Article Text


General liver II
PWE-286 Direct serum markers are more accurate than simple marker panels for the detection of fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
  1. S Tanwar1,
  2. P M Trembling1,
  3. D Thorburn1,
  4. I N Guha2,
  5. J Parkes3,
  6. P Kaye2,
  7. A Burt4,
  8. S D Ryder2,
  9. G Aithal2,
  10. C Day4,
  11. W M Rosenberg1
  1. 1Centre for Hepatology, University College London (UCL), London, UK
  2. 2National Institute for Health Research: Biomedical Research Unit, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
  3. 3Public Health Sciences and Medical Statistics, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
  4. 4Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK


Introduction The identification of fibrosis in patients with NAFLD is important for ascertaining prognosis and stratifying patients for emerging therapeutic interventions. Use of both direct marker panels (liver matrix components) and indirect marker panels (simple biochemical tests) have been described for the detection of fibrosis in NAFLD. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of direct and indirect serum marker panels in the detection of fibrosis in NAFLD as compared with liver biopsy.

Methods From two centres, 177 patients were recruited and underwent percutaneous liver biopsy. Fibrosis staging was assessed using Kleiner criteria by two senior liver-histopathologists. Serum at the time of biopsy was used to calculate six indirect marker panels of fibrosis (APRI, BAAT, BARD, Cirrhosis discriminate score, NAFLD fibrosis index and Fib4). These panels were compared with the ELF Test (HA, TIMP1, PIIINP) and HA alone. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves which were compared using the method of DeLong.

Results The distribution of fibrosis stages in the cohort were as follows: F0 39.5% (n=70), F1 19.2% (n=34), F2 17.5% (n=31), F3 13.6% (n=24), F4 10.2% (n=18). While ELF and HA alone had the best performance overall, the ELF test was better than HA in its ability to discriminate minimal fibrosis (p=0.02) and cirrhosis (p=0.06). All indirect serum markers tested had significantly worse performance than ELF in the detection of cirrhosis (p<0.05).

Conclusion In patients with NAFLD, direct serum marker panels have superior performance compared to indirect marker panels allowing superior stratification and prognostication. The performance of HA alone is enhanced by the addition of PIIINP and TIMP1.

Abstract PWE-286 Table 1

Competing interests None declared.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.