Comparison of various strategies to define the optimal target population for liver fibrosis screening: A population‐based cohort study

Abstract Background & Aims Liver fibrosis screening is recommended in high‐risk populations, but the optimal definition of “high risk” remains to be established. We compared the performance of several risk‐stratification strategies in a population‐based setting. Methods Data were obtained from the Finnish population‐based health examination surveys Health 2000 and FINRISK 2002–2012. The Chronic Liver Disease Risk Score (CLivD) was compared to previously published risk‐stratification strategies based on elevated liver enzymes, alcohol use, diabetes, fatty liver index, body mass index, and/or metabolic risk factors for their ability to detect either advanced liver fibrosis or incident severe liver events. Advanced fibrosis was defined as an Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELFTM) score >9.8 in the Health 2000 study (n = 6084), and incident liver events were ascertained from registry linkage in the combined FINRISK 2002–2012 and Health 2000 cohort (n = 26,957). Results Depending on the cohort, 53%–60% of the population was considered at risk using the CLivD strategy (low‐intermediate‐high risk, excluding the minimal‐risk category), compared to 30%–32% according to the other risk‐stratification strategies. The CLivD captured 85%–91% of cases in the population with advanced liver fibrosis and 90% of incident severe liver events within 10 years from baseline. This compares to 33%–44% and 56%–67% captured by the other risk‐stratification strategies, respectively. The 10‐year cumulative incidence of liver events varied by risk‐stratification strategy (1.0%–1.4%). Conclusions Compared to previously reported traditional risk factor‐based strategies, use of the CLivD captured substantially more cases with advanced liver disease in the population and may be superior for targeting further fibrosis screening.

[1]  V. Salomaa,et al.  Development and validation of a model to predict incident chronic liver disease in the general population: the CLivD score. , 2022, Journal of hepatology.

[2]  M. Manns,et al.  The EASL–Lancet Liver Commission: protecting the next generation of Europeans against liver disease complications and premature mortality , 2021, The Lancet.

[3]  F. Lammert,et al.  Low accuracy of FIB-4 and NAFLD fibrosis scores for screening for liver fibrosis in the population. , 2021, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[4]  N. Chalasani,et al.  Prevalence of High-risk Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH) in the United States: Results from NHANES 2017-2018 , 2021, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

[5]  V. Wong,et al.  Population screening for liver fibrosis: Toward early diagnosis and intervention for chronic liver diseases , 2021, Hepatology.

[6]  T. Luedde,et al.  An elevated FIB-4 score predicts liver cancer development: a longitudinal analysis from 29,999 NAFLD patients: Reply to: "EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on non-invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis- 2021 update". , 2021, Journal of hepatology.

[7]  M. Friedrich-Rust,et al.  Easl Clinical Practice Guidelines (Cpgs) On Non-Invasive Tests For Evaluation Of Liver Disease Severity And Prognosis- 2020 Update. , 2021, Journal of hepatology.

[8]  R. Antonelli-Incalzi,et al.  A Polygenic Risk Score to Refine Risk Stratification and Prediction for Severe Liver Disease by Clinical Fibrosis Scores. , 2021, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[9]  W. Rosenberg,et al.  Systematic review: Accuracy of the enhanced liver fibrosis test for diagnosing advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis , 2021, Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology.

[10]  V. Wong,et al.  Administrative Coding in Electronic Health Care Record‐Based Research of NAFLD: An Expert Panel Consensus Statement , 2021, Hepatology.

[11]  Brett A Dolezal,et al.  A Multidomain Approach to Assessing the Convergent and Concurrent Validity of a Mobile Application When Compared to Conventional Methods of Determining Body Composition , 2020, Sensors.

[12]  I. Ntalla,et al.  Europe’s largest meta-analysis on the prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) , 2020, Journal of Hepatology.

[13]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Enhanced liver fibrosis test for the non-invasive diagnosis of fibrosis in patients with NAFLD: A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2020, Journal of hepatology.

[14]  CME Exam 4: Ability of Noninvasive Scoring Systems to Identify Individuals in the Population at Risk for Severe Liver Disease , 2020, Gastroenterology.

[15]  A. Andreasson,et al.  Ability of Noninvasive Scoring Systems to Identify Individuals in the Population at Risk for Severe Liver Disease. , 2019, Gastroenterology.

[16]  R. Stauber,et al.  Evaluation and comparison of six noninvasive tests for prediction of significant or advanced fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease , 2019, United European gastroenterology journal.

[17]  I. Guha,et al.  Development and implementation of a commissioned pathway for the identification and stratification of liver disease in the community , 2019, Frontline Gastroenterology.

[18]  P. Roderick,et al.  Local care and treatment of liver disease (LOCATE) – A cluster-randomized feasibility study to discover, assess and manage early liver disease in primary care , 2018, PloS one.

[19]  G. Pera,et al.  High Prevalence of Liver Fibrosis Among European Adults With Unknown Liver Disease: A Population‐Based Study , 2018, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[20]  M. Thiele,et al.  Accuracy of the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis Test vs FibroTest, Elastography, and Indirect Markers in Detection of Advanced Fibrosis in Patients With Alcoholic Liver Disease. , 2018, Gastroenterology.

[21]  V. Salomaa,et al.  Cohort Profile: The National FINRISK Study. , 2018, International journal of epidemiology.

[22]  J. Pitkäniemi,et al.  Quality measures of the population-based Finnish Cancer Registry indicate sound data quality for solid malignant tumours. , 2017, European journal of cancer.

[23]  S. Sharp,et al.  The spectrum effect in tests for risk prediction, screening, and diagnosis , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[24]  C. Byrd-Bredbenner,et al.  Reliability and criterion validity of self-measured waist, hip, and neck circumferences , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[25]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[26]  T. Card,et al.  Direct targeting of risk factors significantly increases the detection of liver cirrhosis in primary care: a cross-sectional diagnostic study utilising transient elastography , 2015, BMJ Open.

[27]  P. Donnan,et al.  Prediction of liver disease in patients whose liver function tests have been checked in primary care: model development and validation using population-based observational cohorts , 2014, BMJ Open.

[28]  M. Manns,et al.  Biopsy-Controlled Liver Fibrosis Staging Using the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) Score Compared to Transient Elastography , 2012, PloS one.

[29]  R. Sund Quality of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register: A systematic review , 2012, Scandinavian journal of public health.

[30]  E. Pukkala Biobanks and registers in epidemiologic research on cancer. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.

[31]  Seppo Koskinen,et al.  HEALTH AND FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY IN FINLAND Baseline Results of the Health 2000 Health Examination Survey , 2004 .

[32]  D. Becker,et al.  Accuracy of self-measurement of waist and hip circumference in men and women. , 1997, Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

[33]  M. Dumont,et al.  European Association for the Study of the Liver , 1971 .