Screening in Primary Care of Advanced Liver Fibrosis in NAFLD And/or Alcoholic Patients

Overview

The primary objective of the SOPRANO study is to compare two blood fibrosis tests, the eLIFT and the FibroMeter, for the screening of advanced liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD and/or ALD from primary care centers.

Chronic liver diseases (CLD) are responsible for 17 000 deaths each year in France (cirrhosis: 8 000, liver cancer: 9 000). Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and alcoholic liver disease (ALD) are the two main causes of CLD in France, affecting respectively 25% and 12% of the adult general population. A subset of these patients develops advanced liver fibrosis (ALF), which requires referral to the specialist for specific evaluation and management to avoid the occurrence of cirrhosis and its life-threatening complications. General practitioners (GPs) are the first-line physicians in front of the large population of NAFLD and/or ALD patients. It is very difficult for GPs to identify the patients who develop ALF and require referral to the specialist, as their physical examination, usual biology and ultrasonography remain normal. The non-invasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis is now available with elastography devices and blood tests. Elastography is a very accurate method but it is available only in few specialised centers. Specialised blood tests are available to all physicians, but they are quite expensive and not reimbursed with therefore limited use in clinical practice. Consequently, liver fibrosis remains unevaluated in most patients with NAFLD and/or ALD, which explains why a lot are too late diagnosed at the stage of cirrhosis complications with poor short-term survival. The eLIFT isa new blood fibrosis test specifically dedicated for GPs with simple parameters and easy "by head" calculation. The simple eLIFT was compared with the specialised blood test FibroMeter for the diagnosis of ALF in an cohort of 1024 biopsy-proven NAFLD and/or ALD patients. eLIFT was little less accurate than FibroMeter (AUROC: 0.78 vs 0.81). Using the recommended cut-offs (eLIFT ≥8, FibroMeter ≥0.46), eLIFT was more sensitive than FibroMeter (86% vs 77%), whereas FibroMeter was highly more specific (71% vs 51%). These results position eLIFT and FibroMeter as interesting tools for the screening of ALF in large populations. As the preliminary results come from very selected patients, i.e. patients from tertiary centers who underwent a liver biopsy, it's necessary nox to evaluate in the real condition of primary care setting whether the use of eLIFT or FibroMeter will help GPs to screen ALF in their asymptomatic NAFLD and ALD patients.

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Locations (12)

Outcomes

Central Contacts