The steatosis-associated fibrosis estimator (SAFE) outperformed the FIB-4 score in screening the population for liver disease

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Mingkai Li , Ying Lin , Hongsheng Yu , Weichun Lin , Jianning Chen , Yidong Yang , Bin Wu
{"title":"The steatosis-associated fibrosis estimator (SAFE) outperformed the FIB-4 score in screening the population for liver disease","authors":"Mingkai Li ,&nbsp;Ying Lin ,&nbsp;Hongsheng Yu ,&nbsp;Weichun Lin ,&nbsp;Jianning Chen ,&nbsp;Yidong Yang ,&nbsp;Bin Wu","doi":"10.1016/j.aohep.2024.101516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction and Objectives</h3><p>Assessing fibrosis risk noninvasively is essential. The steatosis-associated fibrosis estimator (SAFE) score shows promise but needs validation.</p></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><p>This was a three-part study. In part 1, we compared the SAFE score with the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cohort (2017–2020), using transient elastography (TE) as screening reference. In part 2, we examined patients who underwent liver biopsies at an Asian center between 2018 and 2020 to assess these models in various liver diseases. In part 3, the SAFE score was applied to adults in the NHANES cohort (1999–2016) to assess the correlation with mortality.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In part 1, we studied 6,677 patients, comprising 595 screening positive (TE ≥8 kPa). SAFE (cutoff 100) displayed a lower proportion of false positives (10.4 %) than FIB-4 (cutoff 1.3) and NFS (cutoff -1.455) (22.1 % and 43.6 %) while retaining a low proportion of false negatives (5.5 %). In part 2, SAFE outperformed FIB-4 (<em>P</em> = 0.04) and NFS (<em>P</em> = 0.04) in staging significant fibrosis (≥S2) in NAFLD and had similar accuracies in other etiologies. In part 3, the FIB-4, NFS, and SAFE score were associated with all-cause mortality in the general population, with c-statistics of 0.738, 0.736, and 0.759, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The SAFE score reduced futile referrals more effectively than FIB-4 without raising the missed TE ≥ 8 kPa rate. It correlated with all-cause mortality in the general population and excelled in staging significant fibrosis in NAFLD.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7979,"journal":{"name":"Annals of hepatology","volume":"29 5","pages":"Article 101516"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665268124003107/pdfft?md5=173d10da0767e549ff95b95d6ca9e7dc&pid=1-s2.0-S1665268124003107-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665268124003107","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and Objectives

Assessing fibrosis risk noninvasively is essential. The steatosis-associated fibrosis estimator (SAFE) score shows promise but needs validation.

Patients and Methods

This was a three-part study. In part 1, we compared the SAFE score with the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cohort (2017–2020), using transient elastography (TE) as screening reference. In part 2, we examined patients who underwent liver biopsies at an Asian center between 2018 and 2020 to assess these models in various liver diseases. In part 3, the SAFE score was applied to adults in the NHANES cohort (1999–2016) to assess the correlation with mortality.

Results

In part 1, we studied 6,677 patients, comprising 595 screening positive (TE ≥8 kPa). SAFE (cutoff 100) displayed a lower proportion of false positives (10.4 %) than FIB-4 (cutoff 1.3) and NFS (cutoff -1.455) (22.1 % and 43.6 %) while retaining a low proportion of false negatives (5.5 %). In part 2, SAFE outperformed FIB-4 (P = 0.04) and NFS (P = 0.04) in staging significant fibrosis (≥S2) in NAFLD and had similar accuracies in other etiologies. In part 3, the FIB-4, NFS, and SAFE score were associated with all-cause mortality in the general population, with c-statistics of 0.738, 0.736, and 0.759, respectively.

Conclusions

The SAFE score reduced futile referrals more effectively than FIB-4 without raising the missed TE ≥ 8 kPa rate. It correlated with all-cause mortality in the general population and excelled in staging significant fibrosis in NAFLD.

Abstract Image

在筛查人群肝病方面,脂肪变性相关纤维化估算器(SAFE)优于 FIB-4 评分。
导言和目标:无创评估纤维化风险至关重要。脂肪变性相关纤维化估计器(SAFE)评分显示了前景,但需要验证:这是一项由三部分组成的研究。在第一部分中,我们将 SAFE 评分与美国国家健康与营养调查(NHANES)队列(2017-2020 年)中的纤维化-4(FIB-4)和非酒精性脂肪肝纤维化评分(NFS)进行了比较,并使用瞬态弹性成像(TE)作为筛查参考。在第 2 部分中,我们研究了 2018 年至 2020 年期间在一家亚洲中心接受肝活检的患者,以评估这些模型在各种肝病中的应用情况。在第3部分中,我们将SAFE评分应用于NHANES队列(1999-2016年)中的成年人,以评估其与死亡率的相关性:在第 1 部分中,我们研究了 6,677 名患者,其中包括 595 名筛查阳性(TE ≥8 kPa)患者。SAFE(截断值 100)的假阳性比例(10.4%)低于 FIB-4(截断值 1.3)和 NFS(截断值-1.455)(22.1% 和 43.6%),而假阴性比例较低(5.5%)。在第 2 部分中,SAFE 在对非酒精性脂肪肝的显著纤维化(≥S2)进行分期方面优于 FIB-4(P = 0.04)和 NFS(P = 0.04),而在其他病因方面的准确性相似。在第3部分中,FIB-4、NFS和SAFE评分与普通人群的全因死亡率相关,c统计量分别为0.738、0.736和0.759:结论:与 FIB-4 相比,SAFE 评分能更有效地减少无用转诊,同时不会提高 TE ≥ 8 kPa 的漏诊率。结论:SAFE评分比FIB-4能更有效地减少无用转诊,同时不会提高TE≥8 kPa的漏诊率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of hepatology
Annals of hepatology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Hepatology publishes original research on the biology and diseases of the liver in both humans and experimental models. Contributions may be submitted as regular articles. The journal also publishes concise reviews of both basic and clinical topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信