Emerging concepts in the detection of liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

INTRODUCTION: The non-invasive identification of liver fibrosis related to Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease is crucial for risk-stratification of patients. Currently, the reference standard to stage hepatic fibrosis relies on liver biopsy, but multiple approaches are developed to allow for non-invasive diagnosis and risk stratification. Non-invasive tests, including blood-based scores and vibration-controlled transient elastography, have been widely validated and represent a good surrogate for risk stratification according to recent European and American guidelines. AREAS COVERED: Novel approaches are based on 'liquid' biomarkers of liver fibrogenesis, including collagen-derived markers (PRO-C3 or PRO-C6), or 'multi-omics' technologies (e.g. proteomic-based molecules or miRNA testing), bearing the advantage of tailoring the intrahepatic disease activity. Alternative approaches are based on 'dry' biomarkers, including magnetic resonance-based tools (including proton density fat fraction, magnetic resonance elastography, or corrected T1), which reach similar accuracy of liver histology and will potentially help identify the best candidates for pharmacological treatment of fibrosing non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. EXPERT OPINION: In the near future, the sequential use of non-invasive tests, as well as the complimentary use of liquid and dry biomarkers according to the clinical need (diagnosis, risk stratification, and prognosis, or treatment response) will guide and improve the management of this liver disease.

Prognostic Value of Simple Non-Invasive Tests for the Risk Stratification of Incident Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Cirrhotic Individuals with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a relevant disease burden in cirrhotic patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of simple non-invasive tests (NITs) (AAR, APRI, BARD, FIB-4) for the stratification of HCC risk development in a cohort of 122 consecutive cirrhotic individuals with NAFLD. Over a median follow up of 5.9 (3.2-9.3) years, 13 (10.7%) developed HCC. Only FIB-4 was associated with HCC risk (HR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.03-1.58, p = 0.027). After evaluating different established FIB-4 cut-offs, the lowest cut-off of 1.45 allowed the ruling out of a greater number of patients with a minimal risk of HCC than the 1.3 cut-off (23 vs. 18 patients). Conversely, the cumulative incidence of HCC using the highest cut-off of 3.25 (rule in) was distinctly higher than the 2.67 cut-off (19.4% vs. 13.3%). After multivariate Cox regression analysis, these cut-offs were independently associated with HCC after adjusting for sex, BMI and T2DM (HR = 6.40, 95% CI 1.71-24.00, p = 0.006). In conclusion, FIB-4 values of <1.3 and >3.25 could allow for the optimal stratification of long-term HCC risk in cirrhotic individuals with NAFLD.

Spleen stiffness measurement for assessing the response to ß-blockers therapy for high-risk esophageal varices patients.

BACKGROUND: Non-selective ß-blocker (NSBB) therapy is the treatment of choice for primary prophylaxis of cirrhotic patients with high-bleeding risk esophageal varices (HRV). The hemodynamic response to NSBB is assessed by the measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). Recently, liver and spleen stiffness measurements (LSM and SSM) were proposed as non-invasive surrogates of HVPG. We aimed to evaluate LSM and SSM changes for assessing hemodynamic response in these patients. METHODS: Cirrhotic patients with HRV were prospectively enrolled and evaluated at our Department before starting NSBB and after 3 months. Correlation between changes (delta) of HVPG after NSBB treatment and those of LSM or SSM by transient elastography was performed. RESULTS: From the initial 59 patients considered for the study, 20 were finally included in the analysis. Fifteen (15) patients reached hemodynamic response to NSBB according to HVPG. Changes in LSM did not correlate with changes in HVPG (r = 0.107, p value = 0.655), unlike changes in SSM (r = 0.784, p value < 0.0001). Delta SSM presented excellent accuracy in identifying HVPG responders (AUROC 0.973; 95% CI 0.912-1). The best cut-off for delta SSM to identify responders was -10% (sensitivity 100%, specificity 60%, NPV 100% and PPV 90%). CONCLUSIONS: SSM could be a reliable non-invasive test for the assessment of hemodynamic response to NSBB therapy as primary prophylaxis for HRV. Similar to HVPG, SSM reduction ≥ 10% is able to assess hemodynamic response.