Cargando…

Evaluation of NAFLD and fibrosis in obese patients – a comparison of histological and clinical scoring systems

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a frequent condition in obese patients and regularly progresses to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and subsequent cirrhosis. Histologic evaluation is the gold standard for grading and staging, but invasive biopsies are associated with obv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schmitz, Sophia Marie-Therese, Kroh, Andreas, Ulmer, Tom Florian, Andruszkow, Julia, Luedde, Tom, Brozat, Jonathan Frederik, Neumann, Ulf Peter, Alizai, Patrick Hamid
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405451/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32758151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-020-01400-1
_version_ 1783567252818231296
author Schmitz, Sophia Marie-Therese
Kroh, Andreas
Ulmer, Tom Florian
Andruszkow, Julia
Luedde, Tom
Brozat, Jonathan Frederik
Neumann, Ulf Peter
Alizai, Patrick Hamid
author_facet Schmitz, Sophia Marie-Therese
Kroh, Andreas
Ulmer, Tom Florian
Andruszkow, Julia
Luedde, Tom
Brozat, Jonathan Frederik
Neumann, Ulf Peter
Alizai, Patrick Hamid
author_sort Schmitz, Sophia Marie-Therese
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a frequent condition in obese patients and regularly progresses to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and subsequent cirrhosis. Histologic evaluation is the gold standard for grading and staging, but invasive biopsies are associated with obvious risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate different non-invasive tools for screening of NAFLD and fibrosis in obese patients. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study liver specimens of 141 patients were taken during bariatric surgery. Serological parameters and clinical data were collected and the following scores calculated: NASH clinical scoring system (NCS), aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI), FIB-4 as well as NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS). Liver function capacity was measured preoperatively by LiMAx test (enzymatic capacity of cytochrome P450 1A2). Intraoperative liver biopsies were classified using NAFLD activity score (NAS) and steatosis, activity and fibrosis (SAF) score. RESULTS: APRI was able to differentiate between not NASH and definite NASH with a sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 67% (AUROC 0.76). LiMAx and NCS also showed significant differences between not NASH and definite NASH. No significant differences were found for NFS and Fib-4. APRI had a high sensitivity (83%) and specificity (76%) in distinguishing fibrosis from no fibrosis (AUROC = 0.81). NCS and Fib-4 also revealed high AUROCs (0.85 and 0.67), whereas LiMAx and NFS did not show statistically significant differences between fibrosis stages. Out of the patients with borderline NASH in the histologic NAS score, 48% were classified as NASH by SAF score. CONCLUSIONS: APRI allows screening of NAFLD as well as fibrosis in obese patients. This score is easy to calculate and affordable, while conveniently only using routine clinical parameters. Using the NAS histologic scoring system bears the risk of underdiagnosing NASH in comparison to SAF score.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7405451
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74054512020-08-07 Evaluation of NAFLD and fibrosis in obese patients – a comparison of histological and clinical scoring systems Schmitz, Sophia Marie-Therese Kroh, Andreas Ulmer, Tom Florian Andruszkow, Julia Luedde, Tom Brozat, Jonathan Frederik Neumann, Ulf Peter Alizai, Patrick Hamid BMC Gastroenterol Research Article BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a frequent condition in obese patients and regularly progresses to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and subsequent cirrhosis. Histologic evaluation is the gold standard for grading and staging, but invasive biopsies are associated with obvious risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate different non-invasive tools for screening of NAFLD and fibrosis in obese patients. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study liver specimens of 141 patients were taken during bariatric surgery. Serological parameters and clinical data were collected and the following scores calculated: NASH clinical scoring system (NCS), aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI), FIB-4 as well as NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS). Liver function capacity was measured preoperatively by LiMAx test (enzymatic capacity of cytochrome P450 1A2). Intraoperative liver biopsies were classified using NAFLD activity score (NAS) and steatosis, activity and fibrosis (SAF) score. RESULTS: APRI was able to differentiate between not NASH and definite NASH with a sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 67% (AUROC 0.76). LiMAx and NCS also showed significant differences between not NASH and definite NASH. No significant differences were found for NFS and Fib-4. APRI had a high sensitivity (83%) and specificity (76%) in distinguishing fibrosis from no fibrosis (AUROC = 0.81). NCS and Fib-4 also revealed high AUROCs (0.85 and 0.67), whereas LiMAx and NFS did not show statistically significant differences between fibrosis stages. Out of the patients with borderline NASH in the histologic NAS score, 48% were classified as NASH by SAF score. CONCLUSIONS: APRI allows screening of NAFLD as well as fibrosis in obese patients. This score is easy to calculate and affordable, while conveniently only using routine clinical parameters. Using the NAS histologic scoring system bears the risk of underdiagnosing NASH in comparison to SAF score. BioMed Central 2020-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7405451/ /pubmed/32758151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-020-01400-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Schmitz, Sophia Marie-Therese
Kroh, Andreas
Ulmer, Tom Florian
Andruszkow, Julia
Luedde, Tom
Brozat, Jonathan Frederik
Neumann, Ulf Peter
Alizai, Patrick Hamid
Evaluation of NAFLD and fibrosis in obese patients – a comparison of histological and clinical scoring systems
title Evaluation of NAFLD and fibrosis in obese patients – a comparison of histological and clinical scoring systems
title_full Evaluation of NAFLD and fibrosis in obese patients – a comparison of histological and clinical scoring systems
title_fullStr Evaluation of NAFLD and fibrosis in obese patients – a comparison of histological and clinical scoring systems
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of NAFLD and fibrosis in obese patients – a comparison of histological and clinical scoring systems
title_short Evaluation of NAFLD and fibrosis in obese patients – a comparison of histological and clinical scoring systems
title_sort evaluation of nafld and fibrosis in obese patients – a comparison of histological and clinical scoring systems
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405451/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32758151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-020-01400-1
work_keys_str_mv AT schmitzsophiamarietherese evaluationofnafldandfibrosisinobesepatientsacomparisonofhistologicalandclinicalscoringsystems
AT krohandreas evaluationofnafldandfibrosisinobesepatientsacomparisonofhistologicalandclinicalscoringsystems
AT ulmertomflorian evaluationofnafldandfibrosisinobesepatientsacomparisonofhistologicalandclinicalscoringsystems
AT andruszkowjulia evaluationofnafldandfibrosisinobesepatientsacomparisonofhistologicalandclinicalscoringsystems
AT lueddetom evaluationofnafldandfibrosisinobesepatientsacomparisonofhistologicalandclinicalscoringsystems
AT brozatjonathanfrederik evaluationofnafldandfibrosisinobesepatientsacomparisonofhistologicalandclinicalscoringsystems
AT neumannulfpeter evaluationofnafldandfibrosisinobesepatientsacomparisonofhistologicalandclinicalscoringsystems
AT alizaipatrickhamid evaluationofnafldandfibrosisinobesepatientsacomparisonofhistologicalandclinicalscoringsystems