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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |