metricas
covid
Buscar en
Annals of Hepatology
Toda la web
Inicio Annals of Hepatology Validation of the Hepamet fibrosis score in a multi-ethnic Asian population
Journal Information
Vol. 28. Issue 2.
(March - April 2023)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
1740
Vol. 28. Issue 2.
(March - April 2023)
Original article
Full text access
Validation of the Hepamet fibrosis score in a multi-ethnic Asian population
Visits
1740
Shi-En Chonga, Felicia Changa, Kee-Huat Chuaha, Pavai Sthaneshwarb, Nik Raihan Nik Mustaphac, Sanjiv Mahadevaa, Wah-Kheong Chana,
Corresponding author
wahkheong2003@hotmail.com

Corresponding author.
a Gastroenterology and Hepatology Unit, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
c Department of Pathology, Hospital Sultanah Bahiyah, 05460 Alor Setar, Kedah, Malaysia
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (3)
Show moreShow less
Tables (3)
Table 1. Patient characteristics.
Table 2. The distribution of patients in the different diagnostic groups using the Hepamet fibrosis score, the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score.
Table 3. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, misclassification rate and proportion of patients with indeterminate / discordants results when using the Hepamet fibrosis score, Fibrosis-4 score and NAFLD fibrosis score alone, or in combination with liver stiffness measurement in a two-step approach or both tests for all patients.
Show moreShow less
Additional material (4)
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives

The Hepamet fibrosis score was introduced for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). To date, external validation is limited, and its utility in combination with liver stiffness measurement (LSM) has not been explored.

Material and Methods

This is a cross-sectional study on NAFLD patients who had a liver biopsy and LSM on the same day. The diagnostic performance of the Hepamet fibrosis score was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

Results

The data for 196 patients were analyzed (mean age 50 ± 11 years old, 50% men, 56.6% Malay, 27.6% Chinese, 15.8% Indian, 67.9% NASH, 15.8% advanced liver fibrosis). The AUROC of Hepamet fibrosis score for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80 – 0.91). Using the <0.12 and ≥0.47 cut-offs from the original study, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, the proportion of indeterminate results and misclassification rate were 81.8%, 91.8%, 47.4%, 98.2%, 32.1% and 6.1%, respectively. Using LSM <10 kPa and ≥15 kPa for the diagnosis of absence and presence of advanced liver fibrosis, respectively, in patients with Hepamet fibrosis score ≥0.47 (i.e., the two-step approach) reduced indeterminate results and misclassification to 16.1% and 3.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

We found the Hepamet fibrosis score to have good diagnostic accuracy in a population that was largely unrepresented in earlier work and demonstrated its utility in a two-step approach with LSM for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis.

Keywords:
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease
Advanced liver fibrosis
Abbreviations:
ALT
AST
AUROC
BMI
CK18
FIB-4
HbA1c
HDL
HFS
HOMA-IR
MAFLD
NAFLD
NASH
NFS
Full Text
1Introduction

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has emerged as the most common cause of chronic liver disease, affecting an estimated 25% of the global population [1]. The severity of liver fibrosis has been identified as the single most important predictor of long-term outcome in NAFLD patients with the risk of liver-related mortality and all-cause mortality increasing exponentially with increasing liver fibrosis stage [2]. As only a small but significant proportion of NAFLD patients have advanced liver fibrosis and NAFLD patients do not have specific symptoms unless they have progressed to decompensated liver disease, identifying NAFLD patients with advanced liver fibrosis for more aggressive management represents an important step in tackling the disease. A two-step approach has been proposed, whereby NAFLD patients identified as being at higher risk of advanced liver fibrosis based on a widely available test are referred for a second test for further risk stratification [3,4]. The original work was based on the use of the NAFLD fibrosis score and liver stiffness measurement with 8 kPa and 17 kPa cut-offs [3], but this was refined to the use of the Fibrosis-4 score and liver stiffness measurement with 10 kPa and 15 kPa cut-offs [4]. The Fibrosis-4 score had similar performance to the NAFLD fibrosis score despite requiring less variables for its calculation, and it has therefore emerged as the preferred test. Recently, a novel fibrosis score, called the Hepamet fibrosis score, has been developed for identifying NAFLD patients with advanced liver fibrosis [5]. The Hepamet fibrosis score has been reported to be superior to the NAFLD fibrosis score and the Fibrosis-4 score. However, there is limited external validation. Furthermore, the performance of the Hepamet fibrosis score in comparison with the NALFD fibrosis score and the Fibrosis-4 score in a two-step approach that is followed by liver stiffness measurement is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to study the performance of the Hepamet fibrosis score when used alone and when used in a two-step approach with liver stiffness measurement for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis, comparing with the use of the NAFLD fibrosis score and the Fibrosis-4 score, in our cohort of biopsy-proven NAFLD patients.

2Material and Methods

The patients included in this study were patients who were screened for a non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) clinical trial conducted at the University of Malaya Medical Centre between 2012 and 2015. The full details of the clinical trial can be found elsewhere [6]. Briefly, consecutive adult NAFLD patients (>18 years old) seen at the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Clinic of the University of Malaya Medical Centre were considered for inclusion into the clinical trial. The diagnosis of NAFLD was based on ultrasonography findings of fatty liver and exclusion of significant alcohol intake, use of medications that can cause hepatic steatosis, viral hepatitis B and C infection, and other causes of chronic liver disease, where indicated [7]. NAFLD patients with serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels ≥40 IU/L were offered screening for the clinical trial, which included a liver biopsy. Screening was also offered when there were other reasons for NASH to be suspected (e.g., significant liver fibrosis based on liver stiffness measurement, obese patients with metabolic syndrome). Patients who were on insulin therapy were excluded from this study to limit the influence of supra‐physiological results of insulinemia due to insulin therapy.

Demographic, anthropometric and relevant clinical data were obtained using a standard protocol on the day of the liver biopsy procedure. Obesity was defined as body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg per m2[8]. Central obesity was defined as waist circumference >90 cm for men and >80 cm for women [9]. Hypertension was considered present when there was a self-reported history of hypertension, blood pressure was ≥130/80 mmHg, or when the patient was on anti-hypertensive agent [10]. Venous blood was drawn after an overnight fast on the day of the liver biopsy procedure for complete blood count, glucose, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), insulin, lipid profile, liver profile and tests for viral hepatitis B and C infection. Diabetes mellitus was considered present when there was a self-reported history of diabetes mellitus, fasting glucose was ≥7.0 mmol/L, HbA1c was ≥6.5 %, or when the patient was on anti-diabetic agent. Patients without diabetes mellitus who had fasting glucose ≥ 5.6 mmol/L were considered to have impaired fasting glucose [11]. Serum triglyceride ≥1.7 mmol/L was considered elevated while serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol <1.0 mmol/L for men or <1.3 mmol/L for women was considered reduced [12]. Homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated using the formula fasting glucose (mmol/L) * fasting insulin (mlU/L) / 22.5.

2.1Calculation of the Hepamet fibrosis score and other fibrosis scores

The Hepamet fibrosis score was calculated from the formula 1 / (1 + e [5.390 – 0.986 x Age [45-64 years of age] – 1.719 x Age [≥65 years of age] + 0.875 x Male sex – 0.896 x AST [35-69 IU/L] – 2.126 x AST [≥70 IU/L] – 0.027 x Albumin [4-4.49 g/dL] – 0.897 x Albumin [<4 g/dL] – 0.899 x HOMA [2-3.99 with no Diabetes Mellitus] – 1.497 x HOMA [≥4 with no Diabetes Mellitus] – 2.184 x Diabetes Mellitus – 0.882 x platelets x 1.000/µL [155-219] – 2.233 x platelets x 1.000/µL [<155]) [5]. Previously reported cut-offs of <0.12 and ≥0.47 were used for the diagnosis of the absence and presence of advanced liver fibrosis, respectively; a score of ≥0.12 and <0.47 was considered indeterminate. Fibrosis-4 score was calculated from the formula [age (years) × AST (U/L)] / [platelet count (× 109/L) × ALT (U/L)½] [13]. Previously reported cut-offs of <1.30 and ≥2.67 were used for the diagnosis of the absence and presence of advanced liver fibrosis, respectively; a score of ≥1.30 and <2.67 was considered indeterminate. The NAFLD fibrosis score was calculated from the formula −1.675 + 0.037 × age (years) + 0.094 × BMI (kg per m2) + 1.13 × impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes mellitus (yes = 1, no = 0) + 0.99 × AST to ALT ratio − 0.013 × platelet (× 109/L) − 0.66 × albumin (g/dL) [14]. Previously reported cut-offs of <-1.455 and >0.675 were used for the diagnosis of the absence and presence of advanced liver fibrosis, respectively; a score of ≥-1.455 and ≤0.675 was considered indeterminate.

2.2Liver biopsy and histological assessment

Ultrasonography‐guided percutaneous liver biopsy was performed by either one of two experienced operators (WKC, SM) using 18G Temno® II semi‐automatic biopsy needle (Cardinal Health, Dublin, OH). Liver biopsy specimens were processed using standard laboratory procedures. Liver biopsy slides were stained with haematoxylin and eosin stain and Masson's trichrome stain. Liver biopsy slides were examined by an experienced histopathologist (NRNM) who was blinded to clinical data. NASH was defined as the presence of steatosis, lobular inflammation and ballooning with or without fibrosis. Histopathological findings were reported according to the NASH Clinical Research Network Scoring System [15]. Fibrosis stages 1a, 1b and 1c were considered stage 1 for the purpose of analysis. Advanced liver fibrosis was defined as fibrosis stages ≥F3. The experienced histopathologist (NRNM) in this study had an almost perfect intra-observer agreement for fibrosis staging with Fleiss' kappa (95% CI) of 0.926 (0.818 - 1.000) as reported in a separate study that looked at intra- and inter-observer variability for fibrosis staging. The inter-observer agreement with the other three pathologists in the study was substantial to almost perfect with weighted kappa (95% CI) of 0.776 (0.601 - 0.950), 0.794 (0.602 - 0.986) and 0.848 (0.692 - 1.000), respectively [16].

2.3Transient elastography

Transient elastography was performed by either one of two experienced operators (WKC, SM) using Fibroscan 502 Touch with M probe (EchoSens, Paris, France) on all patients on the same day of the liver biopsy procedure. Adequate pressure of the probe on the skin surface, good layering on TM mode and a straight imaginary line on A mode were ensured for each measurement. An examination was considered successful and reliable when there were at least 10 valid measurements with interquartile range/median for liver stiffness measurement ≤30% [17]. Liver stiffness measurement <10 kPa and ≥15 kPa were used for the diagnosis of the absence and presence of advanced liver fibrosis, respectively; liver stiffness measurement ≥10 kPa and <15 kPa was considered indeterminate [4]. In the two-step approach, patients with a Hepamet fibrosis score ≥0.12, Fibrosis-4 score ≥1.30, or NAFLD fibrosis score ≥-1.455 were subjected to liver stiffness measurement for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis.

2.4Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using standard statistical software, SPSS 27 (IBM, New York, U.S.). Continuous variables were reported as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range) and analyzed using t-test or Mann-Whitney test, as appropriate. Categorical variables were reported as percentages and analyzed using chi-square or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. The performance of the Hepamet fibrosis score, the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis was determined and compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC). AUROC was interpreted as follows: 0.90‐1.00 = excellent, 0.80‐0.90 = good, 0.70‐0.80 = fair and <0.70 = poor. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, misclassification rate and indeterminate rate were determined for each of the fibrosis scores when used alone, when used in a two-step approach and when used with liver stiffness measurement for all patients. The Z score calculator for two proportions was used for comparing two proportions. Significance was assumed when p <0.05.

2.5Ethical statement

The clinical trial from which the data for this study came conformed to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, and approval was obtained from the University of Malaya Research Ethics Committee (UMREC) prior to its commencement (Approval Date: 25 May 2011; Reference No.: 853.1). All patients who participated in the clinical trial provided written informed consent.

3Results3.1Patient characteristics

The data for 196 patients were analyzed. Patient characteristics are presented in Table 1. The mean age of the study population was 50 ± 11 years old, and the study population consisted of an equal proportion of male and female patients. The majority of patients were obese (86.2%), centrally obese (93.4%) and had metabolic syndrome (88.8%). The proportion of patients with diabetes mellitus, hypertension and dyslipidemia was 45.9%, 57.7% and 79.6%, respectively. The mean length of the liver biopsy specimen was 15 ± 4 mm, while the mean number of portal tracts was 8 ± 3. The proportion of patients with NASH was 67.9%, while the proportion of patients with advanced liver fibrosis was 15.8%.

Table 1.

Patient characteristics.

  Overall population, n = 196  With advanced fibrosis, n = 31  Without advanced fibrosis, n = 165  p value 
Age  50 ± 11  58 ± 6  48 ± 11  <0.001 
Male, n (%)  98 (50)  12 (38.7)  86 (52.1)  0.171 
Ethnicity         
 Malay, n (%)  111 (56.6)  12 (38.7)  99 (60)  0.076 
 Chinese, n (%)  54 (27.6)  13 (41.9)  41 (24.8)   
 Indian, n (%)  31 (15.8)  6 (19.4)  25 (15.2)   
History of type 2 diabetes, n (%)  90 (45.9)  25 (80.6)  65 (39.4)  <0.001 
History of hypertension, n (%)  113 (57.7)  27 (87.1)  86 (52.1)  <0.001 
History of dyslipidemia, n (%)  156 (79.6)  29 (93.5)  127 (77)  0.049 
BMI, kg per m2  29.8 ± 4.5  30.8 ± 5.7  29.7 ± 4.3  0.292 
Obesity, n (%)  169 (86.2)  27 (87.1)  142 (86.1)  1.000 
Waist circumference, cm  98 ± 10  100 ± 11  97 ± 10  0.219 
Central obesity, n (%)  183 (93.4)  31 (100)  152 (92.1)  0.228 
SBP, mmHg  139 ± 17  138 ± 19  139 ± 17  0.651 
DBP, mmHg  86 ± 13  83 ± 10  86 ± 13  0.109 
Hypertension, n (%)  147 (75)  23 (74.2)  124 (75.2)  0.910 
Fasting glucose, mmol/L  5.7 (5.0 – 6.9)  6.8 (5.5 – 8.3)  5.6 (4.9 – 6.6)  <0.001 
HbA1c, %  6.0 (5.5 – 6.9)  6.9 (5.8 – 7.5)  5.9 (5.5 – 6.7)  0.007 
Type 2 diabetes*, n (%)  102 (52.0)  25 (80.6)  77 (46.7)  <0.001 
Elevated glycemia⁎⁎, n (%)  126 (64.3)  27 (87.1)  99 (60.0)  0.004 
Insulin, mlU/L  21.1 (15.5 – 32.5)  25.6 (18.2 – 40.1)  20.1 (14.7 – 31.9)  0.015 
HOMA-IR  6.08 (3.87 – 9.38)  8.14 (6.40 – 12.15)  5.31 (3.63 – 8.84)  <0.001 
Triglycerides, mmol/L  1.6 (1.2 – 2.0)  1.5 (1.1 – 1.7)  1.6 (1.3 – 2.0)  0.126 
Elevated triglycerides, n (%)  84 (42.9)  10 (32.3)  74 (44.8)  0.194 
Total cholesterol, mmol/L  4.9 (4.2 – 5.6)  4.9 (4.0 – 5.4)  4.9 (4.3 – 5.7)  0.233 
HDL cholesterol, mmol/L  1.2 (1.0 – 1.3)  1.2 (1.0 – 1.4)  1.2 (1.0 – 1.3)  0.138 
Low HDL cholesterol, n (%)  104 (53.1)  18 (58.1)  86 (52.1)  0.543 
LDL cholesterol, mmol/L  2.9 (2.4 – 3.6)  2.6 (2.0 – 3.5)  3.0 (2.4 – 3.7)  0.136 
Metabolic syndrome, n (%)  174 (88.8)  30 (96.8)  144 (87.3)  0.211 
Albumin, g/L  43 (41 – 46)  42 (39 – 46)  43 (41 – 46)  0.049 
Total bilirubin, µmol/L  11 (8 – 15)  11 (9 – 16)  11 (8 – 15)  0.369 
ALP, U/L  83 (66 – 96)  90 (74 – 104)  82 (66 – 96)  0.125 
ALT, U/L  67 (44 – 105)  75 (47 – 110)  65 (44 – 103)  0.460 
AST, U/L  39 (29 – 61)  61 (36 – 78)  37 (28 – 54)  <0.001 
GGT, U/L  77 (41 – 125)  116 (79 – 171)  68 (40 – 111)  <0.001 
Platelet count, x 109/L  278 (232 – 314)  225 (188 – 260)  283 (248 – 319)  <0.001 
Liver biopsy length, mm  15 ± 4  15 ± 3  15 ± 4  0.324 
Number of portal tracts, n (%)  8 ± 3  10 ± 3  8 ± 3  <0.001 
NASH  133 (67.9)  29 (93.5)  104 (63)  <0.001 
Fibrosis stage        <0.001 
 0, n (%)  68 (34.7)  0 (0)  68 (41.2)   
 1, n (%)  82 (41.8)  0 (0)  82 (49.7)   
 2, n (%)  15 (7.7)  0 (0)  15 (9.1)   
 3, n (%)  25 (12.8)  25 (80.6)  0 (0)   
 4, n (%)  6 (3.1)  6 (19.4)  0 (0)   
Hepamet fibrosis score  0.10 (0.04 – 0.21)  0.28 (0.21 – 0.48)  0.06 (0.03 – 0.20)  <0.001 
Fibrosis-4 score  0.90 (0.60 – 1.29)  1.77 (1.29 – 2.13)  0.82 (0.57 – 1.14)  <0.001 
NAFLD fibrosis score  -2.105 (-3.075 – -1.161)  -0.568 (-1.626 – 0.162)  -2.271 (-3.270 – -1.484)  <0.001 

Type 2 diabetes was considered present when there was a self-reported history of type 2 diabetes, fasting glucose was ≥7.0mmol/L, HbA1c was ≥6.5 %, or when the patient was on anti-diabetic agent.

⁎⁎

Elevated glycemia includes patients with impaired fasting glucose (fasting glucose ≥5.6 mmol/L) and patients with type 2 diabetes

BMI, body mass index; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; GGT, gamma glutamyl transferase; NASH, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

3.2Hepamet fibrosis score

The Hepamet fibrosis score was significantly higher among patients with advanced liver fibrosis compared with patients without advanced liver fibrosis [0.35 (0.21 – 0.48) vs. 0.13 (0.03 – 0.20), p <0.001]. The Hepamet fibrosis score had good diagnostic accuracy for advanced liver fibrosis with AUROC of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80 – 0.91) (Fig. 1). The distribution of patients in the different diagnostic groups using the Hepamet fibrosis score, the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score are shown in Table 2. The Hepamet fibrosis score had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 81.8%, 91.8%, 47.4% and 98.2%, respectively. The proportion of patients in the indeterminate range was 32.1%. The misclassification rate was 6.1%. The proportion of patients with low Hepamet fibrosis score who had advanced liver fibrosis was 1.8%, while the proportion of patients with high Hepamet fibrosis score who did not have advanced liver fibrosis was 52.6%.

Fig. 1.

The receiver operating characteristics curve of the Hepamet fibrosis score, Fibrosis-4 score and NAFLD fibrosis score for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis.

(0.08MB).
Table 2.

The distribution of patients in the different diagnostic groups using the Hepamet fibrosis score, the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score.

Hepamet fibrosis score  No advanced fibrosis  Advanced fibrosis  Total 
<0.12  112  114 
0.12 – 0.46  43  20  63 
≥0.47  10  19 
Total  165  31  196 
       
Fibrosis-4 score  No advanced fibrosis  Advanced fibrosis  Total 
<1.3  140  148 
1.3-2.66  23  22  45 
≥2.67 
Total  165  31  196 
       
NAFLD fibrosis score  No advanced fibrosis  Advanced fibrosis  Total 
<-1.455  125  133 
-1.455 – 0.675  39  21  60 
>0.675 
Total  165  31  196 
3.3Comparing the Hepamet fibrosis score and other scores for advanced liver fibrosis

The Hepamet fibrosis score did not perform better than the Fibrosis-4 score or the NAFLD fibrosis score for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis, with the AUROC of the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score being 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83 – 0.95, p = 0.223) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79 – 0.92, p = 0.946), respectively (Fig. 1). The proportion of patients in the indeterminate range was lower for the Fibrosis-4 score compared with the Hepamet fibrosis score (23% vs. 32.1%, p <0.05). The proportion of patients in the indeterminate range was not significantly different between the NAFLD fibrosis score and the Hepamet fibrosis score (26% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.184). The misclassification rates for the Fibrosis-4 score (5.1%) and the NAFLD fibrosis score (4.6%) were not significantly different from the Hepamet fibrosis score (6.1%) (p = 0.660 and p = 0.503, respectively). However, the sensitivity of the Hepamet fibrosis score (81.8%) was significantly higher compared with the Fibrosis-4 score (11.1%) and the NAFLD fibrosis score (20%) (p <0.05 for both comparisons). The proportion of patients with low Fibrosis-4 scores who had advanced liver fibrosis was 5.4%, while the proportion of patients with high Fibrosis-4 scores who did not have advanced liver fibrosis was 66.7%. These values were 5.6% and 33.3%, respectively, for the NAFLD fibrosis score.

3.4Combining the Hepamet fibrosis score and liver stiffness measurement for assessment of advanced liver fibrosis

Three of the 196 patients were excluded from this analysis due to failed or unreliable liver stiffness measurement. Using the two-step approach reduced the proportion of patients with indeterminate results (from 32.1% to 16.1%) and the misclassification rate (from 6.1% to 3.6%) (Table 3 and Fig. 2). Using the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score to select patients for liver stiffness measurement similarly reduced the proportion of patients with indeterminate results (from 23% to 9.3% for the Fibrosis-4 score and from 30.6% to 11.9% for the NAFLD fibrosis score) and the misclassification rate for the Fibrosis-4 score (from 5.1% to 4.1%), but not for the NAFLD fibrosis score (from 4.6% to 6.2%) (Table 3, Supplementary Fig. S1, and Supplementary Fig. S2). In contrast, using both Hepamet fibrosis score and liver stiffness measurement in all patients resulted in a greater proportion of patients with indeterminate results (25.9%) due to discordant results among those with low Hepamet fibrosis scores (Table 3 and Fig. 3). This was similarly observed for the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score, with indeterminate results at 24.4% and 24.9%, respectively (Table 3, Supplementary Fig. S3 and Supplementary Fig. S4).

Table 3.

Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, misclassification rate and proportion of patients with indeterminate / discordants results when using the Hepamet fibrosis score, Fibrosis-4 score and NAFLD fibrosis score alone, or in combination with liver stiffness measurement in a two-step approach or both tests for all patients.

  Sensitivity, % (n/N)  Specificity, % (n/N)  Positive predictive value, % (n/N)  Negative predictive value, % (n/N)  Misclassification rate, % (n/N)  Indeterminate / discordant results, % (n/N) 
HFS  81.8 (9/11)  91.8 (112/122)  47.4 (9/19)  98.2 (112/114)  6.1 (12/196)  32.1 (63/196) 
FIB-4  11.1 (1/9)  98.6 (140/142)  33.3 (1/3)  94.6 (140/148)  5.1 (10/196)  23.0 (45/196) 
NFS  20.0 (2/10)  99.2 (125/126)  66.7 (2/3)  94.0 (125/133)  4.6 (9/196)  30.6 (60/196) 
Two-step approach with HFS and LSM  70.6% (12/17)  98.6 (143/145)  85.7 (12/14)  96.6 (143/148)  3.6 (7/193)  16.1 (31/193) 
Two-step approach with FIB-4 and LSM  60.0 (12/20)  100.0 (155/155)  100.0 (12/12)  95.1 (155/163)  4.1 (8/193)  9.3 (18/193) 
Two-step approach with NFS and LSM  45.0 (9/20)  99.3 (149/150)  90.0 (9/10)  93.1 (149/160)  6.2 (12/193)  11.9 (23/193) 
Both HFS and LSM  75.0 (12/16)  98.4 (125/127)  85.7 (12/14)  96.9 (125/129)  3.1 (6/193)  25.9 (50/193) 
Both FIB-4 and LSM  75.0 (12/16)  100.0 (130/130)  100.0 (12/12)  97.0 (130/134)  2.1 (4/193)  24.4 (47/193) 
Both NFS and LSM  69.2 (9/13)  99.2 (131/132)  90.0 (9/10)  97.0 (131/135)  2.6 (5/193)  24.9 (48/193) 

HFS, Hepamet fibrosis score; FIB-4, Fibrosis-4 score; NFS, NAFLD fibrosis score; LSM, liver stiffness measurement.

Fig. 2.

Distribution of patients in the different diagnostic groups when using the two-step approach for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis.

(0.47MB).
Fig. 3.

Distribution of patients in the different diagnostic groups when using the Hepamet fibrosis score and liver stiffness measurement for all patients for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis.

(0.46MB).
4Discussion

In this study on 196 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, we found the Hepamet fibrosis score to have good accuracy for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis. This is consistent with the original training and validation study by Ampuero and colleagues [5]. However, in contrast, the Hepamet fibrosis score was not found to be superior to the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score in our study. Although the Hepamet fibrosis score had significantly higher AUROC compared with the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score in both the training and validation cohorts in the study by Ampuero and colleagues, there was significant overlap in the 95% CI of the AUROCs of the different fibrosis scores from each of the participating centres. In the only other external validation study, Higuera‑de‑la‑Tijera and colleagues similarly did not find a significant difference in the accuracy of the Hepamet fibrosis score for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis compared with the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis [18]. The magnitude of difference in the performance of the Hepamet fibrosis score for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis compared with other fibrosis scores is an important consideration because it requires HOMA, which is not routinely performed and requires additional cost, in its calculation. A similar consideration has favored the Fibrosis-4 score over the NAFLD fibrosis score for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis as the former requires a smaller number of variables that are more readily available and performs as well as, if not better, compared with the latter [4]. In a previous study, we found the MACK-3 [combination of HOMA, AST and cytokeratin-18 (CK18)] to be a marker of active NASH and hypothesized that it would perform better as a marker of fibrotic NASH in populations with a greater proportion of patients with both active NASH and significant liver fibrosis [19]. This may similarly underlie the difference in the performance of the Hepamet fibrosis score in the different study populations, which have a different proportion of patients with both active NASH and advanced liver fibrosis. Another possible explanation is an ethnic difference in HOMA [20], as our study population consisted of 72.4% of patients of Malay or Indian ethnicity, which are completely unrepresented in both earlier studies.

The high negative predictive value of the lower cut-off of fibrosis scores has positioned them as an important screening tool since there is a high prevalence of NAFLD in the general population but only a small yet significant proportion of patients with advanced liver fibrosis. However, the low positive predictive value of the lower cut-off necessitates additional tests, such as liver stiffness measurement, to improve the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis. While this approach has been tested with the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score previously [3,4], it has not been tested for the Hepamet fibrosis score. In the current study, we found the use of the Hepamet fibrosis score in a two-step approach with liver stiffness measurement to be feasible, similar to the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score. Although the use of the Hepamet fibrosis score in the two-step approach was associated with the highest proportion of patients with indeterminate results at 16.1%, it had the lowest misclassification rate at 3.6%. A lower misclassification rate may be arguably more important than the proportion of indeterminate results (within acceptable limits) as patients with indeterminate results may be considered as having increased risk and be followed, whereby those with disease progression over time would be eventually diagnosed. On the other hand, misclassification may lead to a false sense of security and missed opportunity for intervention on one end and anxiety and unnecessary downstream management on the other.

Despite our best effort, this study has several limitations. First, the use of liver biopsy as a reference test is inherently limited by sampling variability [21] and observer variability [16,22]. The fibrosis stage has been shown to differ by 1-2 stages between two liver biopsies taken from the same patient in 45.1% of cases [21]. On the other hand, there is only moderate agreement in fibrosis staging between two independent pathologists, with a discrepancy rate of 68.7% [22]. The discrepancy rate in fibrosis staging was 40.8% in another study that included four independent pathologists [16]. Nevertheless, liver biopsy remains the reference test for the evaluation of a diagnostic test for liver fibrosis. Although none of the liver biopsy specimens were deemed inadequate for assessment by our pathologist, the mean length of the liver biopsy specimen and the number of portal tracts in our study did fall short of the recommended international standards, which may have affected the interpretation of diagnostic accuracy in our study [23]. Secondly, the patients included in this study, as in most studies on a diagnostic test for NAFLD, were NAFLD patients in a tertiary centre who underwent a liver biopsy. Therefore, the patients are likely to have more severe liver disease and the findings of this study may not be representative of NAFLD patients in the general population. However, it is likely that the fibrosis scores will have even better negative predictive value for advanced liver fibrosis for NAFLD patients in the general population. Lastly, the term metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) was not yet introduced at the time data for this study was collected and has therefore not been included. However, all patients in this study fulfilled the criteria for MAFLD.

5Conclusions

In conclusion, our study provides further external validation of the good diagnostic performance of the Hepamet fibrosis score in a population that was largely unrepresented in earlier work. Although the Hepamet fibrosis score was not found to be better than the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score, we demonstrated its high negative predictive value and utility in a two-step approach with liver stiffness measurement for the diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis. Furthermore, the Hepamet fibrosis score had the lowest misclassification rate when used in a two-step approach with liver stiffness measurement compared with the Fibrosis-4 score and the NAFLD fibrosis score.

Author contributions

WKC conceptualized the study. KHC, PS, NRNM, SM and WKC contributed to the data. SEC and FC performed data analysis and drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed the draft manuscript, contributed to important intellectual content, and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability statement

Data of this study will be available to all investigators of this study. Data sharing to colleagues outside the study group may be considered upon reasonable request and has to be approved by all investigators of this study.

Declaration of interest

WKC has served as a consultant for Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk; and a speaker for Viatris and Hisky Medical. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References
[1]
ZM Younossi, AB Koenig, D Abdelatif, Y Fazel, L Henry, M. Wymer.
Global epidemiology of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease—meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes.
Hepatology, 64 (2016), pp. 73-84
[2]
PS Dulai, S Singh, J Patel, M Soni, LJ Prokop, Z Younossi, et al.
Increased risk of mortality by fibrosis stage in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Hepatology, 65 (2017), pp. 1557-1565
[3]
WK Chan, NR Nik Mustapha, S Mahadeva.
A novel 2-step approach combining the NAFLD fibrosis score and liver stiffness measurement for predicting advanced fibrosis.
Hepatol Int, 9 (2015), pp. 594-602
[4]
WK Chan, S Treeprasertsuk, GB Goh, JG Fan, MJ Song, P Charatcharoenwitthaya, et al.
Optimizing use of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score, fibrosis-4 score, and liver stiffness measurement to identify patients with advanced fibrosis.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 17 (2019), pp. 2570-2580
[5]
J Ampuero, R Pais, R Aller, R Gallego-Duran, J Crespo, C Garcia-Monzon, et al.
Development and validation of hepamet fibrosis scoring system-a simple, noninvasive test to identify patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with advanced fibrosis.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 18 (2020), pp. 216-225
[6]
WK Chan, NR Nik Mustapha, S Mahadeva.
A randomized trial of silymarin for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 15 (2017), pp. 1940-1949
[7]
N Chalasani, Z Younossi, JE Lavine, M Charlton, K Cusi, M Rinella, SA Harrison, et al.
The diagnosis and management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American association for the study of liver diseases.
Hepatology, 67 (2018), pp. 328-357
[8]
E Anuurad, K Shiwaku, A Nogi, K Kitajima, B Enkhmaa, K Shimono, Y. Yamane.
The new BMI criteria for asians by the regional office for the western pacific region of WHO are suitable for screening of overweight to prevent metabolic syndrome in elder Japanese workers.
J Occup Health, 45 (2003), pp. 335-343
[9]
KG Alberti, P Zimmet, J Shaw, Group IDFETFC.
The metabolic syndrome–a new worldwide definition.
Lancet, 366 (2005), pp. 1059-1062
[10]
PK Whelton, RM Carey, WS Aronow, DE Casey Jr., KJ Collins, C Dennison Himmelfarb, SM DePalma, et al.
2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: executive summary: a report of the american college of cardiology/American heart association task force on clinical practice guidelines.
Hypertension, 71 (2018), pp. 1269-1324
[11]
American Diabetes A. 2.
Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes-2021.
Diabetes Care, 44 (2021), pp. S15-S33
[12]
Y Handelsman, PS Jellinger, CK Guerin, ZT Bloomgarden, EA Brinton, MJ Budoff, et al.
Consensus statement by the american association of clinical endocrinologists and american college of endocrinology on the management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease algorithm - 2020 executive summary.
Endocr Pract, 26 (2020), pp. 1196-1224
[13]
AG Shah, A Lydecker, K Murray, BN Tetri, MJ Contos, AJ Sanyal, N. Nash Clinical Research.
Comparison of noninvasive markers of fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 7 (2009), pp. 1104-1112
[14]
P Angulo, JM Hui, G Marchesini, E Bugianesi, J George, GC Farrell, et al.
The NAFLD fibrosis score: a noninvasive system that identifies liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.
Hepatology, 45 (2007), pp. 846-854
[15]
DE Kleiner, EM Brunt, M Van Natta, C Behling, MJ Contos, OW Cummings, et al.
Design and validation of a histological scoring system for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
Hepatology, 41 (2005), pp. 1313-1321
[16]
HH Leung, P Puspanathan, AW Chan, NR Nik Mustapha, VW Wong, WK Chan.
Reliability of the non-alcoholic steatohepatitis clinical research network and steatosis activity fibrosis histological scoring systems.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 37 (2022), pp. 1131-1138
[17]
J Boursier, JP Zarski, V de Ledinghen, MC Rousselet, N Sturm, B Lebail, et al.
Determination of reliability criteria for liver stiffness evaluation by transient elastography.
Hepatology, 57 (2013), pp. 1182-1191
[18]
F Higuera-de-la-Tijera, J Cordova-Gallardo, E Buganza-Torio, B Barranco-Fragoso, A Torre, S Parraguirre-Martinez, ME Rojano-Rodriguez, et al.
Hepamet fibrosis score in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease patients in Mexico: lower than expected positive predictive value.
Dig Dis Sci, 66 (2021), pp. 4501-4507
[19]
KH Chuah, WNI Wan Yusoff, P Sthaneshwar, NR Nik Mustapha, S Mahadeva, WK Chan.
MACK-3 (combination of hoMa, Ast and CK18): a promising novel biomarker for fibrotic non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.
Liver Int, 39 (2019), pp. 1315-1324
[20]
CH Lee, AZ Shih, YC Woo, CH Fong, OY Leung, E Janus, et al.
Optimal cut-offs of homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) to identify dysglycemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 15-year prospective study in Chinese.
[21]
V Ratziu, F Charlotte, A Heurtier, S Gombert, P Giral, E Bruckert, et al.
Sampling variability of liver biopsy in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
Gastroenterology, 128 (2005), pp. 1898-1906
[22]
BA Davison, SA Harrison, G Cotter, N Alkhouri, A Sanyal, C Edwards, et al.
Suboptimal reliability of liver biopsy evaluation has implications for randomized clinical trials.
J Hepatol, 73 (2020), pp. 1322-1332
[23]
B Al Knawy, M Shiffman.
Percutaneous liver biopsy in clinical practice.
Liver Int, 27 (2007), pp. 1166-1173
Copyright © 2022. Fundación Clínica Médica Sur, A.C.
Download PDF
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos