Taddei, Tamar H

Background and Aims: Blood-based biomarkers have been proposed as an alternative to liver biopsy for noninvasive liver disease assessment in chronic liver disease. 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 chronic liver disease. 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 aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index and fibrosis (FIB)-4 markers (with low-to-moderate risk of bias) in HBV and HCV, HIV-HCV/HBV coinfection, and 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, the proportional odds ratio indicated FIB-4 <1.45 was better than aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index <0.5 for F2-4. FIB-4 >3.25 was also better than aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index >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 pretest probability for diagnosing F2-4, F3-4, and F4 in viral hepatitis, HIV-HCV coinfection, and NAFLD, with limited comparative or combination studies for other chronic liver diseases.

Abstract The burden of HCC is substantial. To address gaps in HCC care, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) aimed to develop a standard set of process‐based measures and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) along the HCC care continuum. We identified candidate process and outcomes measures for HCC care based on structured literature review. A 13‐member panel with content expertise across the HCC care continuum evaluated candidate measures on importance and performance gap using a modified Delphi approach (two rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Candidate PROs based on a structured scoping review were ranked by 74 patients with HCC across 7 diverse institutions. Out of 135 measures, 29 measures made the final set. These covered surveillance (6 measures), diagnosis (6 measures), staging (2 measures), treatment (10 measures), and outcomes (5 measures). Examples included the use of ultrasound (± alpha‐fetoprotein [AFP]) every 6 months, need for surveillance in high‐risk populations, diagnostic testing for patients with a new AFP elevation, multidisciplinary liver tumor board (MLTB) review of Liver Imaging‐Reporting and Data System 4 lesions, standard evaluation at diagnosis, treatment recommendations based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, MLTB discussion of treatment options, appropriate referral for evaluation of liver transplantation candidacy, and role of palliative therapy. PROs include those related to pain, anxiety, fear of treatment, and uncertainty about the best individual treatment and the future. The AASLD PMC has developed a set of explicit quality measures in HCC care to help bridge the gap between guideline recommendations and measurable processes and outcomes. Measurement and subsequent implementation of these metrics could be a central step in the improvement of patient care and outcomes in this high‐risk population.

The burden of cirrhosis hospitalizations is increasing. The admission Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease–lactate (MELD‐lactate) was recently demonstrated to be a superior predictor of in‐hospital mortality compared with MELD in limited cohorts. We identified specific classes of hospitalizations where MELD‐lactate may be especially useful and evaluated the predictive role of lactate clearance. This was a retrospective cohort study of 1036 cirrhosis hospitalizations for gastrointestinal bleeding, infection, or other portal hypertension–related indications in the Veterans Health Administration where MELD‐lactate was measured on admission. Performance characteristics for in‐hospital mortality were compared between MELD‐lactate and MELD/MELD‐sodium (MELD‐Na), with stratified analyses of MELD categories (≤15, >15 to <25, ≥25) and reason for admission. We also incorporated day 3 lactate levels into modeling and tested for an interaction between day 1 MELD‐lactate and day 3 lactate clearance. MELD‐lactate had superior discrimination for in‐hospital mortality compared with MELD or MELD‐Na (area under the curve [AUC] 0.789 versus 0.776 versus 0.760, respectively; P < 0.001) and superior calibration. MELD‐lactate had higher discrimination among hospitalizations with MELD ≤15 (AUC 0.763 versus 0.608 for MELD, global P = 0.01) and hospitalizations for infection (AUC 0.791 versus 0.674 for MELD, global P < 0.001). We found a significant interaction between day 1 MELD‐lactate and day 3 lactate clearance; heat maps were created as clinical tools to risk‐stratify patients based on these clinical data. MELD‐lactate had significantly superior performance in predicting in‐hospital mortality among patients hospitalized for infection and/or with MELD ≤15 when compared with MELD or MELD‐Na. Incorporating day 3 lactate clearance may further improve prognostication.