Noninvasive assessment of liver disease severity in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of simple, noninvasive tests (NITs) in NAFLD patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an individual patient data meta-analysis of 1780 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD and T2D. The index tests of interest were FIB-4, NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS), aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index, liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by vibration-controlled transient elastography, and AGILE 3+. The target conditions were advanced fibrosis, NASH, and fibrotic NASH(NASH plus F2-F4 fibrosis). The diagnostic performance of noninvasive tests. individually or in sequential combination, was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and by decision curve analysis. Comparison with 2278 NAFLD patients without T2D was also made. In NAFLD with T2D LSM and AGILE 3+ outperformed, both NFS and FIB-4 for advanced fibrosis (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve:LSM 0.82, AGILE 3+ 0.82, NFS 0.72, FIB-4 0.75, aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index 0.68; p < 0.001 of LSM-based versus simple serum tests), with an uncertainty area of 12%-20%. The combination of serum-based with LSM-based tests for advanced fibrosis led to a reduction of 40%-60% in necessary LSM tests. Decision curve analysis showed that all scores had a modest net benefit for ruling out advanced fibrosis at the risk threshold of 5%-10% of missing advanced fibrosis. LSM and AGILE 3+ outperformed both NFS and FIB-4 for fibrotic NASH (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve:LSM 0.79, AGILE 3+ 0.77, NFS 0.71, FIB-4 0.71; p < 0.001 of LSM-based versus simple serum tests). All noninvasive scores were suboptimal for diagnosing NASH. CONCLUSIONS: LSM and AGILE 3+ individually or in low availability settings in sequential combination after FIB-4 or NFS have a similar good diagnostic accuracy for advanced fibrosis and an acceptable diagnostic accuracy for fibrotic NASH in NAFLD patients with T2D.

Non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement is currently the only validated technique to accurately evaluate changes in portal pressure. In this study, we evaluate the use of non-contrast quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a surrogate measure of portal pressure. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing HVPG measurement were prospectively recruited. MR parameters of longitudinal relaxation time (T1), perfusion of the liver and spleen (by arterial spin labelling), and blood flow in the portal, splanchnic and collateral circulation (by phase contrast MRI) were assessed. We estimated the liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) score. The correlation of all non-invasive parameters with HVPG was evaluated. RESULTS: The mean (range) HVPG of the patients was 9.8 (1-22) mmHg, and 14 patients (48%) had clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, HVPG ⩾10mmHg). Liver T1 relaxation time, splenic artery and superior mesenteric artery velocity correlated significantly with HVPG. Using multiple linear regression, liver T1 and splenic artery velocity remained as the two parameters in the multivariate model significantly associated with HVPG (R=0.90, p<0.001). This correlation was maintained in patients with CSPH (R=0.85, p<0.001). A validation cohort (n=10) showed this linear model provided a good prediction of HVPG. LSM and ELF score correlated significantly with HVPG in the whole population but the correlation was absent in CSPH. CONCLUSIONS: MR parameters related to both hepatic architecture and splanchnic haemodynamics correlate significantly with HVPG. This proposed model, confirmed in a validation cohort, could replace the invasive HVPG measurement. LAY SUMMARY: In patients with cirrhosis, the development and progression of portal hypertension is related to worse outcomes. However, the standard technique of assessing portal pressure is invasive and not widely used in clinical practice. Here, we have studied the use of non-invasive MRI in evaluating portal pressure. The MRI measures of liver architecture and blood flow in the splenic artery correlated well with portal pressure. Therefore, this non-invasive method can potentially be used to assess portal pressure in clinical trials and monitoring treatment in practice.