No abstract

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.

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 <8.2 kPa and ELF <9.8 and concordant LSM ≥8.2 kPa and ELF ≥9.8 had a high negative predictive value (91.7%) and positive predictive value (95.8%) for excluding and identifying clinically significant fibrosis, respectively. Conclusion: Simple scoring tools alone lack accuracy. LSM accuracy is influenced by severe obesity, whereas age impacts the ELF test. Further studies are required to confirm whether combining LSM and ELF may enhance accuracy and confidence in identifying clinically significant fibrosis. (Hepatology Communications 2018; 00:000‐000)

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

No abstract