A reference material for traceability of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) results

Applicability and precautions of use of liver injury biomarker FibroTest. A reappraisal at 7 years of age

BACKGROUND

FibroTest (FT) is a validated biomarker of fibrosis. To assess the applicability rate and to reduce the risk of false positives/negatives (RFPN), security algorithms were developed. The aims were to estimate the prevalence of RFPN and of proven failures, and to identify factors associated with their occurrences.

METHODS

Four populations were studied: 954 blood donors (P1), 7,494 healthy volunteers (P2), 345,695 consecutive worldwide sera (P3), including 24,872 sera analyzed in a tertiary care centre (GHPS) (P4). Analytical procedures of laboratories with RFPN > 5% and charts of P4 patients in with RFPN were reviewed.

RESULTS

The prevalence of RFPN was 0.52% (5/954; 95%CI 0.17-1.22) in P1, 0.51% (38/7494; 0.36-0.70) in P2, and 0.97% (3349/345695; 0.94-1.00) in P3. Three a priori high-risk populations were confirmed: 1.97% in P4, 1.77% in HIV centre and 2.61% in Sub-Saharan origin subjects. RFPN was mostly associated with low haptoglobin (0.46%), and high apolipoproteinA1 (0.21%). A traceability study of a P3 laboratory with RFPFN > 5% permitted to correct analytical procedures.

CONCLUSION

The mean applicability rate of Fibrotest was 99.03%. Independent factors associated with the high risk of false positives/negatives were HIV center, subSaharan origin, and a tertiary care reference centre, although the applicability rate remained above 97%.

Common reference intervals for aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and γ-glutamyl transferase (GGT) in serum: results from an IFCC multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and γ-glutamyl transferase (GGT) measurements are important for the assessment of liver damage. The aim of this study was to define the reference intervals (RIs) for these enzymes in adults, paying attention to standardization of the methods used and careful selection of the reference population.

METHODS

AST, ALT and GGT were measured with commercial analytical systems standardized to the IFCC-recommended reference measurement systems. Three centers (two in Italy and one in China) measured their own freshly collected samples; one of these centers also measured frozen samples from the Nordic Countries RI Project and from a Turkish center. RIs were generated using non-parametric techniques from the results of 765 individuals (411 females and 354 males, 18-85 years old) selected on the basis of the results of other laboratory tests and a specific questionnaire.

RESULTS

AST results from the four regions (Milan, Beijing, Bursa and Nordic Countries) were statistically different, but these differences were too small to be clinically relevant. Likewise, differences between the upper reference limits for genders was only 1.7 U/L (0.03 μkat/L), allowing a single RI of 11-34 U/L (0.18-0.57 μkat/L) to be defined. Interregional differences were not statistically significant for ALT, but partitioning was required due to significant gender differences. RIs for ALT were 8-41 U/L (0.13-0.68 μkat/L) for females and 9-59 U/L (0.15-0.99 μkat/L) for males, respectively. The upper reference limits for GGT from the Nordic Country population were higher than those from the other three regions and results from this group were excluded from final calculations. The GGT RIs were 6-40 U/L (0.11-0.66 μkat/L) for females and 12-68 U/L (0.20- 1.13 μkat/L) for males, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For AST and ALT, the implementation of common RIs appears to be possible, because no differences between regions were observed. However, a common RI for GGT that is applicable worldwide appears unlikely due to differences among populations.

Methodological aspects of the interpretation of non-invasive biomarkers of liver fibrosis: a 2008 update

This review summarizes the methodological aspects of the interpretation of non-invasive biomarkers in liver fibrosis. A scoring system has been updated to better compare the quality of fibrosis biomarkers. Several methodological issues are related to the classical methodology using biopsy, as this is considered the gold standard. However, from evidence-based data, it appears that the methodology needs to change to prevent flawed conclusions among key opinion leaders as well as in obsolete guidelines. As waiting for the perfect biomarker for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis to come along is probably a waste of time, in the meantime, methods can be improved. The main proposals for improving the methodology are, to take into account the spectrum bias, to assess accuracy between adjacent stages, to compare biomarkers in the same patient, to assess the cause of failure among discordant cases and to use specific statistical methods adapted for imperfect gold standards.

Biomarkers of liver fibrosis

Liver biopsy, due to its limitations and risks, is an imperfect gold standard for assessing the severity of the most frequent chronic liver diseases. This chapter summarized the advantages and the limits of the available biomarkers of liver fibrosis. Among a total of 2237 references, a total of 14 validated biomarkers have been identified between 1991 and 2007. Nine were not patented and five were patented. FibroTest (FT) was the most studied test with 33 different populations including 6549 patients and 925 controls. The mean diagnostic value for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis assessed using standardized area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves was 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83-0.86], without significant difference between the causes of liver disease, hepatitis C, hepatitis B, alcoholic or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. High-risk profiles of false negative/positive of FT are present in 3% of populations, mainly Gilbert syndrome, hemolysis, and acute inflammation. FT has higher accuracy than aspartate aminotransferase/platelets ratio index (APRI), the most used nonpatented test. No significant difference has been observed between the five patented tests. A quality score has been assessed in order to compare the quality of fibrosis biomarkers. Neither biomarkers nor biopsy are sufficient alone to take definitive decision in a given patient and all the clinical and biological data must be taken into account. Due to the evidence-based data, health authorities in some countries have already approved validated biomarkers as first-line procedure for the staging of liver fibrosis. This overview of evidence-based data suggests that biomarkers could be used as an alternative to liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis stage in the four more common chronic liver diseases: C virus (HCV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and alcoholic liver disease (ALD). Neither biomarkers nor biopsy are sufficient alone to take definitive decision in a given patient and all the clinical and biological data must be taken into account.

An accurate definition of the status of inactive hepatitis B virus carrier by a combination of biomarkers (FibroTest-ActiTest) and viral load

BACKGROUND

The combination of transaminases (ALT), biopsy, HBeAg and viral load have classically defined the inactive status of carriers of chronic hepatitis B. The use of FibroTest (FT) and ActiTest (AT), biomarkers of fibrosis and necroinflammatory activity, has been previously validated as alternatives to biopsy. We compared the 4-year prognostic value of combining FT-AT and viral load for a better definition of the inactive carrier status.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

1,300 consecutive CHB patients who had been prospectively followed since 2001 were pre-included. The main endpoint was the absence of liver-related complications, transplantation or death. We used the manufacturers' definitions of normal FT (< = 0.27), normal AT (< = 0.29) and 3 standard classes for viral load. The adjustment factors were age, sex, HBeAg, ethnic origin, alcohol consumption, HIV-Delta-HCV co-infections and treatment.

RESULTS

1,074 patients with baseline FT-AT and viral load were included: 41 years old, 47% African, 27% Asian, 26% Caucasian. At 4 years follow-up, 50 complications occurred (survival without complications 93.4%), 36 deaths occurred (survival 95.0%), including 27 related to HBV (survival 96.1%). The prognostic value of FT was higher than those of viral load or ALT when compared using area under the ROC curves [0.89 (95%CI 0.84-0.93) vs 0.64 (0.55-0.71) vs 0.53 (0.46-0.60) all P<0.001], survival curves and multivariate Cox model [regression coefficient 5.2 (3.5-6.9; P<0.001) vs 0.53 (0.15-0.92; P = 0.007) vs -0.001 (-0.003-0.000;P = 0.052)] respectively. A new definition of inactive carriers was proposed with an algorithm combining "zero" scores for FT-AT (F0 and A0) and viral load classes. This new algorithm provides a 100% negative predictive value for the prediction of liver related complications or death. Among the 275 patients with the classic definition of inactive carrier, 62 (23%) had fibrosis presumed with FT, and 3 died or had complications at 4 year.

CONCLUSION

In patients with chronic hepatitis B, a combination of FibroTest-ActiTest and viral load testing accurately defined the prognosis and the inactive carrier status.

A prospective analysis of the prognostic value of biomarkers (FibroTest) in patients with chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

FibroTest, a noninvasive method of measuring biomarkers of liver fibrosis, is an alternative to liver biopsy for determining the severity of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We compared the 5-year prognostic value of the FibroTest with biopsy staging for predicting cirrhosis decompensation and survival in patients with chronic HCV infection.

METHODS

Fibrosis stage was assessed on the same day by FibroTest and biopsy in a prospective cohort of 537 patients. Disease classification at baseline was 157 patients with severe fibrosis (FibroTest >0.58), 137 with moderate fibrosis (FibroTest 0.32-0.58), and 243 with no or minimal fibrosis (FibroTest <0.32).

RESULTS

In 64 untreated patients with severe fibrosis, survival without HCV complications was 73% [95% confidence interval (CI), 59%-086%; 13 complications], and survival without HCV-related death was 85% (95% CI, 73%-96%; 7 HCV deaths). Survival rates were higher in patients with moderate fibrosis, [99% (95% CI, 97%-100%; 1 complication; P <0.001) and 100% (no HCV death; P <0.001) for patients with and without HCV-related complications, respectively], and in patients with minimal fibrosis [100% (no complication; P <0.001 vs severe) and 100% (no HCV death; P <0.001 vs severe), respectively]. FibroTest was a better predictor than biopsy staging for HCV complications, with area under the ROC curves (AUROC) = 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93%-0.97%) vs 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85%-0.94%; P = 0.01), respectively; it was also a better predictor for HCV deaths: AUROC = 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93%-0.98%) vs 0.87 (95% CI, 0.70%-0.94%; P = 0.046), respectively. The prognostic value of FibroTest was still significant (P <0.001) in multivariate analyses after taking into account histology, treatment, alcohol consumption, and HIV coinfection.

CONCLUSION

The FibroTest measurement of HCV biomarkers has a 5-year prognostic value similar to that of liver biopsy.