Current NAFLD guidelines for risk stratification in diabetic patients have poor diagnostic discrimination

Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 27;10(1):18345. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75227-x.

Abstract

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at risk for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and associated complications. This study evaluated the performance of international (EASL-EASD-EASO) and national (DGVS) guidelines for NAFLD risk stratification. Patients with T2D prospectively underwent ultrasound, liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and serum-based fibrosis markers. Guideline-based risk classification and referral rates for different screening approaches were compared and the diagnostic properties of simplified algorithms, genetic markers and a new NASH surrogate (FAST score) were evaluated. NAFLD risk was present in 184 of 204 screened patients (age 64.2 ± 10.7 years; BMI 32.6 ± 7.6 kg/m2). EASL-EASD-EASO recommended specialist referral for 60-77% depending on the fibrosis score used, only 6% were classified as low risk. The DGVS algorithm required LSM for 76%; 25% were referred for specialised care. The sensitivities of the diagnostic pathways were 47-96%. A simplified referral strategy revealed a sensitivity/specificity of 46/88% for fibrosis risk. Application of the FAST score reduced the referral rate to 35%. This study (a) underlines the high prevalence of fibrosis risk in T2D, (b) demonstrates very high referral rates for in-depth hepatological work-up, and (c) indicates that simpler referral algorithms may produce comparably good results and could facilitate NAFLD screening.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Algorithms
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / complications*
  • Elasticity Imaging Techniques
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Liver / diagnostic imaging
  • Liver / pathology
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease / diagnosis
  • Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease / etiology*
  • Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease / pathology
  • Practice Guidelines as Topic*
  • Risk Assessment
  • Risk Factors
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Ultrasonography