Cargando…

Current NAFLD guidelines for risk stratification in diabetic patients have poor diagnostic discrimination

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at risk for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and associated complications. This study evaluated the performance of international (EASL-EASD-EASO) and national (DGVS) guidelines for NAFLD risk stratification. Patients with T2D prospectively underwent u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blank, Valentin, Petroff, David, Beer, Sebastian, Böhlig, Albrecht, Heni, Maria, Berg, Thomas, Bausback, Yvonne, Dietrich, Arne, Tönjes, Anke, Hollenbach, Marcus, Blüher, Matthias, Keim, Volker, Wiegand, Johannes, Karlas, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7591877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33110165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75227-x
_version_ 1783601077998845952
author Blank, Valentin
Petroff, David
Beer, Sebastian
Böhlig, Albrecht
Heni, Maria
Berg, Thomas
Bausback, Yvonne
Dietrich, Arne
Tönjes, Anke
Hollenbach, Marcus
Blüher, Matthias
Keim, Volker
Wiegand, Johannes
Karlas, Thomas
author_facet Blank, Valentin
Petroff, David
Beer, Sebastian
Böhlig, Albrecht
Heni, Maria
Berg, Thomas
Bausback, Yvonne
Dietrich, Arne
Tönjes, Anke
Hollenbach, Marcus
Blüher, Matthias
Keim, Volker
Wiegand, Johannes
Karlas, Thomas
author_sort Blank, Valentin
collection PubMed
description Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at risk for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and associated complications. This study evaluated the performance of international (EASL-EASD-EASO) and national (DGVS) guidelines for NAFLD risk stratification. Patients with T2D prospectively underwent ultrasound, liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and serum-based fibrosis markers. Guideline-based risk classification and referral rates for different screening approaches were compared and the diagnostic properties of simplified algorithms, genetic markers and a new NASH surrogate (FAST score) were evaluated. NAFLD risk was present in 184 of 204 screened patients (age 64.2 ± 10.7 years; BMI 32.6 ± 7.6 kg/m(2)). EASL-EASD-EASO recommended specialist referral for 60–77% depending on the fibrosis score used, only 6% were classified as low risk. The DGVS algorithm required LSM for 76%; 25% were referred for specialised care. The sensitivities of the diagnostic pathways were 47–96%. A simplified referral strategy revealed a sensitivity/specificity of 46/88% for fibrosis risk. Application of the FAST score reduced the referral rate to 35%. This study (a) underlines the high prevalence of fibrosis risk in T2D, (b) demonstrates very high referral rates for in-depth hepatological work-up, and (c) indicates that simpler referral algorithms may produce comparably good results and could facilitate NAFLD screening.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7591877
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75918772020-10-28 Current NAFLD guidelines for risk stratification in diabetic patients have poor diagnostic discrimination Blank, Valentin Petroff, David Beer, Sebastian Böhlig, Albrecht Heni, Maria Berg, Thomas Bausback, Yvonne Dietrich, Arne Tönjes, Anke Hollenbach, Marcus Blüher, Matthias Keim, Volker Wiegand, Johannes Karlas, Thomas Sci Rep Article Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at risk for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and associated complications. This study evaluated the performance of international (EASL-EASD-EASO) and national (DGVS) guidelines for NAFLD risk stratification. Patients with T2D prospectively underwent ultrasound, liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and serum-based fibrosis markers. Guideline-based risk classification and referral rates for different screening approaches were compared and the diagnostic properties of simplified algorithms, genetic markers and a new NASH surrogate (FAST score) were evaluated. NAFLD risk was present in 184 of 204 screened patients (age 64.2 ± 10.7 years; BMI 32.6 ± 7.6 kg/m(2)). EASL-EASD-EASO recommended specialist referral for 60–77% depending on the fibrosis score used, only 6% were classified as low risk. The DGVS algorithm required LSM for 76%; 25% were referred for specialised care. The sensitivities of the diagnostic pathways were 47–96%. A simplified referral strategy revealed a sensitivity/specificity of 46/88% for fibrosis risk. Application of the FAST score reduced the referral rate to 35%. This study (a) underlines the high prevalence of fibrosis risk in T2D, (b) demonstrates very high referral rates for in-depth hepatological work-up, and (c) indicates that simpler referral algorithms may produce comparably good results and could facilitate NAFLD screening. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7591877/ /pubmed/33110165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75227-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This 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/.
spellingShingle Article
Blank, Valentin
Petroff, David
Beer, Sebastian
Böhlig, Albrecht
Heni, Maria
Berg, Thomas
Bausback, Yvonne
Dietrich, Arne
Tönjes, Anke
Hollenbach, Marcus
Blüher, Matthias
Keim, Volker
Wiegand, Johannes
Karlas, Thomas
Current NAFLD guidelines for risk stratification in diabetic patients have poor diagnostic discrimination
title Current NAFLD guidelines for risk stratification in diabetic patients have poor diagnostic discrimination
title_full Current NAFLD guidelines for risk stratification in diabetic patients have poor diagnostic discrimination
title_fullStr Current NAFLD guidelines for risk stratification in diabetic patients have poor diagnostic discrimination
title_full_unstemmed Current NAFLD guidelines for risk stratification in diabetic patients have poor diagnostic discrimination
title_short Current NAFLD guidelines for risk stratification in diabetic patients have poor diagnostic discrimination
title_sort current nafld guidelines for risk stratification in diabetic patients have poor diagnostic discrimination
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7591877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33110165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75227-x
work_keys_str_mv AT blankvalentin currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT petroffdavid currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT beersebastian currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT bohligalbrecht currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT henimaria currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT bergthomas currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT bausbackyvonne currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT dietricharne currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT tonjesanke currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT hollenbachmarcus currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT bluhermatthias currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT keimvolker currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT wiegandjohannes currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination
AT karlasthomas currentnafldguidelinesforriskstratificationindiabeticpatientshavepoordiagnosticdiscrimination