Clinical utility of noninvasive scores in assessing advanced hepatic fibrosis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a study in biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

50Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background/aim: Simple noninvasive fibrosis scores based on routine blood tests have been increasingly investigated as screening tools in different clinical settings. Here, we sought to examine whether the Fibrosis-4 Index (FIB-4) and the non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) fibrosis score (NFS) could perform differently in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD. Methods: We examined 349 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD (166 with type 2 diabetes and 183 without). Patients with FIB-4 scores < 1.3 and > 2.67 or NFS scores < − 1.455 and > 0.676 were considered at low and high risk of advanced fibrosis, respectively. Results: A FIB-4 cutoff value of 1.3—which denotes a low risk of advanced fibrosis—had a specificity of 67% in patients with diabetes and 69% in those without. Conversely, a FIB-4 cutoff value of 2.67—which denotes a high risk of advanced fibrosis—had a sensitivity of 22% in patients with diabetes and 0% in those without. NFS performed similar to FIB-4. Conclusion: Both FIB-4 and NFS scores have an acceptable clinical utility in the exclusion of advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD, regardless of the presence of type 2 diabetes. However, their usefulness in identifying advanced fibrosis is limited—especially in the absence of diabetes.

References Powered by Scopus

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alkayyali, T., Qutranji, L., Kaya, E., Bakir, A., & Yilmaz, Y. (2020). Clinical utility of noninvasive scores in assessing advanced hepatic fibrosis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a study in biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Acta Diabetologica, 57(5), 613–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-019-01467-7

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 10

63%

Researcher 5

31%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 16

84%

Engineering 1

5%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

5%

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1

5%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free