysed by a logistic regression analysis. Results: As compared with those having the lowest risk (5.3%), a higher proportion of subjects with moderate or high risk of liver fibrosis had MI (12.9% and 24.4%, respectively; p < 0.001). In a logistic regression analysis, individuals at increased risk of liver fibrosis exhibited a threefold increased risk of having MI as compared to those with low risk (OR 3.18; 95% CI 1.31–7.70) independently of confounders including smoking, cholesterol, triglycerides, anti‐hypertensive, lipid‐lowering and glucose‐lowering therapies. Conclusions: In this cross‐sectional study, individuals with higher values of HFS show a higher risk of MI, suggesting that HFS may be a useful tool to identify not only individuals with liver fibrosis but also those at the increased risk of CVD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and aims: Several non-invasive scoring systems have been developed and validated worldwide to predict the risk of liver fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, information about the performance of these systems in Latin American populations is scarce. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of the Hepamet Fibrosis Score, Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) and the NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) in a mixed Latin American group of NAFLD patients. Methods: Clinical, laboratory and liver biopsy data collected from 379 biopsy-proven NAFLD patients from Latin American tertiary health centers were reviewed. Histological fibrosis stages were classified using the Kleiner score. Accuracy was determined, and new fibrosis score thresholds were calculated to better compare the performances of non-invasive tests and to explore their usefulness in excluding fibrosis. Results: The distribution of fibrosis stages among the sample population was as follows: F0 (45%), F1 (27%), F2 (8%), F3 (16%) and F4 (4%). Using modified thresholds, the areas under the ROC curves (AUROC) for Hepamet and FIB-4 (0.73 and 0.74, respectively) to detect significant fibrosis were higher than that of NFS (0.58). However, the AUROCs of the three scores were not significantly different in advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis. To exclude fibrosis, we calculated lower cutoffs than standard thresholds for Hepamet, FIB-4 and NFS with similar performances. Conclusion: Thresholds of non-invasive fibrosis scores (Hepamet, FIB-4 and NFS) can be modified to maximize diagnostic accuracy in Latin American patients with NAFLD.

Introduction and aims: Several non-invasive scoring systems have been developed and validated worldwide to predict the risk of liver fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, information about the performance of these systems in Latin American populations is scarce. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of the Hepamet Fibrosis Score, Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) and the NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) in a mixed Latin American group of NAFLD patients. Methods: Clinical, laboratory and liver biopsy data collected from 379 biopsy-proven NAFLD patients from Latin American tertiary health centers were reviewed. Histological fibrosis stages were classified using the Kleiner score. Accuracy was determined, and new fibrosis score thresholds were calculated to better compare the performances of non-invasive tests and to explore their usefulness in excluding fibrosis. Results: The distribution of fibrosis stages among the sample population was as follows: F0 (45%), F1 (27%), F2 (8%), F3 (16%) and F4 (4%). Using modified thresholds, the areas under the ROC curves (AUROC) for Hepamet and FIB-4 (0.73 and 0.74, respectively) to detect significant fibrosis were higher than that of NFS (0.58). However, the AUROCs of the three scores were not significantly different in advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis. To exclude fibrosis, we calculated lower cutoffs than standard thresholds for Hepamet, FIB-4 and NFS with similar performances. Conclusion: Thresholds of non-invasive fibrosis scores (Hepamet, FIB-4 and NFS) can be modified to maximize diagnostic accuracy in Latin American patients with NAFLD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Serum-based noninvasive tests (NITs) have been widely used to assess liver fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, the diagnostic efficacy of NITs across ranges of age, body mass index (BMI), and presence of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) may vary and have not been well-characterized. We analyzed 1489 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from 6 centers in Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. Using histology as the gold standard, we compared the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROCs) of Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), and the new Hepamet fibrosis score (HFS), with a focus on performance in subgroups as stratified by age, BMI, and the presence of T2DM. By histology, 44.0% of the overall cohort (655/1489) had F2-4, and 20.6% (307/1489) had F3-4 fibrosis. FIB-4 had the highest AUROCs for both F2-4 (0.701 vs NFS 0.676 and HFS 0.682, P =.001) and F3-4 (0.767 vs NFS 0.736 and HFS 0.752, P =.002). However, for F3-4 fibrosis, the AUROCs of all 3 NITs were generally higher in older (>60 years), nonobese (BMI <25 kg/m2), and non-diabetic patients, although overall the best performance was observed with FIB-4 among nonobese (BMI<25) diabetic patients (AUROC, 0.92). The worst performance was observed in younger patients with T2DM for all NITs including FIB-4 (AUROC, 0.63–0.66). FIB-4 had higher diagnostic efficacy for F3-4 than NFS or HFS, but this varied greatly by age, BMI, and T2DM, with better performance in older, nonobese, and nondiabetic patients. However, all NITs including FIB-4 had unacceptably poor performance in young or obese diabetic patients. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]