Imaging-based non-invasive liver disease assessment for staging liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease: A systematic review supporting the AASLD Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Transient elastography (TE), shear-wave elastography (SWE), and/or magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), each providing liver stiffness measurement (LSM), are the most studied imaging-based noninvasive liver disease assessment (NILDA) techniques. To support the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines on NILDA, we summarized the evidence on the accuracy of these LSM methods to stage liver fibrosis (F). APPROACH AND RESULTS: A comprehensive search for studies assessing LSM by TE, SWE, or MRE for the identification of significant fibrosis (F2-4), advanced fibrosis (F3-4), or cirrhosis (F4), utilizing histopathology as standard of reference by liver disease etiology in adults or children from inception to April 2022 was performed. We excluded studies with <50 patients with a single disease entity and mixed liver disease etiologies (with the exception of HCV/HIV co-infection). Out of 9447 studies, 240 with 61,193 patients were included in this systematic review. In adults, sensitivities for the identification of F2-4 ranged from 51% to 95%, for F3-4 from 70% to 100%, and for F4 from 60% to 100% across all techniques/diseases, whereas specificities ranged from 36% to 100%, 74% to 100%, and 67% to 99%, respectively. The largest body of evidence available was for TE; MRE appeared to be the most accurate method. Imaging-based NILDA outperformed blood-based NILDA in most comparisons, particularly for the identification of F3-4/F4. In the pediatric population, imaging-based NILDA is likely as accurate as in adults. CONCLUSION: LSM from TE, SWE, and MRE show acceptable to outstanding accuracy for the detection of liver fibrosis across various liver disease etiologies. Accuracy increased from F2-4 to F3-4 and was the highest for F4. Further research is needed to better standardize the use of imaging-based NILDA, particularly in pediatric liver diseases.

Accuracy of blood-based biomarkers for staging liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease: A systematic review supporting the AASLD Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Blood-based biomarkers have been proposed as an alternative to liver biopsy for non-invasive liver disease assessment (NILDA) in chronic liver disease (CLD). Our aims for this systematic review were to evaluate the diagnostic utility of selected blood-based tests either alone, or in combination, for identifying significant fibrosis (F2-4), advanced fibrosis (F3-4) and cirrhosis (F4), as compared to biopsy in CLD. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We included a comprehensive search of databases including Ovid MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and Scopus through to April 2022. Two independent reviewers selected 286 studies with 103,162 patients. The most frequently identified studies included the simple aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) and fibrosis (FIB)-4 markers (with low-to-moderate risk of bias) in hepatitis B virus (HBV) and C virus (HCV), HIV-HCV/HBV co-infection, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Positive (LR+) and negative (LR) likelihood ratios across direct and indirect biomarker tests for HCV and HBV for F2-4, F3-4, or F4 were 1.66-6.25 and 0.23-0.80, 1.89-5.24 and 0.12-0.64, and 1.32-7.15 and 0.15-0.86 respectively; LR+ and LR for NAFLD F2-4, F3-4 and F4 were 2-65-3.37 and 0.37-0.39, 2.25-6.76 and 0.07-0.87, and 3.90 and 0.15 respectively. Overall, proportional odds ratio indicated FIB-4 <1.45 was better than APRI <0.5 for F2-4. FIB-4 >3.25 was also better than APRI >1.5 for F3-4 and F4. There was limited data for combined tests. CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based biomarkers are associated with small-to-moderate change in pre-test probability for diagnosing F2-4, F3-4, and F4 in viral hepatitis, HIV-HCV co-infection, and NAFLD, with limited comparative or combination studies for other CLD.

Endoscopic Versus Conservative Therapy for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer with Adherent Clot: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Peptic ulcers with adherent clots are associated with a high-risk of rebleeding and mortality. However, the optimal management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots remains unclear. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare endoscopic therapy and conservative therapy to manage bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases through October 2022 to include all studies comparing the endoscopic and conservative therapeutic approaches for bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. Our primary outcome was rebleeding (overall and 30-day). The secondary outcomes were mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and length of hospital stay (LOS). The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with the corresponding confidence intervals (CI) for proportional and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Eleven studies (9 RCTs) with 833 patients (431 received endoscopic therapy vs. 402 received conservative therapy) were included. Overall, endoscopic therapy was associated with lower overall rebleeding (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.79, P = 0.007), 30-day rebleeding (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), overall mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.95, P = 0.04), 30-day mortality (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), need for surgery (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.95, P = 0.04), and LOS (MD - 3.17 days, 95% CI - 4.14, - 2.19, P < 0.00001). However, subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no significant difference in overall mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24-2.52, P = 0.68) between the two strategies, with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding (7.2% vs. 18.5%, respectively; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-1.05, P = 0.06), statistically lower rate of need for surgery (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96, P = 0.04) with endoscopic therapy compared to conservative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that endoscopic therapy was overall associated with lower rates of rebleeding (overall and 30-day), mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and LOS, compared to conservative therapy for the management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. However, subgroup analysis of RCTs showed that endoscopic therapy was associated with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding and a statistically lower rate of need for surgery compared to conservative therapy with similar overall mortality rates. Combined treatment with thermal therapy and injection therapy was the most effective treatment modality in reducing rebleeding risk. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to validate our findings.

Magnitude and Time-Trend Analysis of Postendoscopy Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Identification of postendoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (PEEC) among Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients presents an opportunity to improve survival of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to estimate the proportion of PEEC within the first year after BE diagnosis. METHODS: Multiple databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases) were searched until September 2020 for original studies with at least 1-year follow-up evaluation that reported EAC and/or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in the first year after index endoscopy in nondysplastic BE, low-grade dysplasia, or indefinite dysplasia. The proportions of PEEC defined using EAC alone and EAC+HGD were calculated by dividing EAC or EAC+HGD in the first year over the total number of EAC or EAC+HGD, respectively. RESULTS: We included 52 studies with 145,726 patients and a median follow-up period of 4.8 years. The proportion of PEEC (EAC) was 21% (95% CI, 13-31) and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 26% (95% CI, 19-34). Among studies with nondysplastic BE only, the PEEC (EAC) proportion was 17% (95% CI, 11-23) and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 14% (95% CI, 8-19). Among studies with 5 or more years of follow-up evaluation, the PEEC (EAC) proportion was 10% and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 19%. Meta-regression analysis showed a strong inverse relationship between PEEC and incident EAC (P < .001). The PEEC (EAC) proportion increased from 5% in studies published before 2000 to 30% after 2015. Substantial heterogeneity was observed for most analyses. CONCLUSIONS: PEEC accounts for a high proportion of HGD/EACs and is proportional to reduction in incident EAC. Using best endoscopic techniques now and performing future research on improving neoplasia detection through implementation of quality measures and educational tools is needed to reduce PEEC.