Underappreciation of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease by primary care clinicians: limited awareness of surrogate markers of fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common cause of incidental liver test abnormalities. General practitioners (GP) have a key role in identifying people with NAFLD at risk of significant liver disease. Recent specialist guidelines emphasise the use of fibrosis algorithms or serum biomarkers rather than routine liver tests, to assess advanced fibrosis. AIM: To evaluate primary care clinicians' current approach to diagnosis, management and referral of NAFLD. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of primary care clinicians was undertaken through a structured questionnaire about NAFLD. A convenience sample of general practice clinics and general practice conferences in Metropolitan Brisbane and regional south east Queensland was selected. RESULTS: A total of 108 primary care clinicians completed the survey (participation rate 100%). Fifty-one percent of respondents considered the prevalence of NAFLD in the general population to be ≤10%. Twenty-four percent of respondents felt that liver enzymes were sufficiently sensitive to detect underlying NAFLD. Most respondents were unsure whether the Fibrosis 4 score (62.7% unsure) or Enhanced Liver Fibrosis score (63.7% unsure) could help to identify advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. Although 47% of respondents said they would refer a patient to a Gastroenterologist/Hepatologist if they suspect the patient has NAFLD, 44.1% do not make any referrals. Of concern, 70.6% of clinicians said they were unlikely to refer a patient to Hepatology unless liver function tests are abnormal. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that many primary care clinicians underestimate the prevalence of NAFLD and under-recognise the clinical spectrum of NAFLD and how this is assessed.

Biochemical evaluation of kidney disease.

Different biochemical markers exist in both blood and urine for assessing renal function. Most of these biomarkers have advantages and limitations associated with their use, which is important to consider when ordering and utilising them in the clinical setting. The ideal marker should be able to detect acute kidney injury (AKI) at the onset and be used for the diagnosis and ongoing monitoring and management of kidney disease. The search for such a marker is ongoing, as all potential candidates thus far are associated with certain limitations. This article will attempt to compare and contrast established and emerging kidney disease markers.

Alcohol Consumption in Diabetic Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

AIM: To examine the association between lifetime alcohol consumption and significant liver disease in type 2 diabetic patients with NAFLD. METHODS: A cross-sectional study assessing 151 patients with NAFLD at risk of clinically significant liver disease. NAFLD fibrosis severity was classified by transient elastography; liver stiffness measurements ≥8.2 kPa defined significant fibrosis. Lifetime drinking history classified patients into nondrinkers, light drinkers (always ≤20 g/day), and moderate drinkers (any period with intake >20 g/day). RESULT: Compared with lifetime nondrinkers, light and moderate drinkers were more likely to be male (p = 0.008) and to be Caucasian (p = 0.007) and to have a history of cigarette smoking (p = 0.000), obstructive sleep apnea (p = 0.003), and self-reported depression (p = 0.003). Moderate drinkers required ≥3 hypoglycemic agents to maintain diabetic control (p = 0.041) and fibrate medication to lower blood triglyceride levels (p = 0.044). Compared to lifetime nondrinkers, light drinkers had 1.79 (95% CI: 0.67-4.82; p = 0.247) and moderate drinkers had 0.91 (95% CI: 0.27-3.10; p = 0.881) times the odds of having liver stiffness measurements ≥8.2 kPa (adjusted for age, gender, and body mass index). CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients with NAFLD, light or moderate lifetime alcohol consumption was not significantly associated with liver fibrosis. The impact of lifetime alcohol intake on fibrosis progression and diabetic comorbidities, in particular obstructive sleep apnea and hypertriglyceridemia, requires further investigation.

What is the most suitable blood collection tube for glucose estimation?

OBJECTIVES: Glucose is one of the most frequently measured analytes in laboratories. Most recent studies on glucose stabilities confirm that the sodium fluoride/potassium oxalate (NaF/KOx) tube is far from the gold standard. Citrate tubes have been suggested as the preferred tube type by many institutions. Greiner has introduced a glucose-specific tube (Glucomedics) containing NaF/KOx, citrate, and EDTA to minimise glycolysis. The aim was to determine which tube would be the most suitable for accurate glucose estimation in a routine laboratory setting. DESIGN AND METHODS: The study process involved three experiments: (a) participant comparison using lithium heparin plasma as the comparative sample; (b) stability study (0, 1, 2 and 4 h); and (c) minimal fill volume for the citrate and the Glucomedics tubes. RESULTS: The patient comparison study of lithium heparin plasma showed that EDTA, NaF/KOx, and both citrate and Glucomedics if corrected for dilutional factors produced acceptable results. The stability study up to 4 h showed that the Glucomedics tube was most effective in preventing clinically significant change in glucose concentration at a room temperature. Both citrate and Glucomedics need to be filled within 0.5 mL of the recommended fill volume for acceptable results. CONCLUSION: The Glucomedics tube is the most suitable for minimising glycolysis. Further improvements to it (use of correct dilutional factor and the addition of gel separator) would make this tube the benchmark for the most accurate estimation, best diagnosis and patient care decisions.

Which point-of-care creatinine analyser for radiology: direct comparison of the i-Stat and StatStrip creatinine methods with different sample types.

BACKGROUND: Availability of whole blood creatinine estimation for patients scheduled to undergo radiological contrast investigations can provide information to aid patient care by reducing adverse effects and improving departmental efficiencies. METHODS: We performed imprecision studies, different patient sample type comparison in 40 participants, and a limited interference study with dopamine and dobutamine on the i-Stat and StatStrip point-of-care enzymatic analysers with the Beckman DxC800 Jaffe assay. RESULTS: Imprecision results showed that the i-Stat performed better. Patient comparison data indicated that the i-Stat provided better correlation than the StatStrip for all the different sample types with correlation coefficients (r(2)) being 0.995-0.996 and 0.918-0.995, respectively. The i-Stat results had a small positive bias of 6-9% for the three different sample types, which required different reference intervals. The StatStrip method showed greater scatter and overall small negative bias of -6% for the whole blood samples and a 10% positive bias with the plasma samples. Dopamine caused significant positive interference with the i-Stat only while dobutamine caused a small negative bias with the StatStrip method only. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicated there are differences offered by the two systems. The StatStrip requires a very small finger prick capillary sample, calculates estimation of the glomerular filtration rate and has an adjustment option to improve correlation with the local method. The i-Stat offers better analytical imprecision and patient comparison with the laboratory method with the three sample types but showed significant interference from dopamine. A final consideration was the availability of middleware to capture patient results with the i-Stat. Based on all the study data, the i-Stat was recommended.