Michel BEAUGRAND.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FT in diagnostic of HBV Prognostic Value of FibroTest in HCV Ngo et al, ClinChem 2006 A Prospective Analysis of the prognostic value of biomarkers (FirboTest)
Advertisements

FibroTest in the diagnosis of HBV
FibroMax in the most common liver diseases
Non invasive fibrosis markers and/or liver biopsy
Is Liver Biopsy the Gold Standard?
Case Report Ana Carolina Cardoso
Dr. David Pearson Gastroenterology, Victoria.  None relevant to this presentation.
Hcv infection and management in advanced liver disease
Alfredo ALBERTI. How to predict outcome in hepatitis C patients Alfredo Alberti Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine Venetian Institute of.
Paul Calès Conflict of interest: FibroMeter
Diagnostic Accuracy of Serum Hyaluronic Acid for Advanced Fibrosis/Cirrhosis in Patients Coinfected with HIV and HCV S. Resino,* 1 P. Miralles, 2 D. Micheloud,
N ORTHWEST A IDS E DUCATION AND T RAINING C ENTER Non-Invasive Testing for Liver Fibrosis John Scott, MD, MSc Associate Professor, University of Washington.
Liver Fibrosis Are Non-invasive markers sufficient? William Rosenberg Prof of Hepatology University of Southampton CSO iQur Limited; Consultant to Bayer.
Testing of Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C: What do I really need? Hepatitis C Choices in Care Greg Everson, MD.
Nezam AFDHAL. Initial Presentation  47-year-old white male  Ex-IVDU 20 years ago  Alcohol >20 g/day for 8 years, none for 18 years  Asymptomatic apart.
V. Petrenkiene*, D. Petrauskas L. Kupcinskas, Lithuanian University of Health sciences Clinic of Gastroenterology Kaunas Utility of non-invasive markers.
TWH LIVER CENTRE UHN centre of excellence Liver issues for the Rhuematologist David Wong, MD University of Toronto Disclosures (last.
Norma I. Rallón 1, José Medrano 1, Salvador Resino 2, Clara Restrepo 1, Vincent Soriano 1 and José M. Benito 1 1 Department of Infectious Diseases, Hospital.
Impact of weight management in chronic HCV Egyptian patients on liver fibrosis. By: Dr. Osama A. Fekry Lecturer of CN at the AUC Head of clinical Nutrition.
FT in diagnostic of HCV FibroTest in the diagnosis of HCV Publications on diagnostic performance.
Non-invasive methods to assess hepatic fibrosis MIRELLA FRAQUELLI MD PhD - DARIO CONTE MD Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit Fondazione IRCCS “Cà Granda”
FT in prognostic of HBV FibroTest: predictive value in HBV.
Evaluating the Patient With Abnormal Liver Tests-2 פרופ ' צבי אקרמן מבית חולים הדסה הר הצופים.
FT in diagnostic of HBV Analytical & pre-analytical variability FibroTest and FibroMax.
SOF/VEL 400/100 mg qd N = 75 W24 SOF/VEL > 18 years Chronic HCV infection Genotype 1 to 6 Naïve or treatment-experienced No prior treatment with NS5A or.
ALLY-3  Design  Objective –SVR 12 (HCV RNA < 25 IU/ml), with 95% CI DCV 60 mg qd + SOF 400 mg qd Not randomised Open-label ALLY-3 Study: DCV + SOF for.
 Objective –SVR 12 (HCV RNA < 25 IU/ml), with 95% CI, next observation carried backward DCV + SOF + RBV Randomised* 1:1 Open-label ALLY-3+ study: DCV.
Evaluation of risk for esophageal varices by transient elastometry in patients with HIV and HCV infection and liver cirrhosis M.K. Mausolf 1, M. Berger.
Non-Invasive Liver Testing
Serum fibrosis markers are associated with liver disease progression in non-responder patients with chronic hepatitis C Robert J Fontana, Jules L Dienstag,
HEPATOLOGY, Vol. 61, No. 6, Introduction At least 1 / 3 of liver cirrhosis (LC) Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) Significant proportion of CHB progress.
Hepatitis B virus infection in renal transplant recipients
Diagnostic Pathway for Chronic Liver Disease
“Interpreting Your Test Results”
Asymptomatic abnormal LFTs…..again!
Phase 3 Treatment-Naïve and Treatment-Experienced
New HCV reimbursement criteria
Journal of Hepatology ‘Accepted article’
Diagnostic accuracy and statistical significance
No conflict of interest
Volume 357, Issue 9262, Pages (April 2001)
Volume 138, Issue 1, Pages e1 (January 2010)
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages (February 2000)
Volume 41, Issue 6, Pages (December 2004)
METAVIR F3-F4 criteria consensus
4th IAS Conference , Sydney, Australia, July 2007
Phase 3 Treatment-Naïve and Treatment-Experienced
Long-term impact of response to interferon-based therapy in patients with chronic HCV in relation to liver function, survival and cause of death Philip.
University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila”, Bucharest
New HCV reimbursement criteria
Presented By: Sally Saad Mandour Esawy
Supplementary Table 1. Dissociation cases of EI and Fibrosis Case 1 2
Managing Complications of Cirrhosis
Volume 128, Issue 2, Pages (February 2005)
Evaluation of the Patient With HCV Infection
Figure 1 Proposed algorithm for the management
Individualized prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma occurrence in a large cohort of patients with cirrhosis  Astrid Marot, Jean Henrion, Jean-François.
NAFLD Paul Trembling Consultant Hepatologist
Volume 138, Issue 1, Pages e1 (January 2010)
NGM282 in NASH: 3 mg vs 6 mg QD (phase 2)
Phase 3 Treatment-Naïve and Treatment-Experienced
Non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis using transient elastography
Volume 64, Issue 6, Pages (June 2016)
Selonsertib in NASH: phase 2
Volume 142, Issue 6, Pages e4 (May 2012)
Laurent Castera, Mireen Friedrich-Rust, Rohit Loomba  Gastroenterology 
GS-9674 in NASH: a phase 2 study
Managing Hepatitis C in Vermont
Validation of serological biomarkers for detection of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and/or advanced liver fibrosis in people living with HIV.
Presentation transcript:

Michel BEAUGRAND

EVALUATION OF LIVER FIBROSIS BLOOD TESTS, LIVER BIOPSY AND FIBROSCAN M. Beaugrand Service d’Hépatologie Hopital J. Verdier BONDY 93143 et Université Paris XIII PHC JANUARY 07

EVALUATION OF FIBROSIS : WHY ? Causal agent Chronic liver Disease Cirrhosis Decompensation Hepatocellular 2 % to 5 % per year carcinoma 2 % to 5 % per year Fibrosis Distorted architecture Portal hypertension Liver failure Carcinogenesis FIBROSIS Death 4 % per year

ASSESSMENT OF FIBROSIS : WHY ? Management of individual patients Significant fibrosis Treatment Cirrhosis Screening for varices and HCC Evaluation of treatments Antiviral and antifibrotic drugs Screening for cirrhosis or extensive fibrosis In high risk patients

EVALUATION OF FIBROSIS : HOW ? - Liver biopsy - Blood tests Genuine serum markers of fibrosis : by products of extracellular matrix metabolism. Probabilistic indexes = surrogate markers. - Fibroscan ( transcient elastography)

LIVER BIOPSY : LIMITATIONS Acceptability - patients are often reluctant - even some doctors are reluctant Cost Morbidity Reliability - liver sample size ideally ≥ 25 mm - pathologist’s experience - suboptimal reproductibility of scoring systems - quantitative assessment unpractical

LENGH OF LIVER BIOPSY Biopsy length Bedossa et al, Hepatology 2003 Liver biopsy is the gold standard for evaluating liver fibrosis but it has some limitations. A shown by bedossa et al using virtual biopsy from liver explants, a 25 mm long biopsy correctly staged in 75% of the cases and 40 mm were necessary to obtain a 100%reliability. Biopsy length Bedossa et al, Hepatology 2003

LIVER BIOPSY : PROS AND CONS . Not influenced by extrahepatic conditions . Allows analysis of elementary lesions and comobidities . May allow assessment of fibrogenesis (molecular biology) CON . Sampling error . Dependant of pathologist’s experience . Unavalaible in large parts of the world

BLOOD TESTS Matrix related PIIINP, collagen type IV, laminin Hyaluronic acid, MMP, TIMP Non maxtrix related AST, ALT, gamma GT Bilirubin, prothrombine, platelets Gammaglobulins, ferritin Alpha 2 macroglobulin, haptoglobin Apo A1, cholesterol, HOMA

BLOOD TESTS Poynard, 1991 Prothrombine, GGT, Apo A1 PGA Bonacini, 1997 AST/ALAT, platelets, prothrombine Imbert-Bismut, 2001 bili, GGT, hapto., a2MG, apoA1 Fibrotest Luo, 2002 glob/alb, platelets, AST/ALT Forns, 2002 age, GGT, cholesterol, platelets Kaul, 2002 sex, ang.spider angiomas, AST, platelets Wai, 2003 AST/platelets APRI Sud, 2004 age, AST, cholesterol, HOMA, alcohol Lainé, 2004 hyaluronate, transferin Rosenberg, 2004 age, hyalur., col IV, col VI, laminin, PIIINP, TIMP-1 ELF Patel, 2004 TIMP-1, a2MG, hyaluronate Fibrospect Leroy, 2004 PIIIMP, MMP1 Hui, 2005 BMI, platelets, albumin, bilirubin Lok, 2005 AST/ALT, platelets, INR Adams, 2005 bili, GGT, hyaluronate, a2MG, age, sex Hepascore Cales, 2005 AST, platelets, prothrombine, hyaluronate, Fibrometre urea, age

Imbert-Bismut et al. Lancet 2001;357:2069-75 BLOOD TESTS Fibrotest ® Metavir index VHC (n= 339) Imbert-Bismut et al. Lancet 2001;357:2069-75

Imbert-Bismut et al. Lancet 2001;357:2069-75 BLOOD TESTS Fibrotest ® HCV (n=339) Métavir ≥ F2 AUC = 0,827 Index < 0,10 NPV 100% Index > 0,60 PPV > 90% Liver Biopsy: - 46% Imbert-Bismut et al. Lancet 2001;357:2069-75

BLOOD TESTS Ref. Test AUC Construction Validation Imbert-Bismut, 2001 HCV : F0-1 vs F2-3-4 Ref. Test AUC Construction Validation Imbert-Bismut, 2001 Fibrotest 0.83 0.85 Forns, 2002 0.86 0.81 Wai, 2003 APRI 0.80 0.88 Patel, 2004 Fibrospect Rosenberg, 2004 ELF 0.78 Leroy, 2004 0.82 Sud, 2004 0.84 Adams, 2005 Hepascore

HCV : F0-1-2-3 vs F4 (cirrhosis) BLOOD TESTS HCV : F0-1-2-3 vs F4 (cirrhosis) Ref. Test AUC Construction Validation Kaul, 2002 0.94 Wai, 2003 APRI 0.89 Rosenberg, 2004 ELF Le Calvez, 2004 Fibrotest 0.92 Adams, 2005 Hepascore Lok, 2005 0.78 0.81

BLOOD TESTS : PROS AND CONS . Easy, non invasive,not too costy . Allow to split patients in 3 groups - those without significant fibrosis - those with extensive fibrosis or cirrhosis - intermediate CON . Studied mainly in naive patients with HCV chronic hepatitis . External validation lacking (except fibrotest) . Require standardisation of biochemical methods . Poorer performances in HBV patients or coinfected HCV-HIV . Possible influence of extrahepatic conditions . No international consensus

ELASTOMETRY (FIBROSCAN) 2.5 cm 4 cm 1 cm  Volume LB x 100 Probe Sandrin et al. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003;29:1-8

HOW TO MEASURE ELASTICITY ? To generate an elastic Shear vawe To measure its spead Vs Elasticity E  VS2

Volume of exploration > 3 cm3 Probe position 2.5 cm 4 cm 1 cm  Volume of exploration Probe

PATIENTS WITH HCV CHRONIC HEPATITIS + patients with no ascites 251 patients included 53 patients excluded biopsy not suitable for fibrosis stage assessment: less than 10 portal tracts in the absence of cirrhosis 23 patients excluded: unreliable stiffness measurement: success rate less than 60% upon 10 measurements Small biopsy 126 patients Large biopsy 125 patients 327 patients consecutive patients were included from 4 french liver units. There was one exclusion criteria which was the presence of ascitis because elastic waves do not propagate through liquids. 23 stiffness meazsurement were unsuccessfull (too narrow intercostal space or too wide adipose tissue). 53 patients were further exlcluded because the biopsy was too small to accurately grade fibrosis

Fibrosis stage (METAVIR) BOX PLOTS. N=251 100 Legend maximum Stiffness (kPa) (logarithmic scale) 10 median IQR On this figure, median value of liver stiffness are compared with consensus METAVIR stage. Liver stiffness was significantly correlated to fibrosis stage You can see that patients with F4 metavir score which means cirrhosis are well separated from other stages but overlaps are observed between F1 and 2 and F2 and F3. minimum 1 0-1 2 3 4 Fibrosis stage (METAVIR)

ROC CURVES - F≥2 : 0.79 (0.73-0.84) AUROC ( CONFIDENCE INTERVALS 95%)

UNI AND MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS Univariate analysis (Kendall’s coefficient) Fibrosis Activity Steatosis Stiffness r 0.55 0.21 0.19 p <0.0001 0.0003 0.0008 Fibrosis r - 0.36 0.17 p - <0.0001 0.008 On the other hand we checked that activity (which represents inflammatory infiltrate) and steatosis did not significantly affect liver stiffness measurements. I Multivariate analysis (multiple regression) Only fibrosis was significantly correlated to liver stiffness measurement.

VALIDATION OF DIAGNOSIS ACCURACY IN AN INDEPENDENT HCV POPULATION Total number of included patients: 639 Number of unreliable liver samples: 86 (13%) Number of unreliable LSM: 59 (9%) Patients kept for statistical analysis : 494 Area under ROC curves (95% confidence interval) F01 versus F234 = 0.84 (0.80-0.87) F012 versus F34 = 0.93 (0.90-0.95) F0123 versus F4 = 0.96 (0.94-0.98) METAVIR F 1 2 3 4 % 6 39 31 10 14 A 56 35 Steatosis S 1-10 11-30 31-100 47 27 15 Univariate Spearman correlation METAVIR F: 0.70 (p << 0.001) METAVIR A: 0.45 (p << 0.001) Steatosis: 0.35 (p << 0.001)

LIVER BIOPSIES > 30 mm - 103 Patients - Results Causes : 71 VHC 14 VHB 15 VHC+HIV 2 VHB+HIV 1 VHC+VHB Fibrosis Score : F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 N 9 58 14 7 15 - Results  F2  F3 = F4 AUROC 0.94 0.95 0.93

CUT-OFF VALUES* The optimum thresholds were chosen to maximize the sum of sensitivity and specificity. Threshold Sensitivity Specificity LR (kPa) F  2 8.7 0.55 0.84 3.5 F  3 9.6 0.84 0.85 5.7 F = 4 14.5 0.84 0.94 13.0 Choosing tresholds to maximize sensitivity and specificity 8,7 kpascal defined F superior or equal to 2 with a 55 percent sensitivity and 84% specificity etc…. * Obtained by the jack-knife method.

FIBROSIS AREA (morphometry) - Patients 69 patients with chronic hepatitis C without ascites, and previous anti-viral treatment METAVIR F1 F2 F3 F4 20 21 5 23 - Results Spearman correlation test p < 0.001 Parameters r Fibrosis area METAVIR score 0.66 Elasticity METAVIR score 0.65 Elasticity fibrosis area 0.74  Liver elasticity is closely correlated to fibrosis area.

FIBROSCAN VERSUS BLOOD TESTS FibroTest APRI Elasticité (kPa) Score METAVIR de fibrose Score METAVIR de fibrose Score METAVIR de fibrose Castera Al. Gastroenterology 2005

CONCORDANCE WITH LIVER BIOPSY AUROC F01/F234 F012/F34 F0123/F4 APRI 0.78 0.84 0.83 FibroTest 0.85 0.90 0.87 FibroScan 0.83 0.90 0.95 Combinaison 0.88 0.95 0.95 FibroTest+FibroScan Percentage of concording results F01/F234 F0123/F4 FibroTest 80 81 FibroScan 73 83 Combinaison 84 95 FibroTest+FibroScan

PROPOSED COMBINATION OF NON INVASIVE METHODS FibroScan + FibroTest Concordance Discordance Fibrose minime (FS < 7.1 kPa + FT < F2) Fibrose modérée (FS  7.1 kPa + FT  F2) Fibrose sévère (FS  9.5 kPa + FT  F3) Biopsy Follow-up Treatment Treatment HCC screening treatment Castera et Al. Gastroenterlogy 2005

FIBROSCAN IN HBV PATIENTS 15 non interpretable biopsies 14 LSM considered as non reliable Statistical analysis on 173 patients AUROC F01 versus F234: 0.81 (0.73-0.86) F012 versus F34: 0.93 (0.88-0.96) F0.123 versus F4: 0.93 (0.82-0.98)

FIBROSCAN PROS AND CONS -easy, quick, not too costy - very specific for extensive fibrosis or cirrhosis - Allows to split patients between 3 groups . Without significant fibrosis . With extensive fibrosis or cirrhosis . Intermediate - closely related to the area of fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis CON - high rate of failure in obese patients - doesn’t take in account liver architecture - disturbed in acute conditions

SCREENING IN HIGH RISK PATIENTS LSM Blood tests Confirmation of cirrhosis LB LSM>13 kPa oui Absence of cirrhosis Suspected cirrhosis non 227 patients in alcoholic abstinence program 41 34 33

FOLLOW-UP OF LSM IN TREATED PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC HEPATITIS C BEFORE TREATMENT END OF TREATMENT 6 MONTHS AFTER All (n=85) 14.1 ± 7.2 10.9 ± 6.5 11.2 ± 8.6 SVR 12.0 ± 6.7 9.1 ± 3.7 7.5 ± 2.4 RR 14.6 ± 5.6 11.5 ± 5.0 12.8 ± 7.2 NR 16.9 ± 8.1 13.3 ± 9.1 16.1 ± 12.2

CONCLUSION 1) Liver biopsy has been partly challenged by non invasive methods for assessment of liver fibrosis 2) Non invasive methods have their own limitations : 2 might be better than one 3) Fibroscan could become a useful tool for assessing fibrosis variations