01 December 2012: Clinical Research
The BARD score and the NAFLD fibrosis score in the assessment of advanced liver fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Halina Cichoż-Lach ABCEF , Krzysztof Celiński ABCDEF , Beata Prozorow-Król BF , Jarosław Swatek BCDF , Maria Słomka BCDEF , Tomasz Lach BE
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.883601
Med Sci Monit 2012; 18(12): CR735-740
Background
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is considered to be the most common cause of chronic liver dysfunction and the most frequent cause of asymptomatic abnormalities, accounting for 26.4% of positive liver enzymes in laboratory investigations [1]. It is thought that at present NAFLD affects 9%–30% of people in the developed countries; the prevalence of NAFLD is higher than 30% in the adult U.S. population [2–6]. NAFLD has been found to affect 10% of the population under 18 years of age [7].
NAFLD represents a very wide clinical spectrum. It includes: simple fatty liver, in which lipids constitute over 5% of the liver weight; and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which may progress to cirrhosis, with all the dire consequences resulting from the compromised activity of hepatocytes and portal hypertension. It is estimated that NASH is present in 3–5% of the population worldwide [8]. The presence of advanced fibrosis that accompanies NASH will inevitably lead to the development of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma [9–14]. Thus, identification of patients with advanced fibrosis in the course of NAFLD is essential. To date biopsy has been regarded the “gold standard“ for diagnosis and assessment of liver fibrosis [15]. However, the method is expensive, invasive, and has certain limitations; therefore biopsy is no longer considered the obligatory and primary screening for diagnosis of NAFLD [8,16–19].
Introduction of new tests, such as the FibroTest-ActiTest (2001), followed by FibroMax, transient elastography, and other noninvasive fibrosis biomarkers, enabled diagnosticians to change the diagnostic procedures used in patients with NAFLD.
Although the search for other noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis, helpful in identifying patients with advanced fibrosis, has been successful, all the methods have significant limitations. The noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis include: the NAFLD fibrosis score, BARD score, Original European Liver Fibrosis Panel (OELF) score, Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score, HAIR score, Palekar’s score, BAAT score, Gholam’s score, and Nippon score [20–27]. They are based on readily available laboratory tests. Some of them are easy to carry out, while others are merely of scientific value.
The aim of this study was to compare the usefulness of the NAFLD fibrosis score and the BARD score in predicting the results of liver fibrosis in Polish patients with NAFLD, from eastern Poland, and to determine the risk factors of advanced fibrosis. The 2 scores have been chosen because they include 7 parameters (more than the other scores mentioned), and thus are likely to be more reliable. Moreover, the scores are inexpensive and widely available.
Material and Methods
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:
Quantitative variables are presented as a mean and standard deviation (SD). Quantitative variables were compared between the groups using Student’s t-test, and qualitative variables using the chi-square test. Statistical significance was assumed at p<0.05. Adjusted odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), negative and positive predictive values, and AUROC (area under receiver operator characteristic) curve for BARD and NAFLD scores were calculated. All calculations were carried out using MedCal software version 12.0.
Results
Clinical, biochemical and histological data of the examined patients are illustrated in Table 1. The histological findings revealed that 27 out of 126 patients were affected with advanced fibrosis (F=3, F=4), whereas 99 had mild/moderate fibrosis (F=0, F=1, F=2). In our study, liver biopsy demonstrated the presence of cirrhosis in 3 patients (F4=3). Comparison of the selected biochemical and clinical features between the studied groups of patients with advanced and mild/moderate fibrosis showed statistically significant differences in the following parameters: age, BMI (obesity and overweight), the presence of IFG or diabetes mellitus, AST activity, AST/ALT ratio, and platelet count (Table 2). Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in 29 patients, and IFG in none. The mean level of HbA1C in this group of patients was 6.93±0.94%.
Advanced fibrosis was statistically significantly more common in the older patients, with BMI usually >30 kg/m2 and high AST/ALT ratio. In this group of patients, diabetes mellitus was 6 times more frequent in comparison with the patients with mild/moderate fibrosis. Age ≥50 years, obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2), AST/ALT ratio ≥0.8, diabetes mellitus, and platelet count ≤200 (×103/L) were the statistically significant risk factors for advanced liver fibrosis (Table 3).
The BARD scores demonstrated 35 patients with high scores – ≥2 points (2 points – 18 patients, 3 points – 13 patients, 4 points – 4 patients), and 91 patients with low scores – 0 points – 52 patients, 1 point – 39 patients). Liver biopsy helped to diagnose advanced fibrosis in 24 patients (F3=21, F4=3) out of 35 whose BARD scores were 2 points or higher. Analysis of BARD scores 0 or 1 revealed advanced fibrosis (F3) in 3 patients; in the remaining 88 patients only mild/moderate fibrosis was diagnosed (F0–30 patients, F1–40 patients and F2–18 patients). Analysis of the NAFLD fibrosis score revealed 34 patients with scores higher than 0.676, 53 patients lower than −1.455, and 39 patients with indeterminate scores (30.9%). In the group of patients with high NAFLD fibrosis score (over 0.676), 24 had advanced fibrosis (F3=21, F4=3), and another 10 patients had mild/moderate fibrosis (2 patients-F0, 5 patients −F1 and 3 patients-F2). In the group of patients with low scores (lower than −1.455) 1 patient had advanced fibrosis demonstrated by liver biopsy. The accuracy of BARD and NAFLD fibrosis scores is presented in Table 4.
Discussion
Assessment of advanced fibrosis in the course of NAFLD is of vital practical and prognostic significance; therefore, identification of these patients is of utmost importance. To avoid liver biopsy, a highly invasive procedure, new simple and noninvasive diagnostic methods to diagnose advanced liver fibrosis are being searched for (30). Among the tests that could be useful, the NAFLD fibrosis score and the BARD score give promising results.
Harrison et al. [20] found high values of NPV (96%) in patients with low BARD scores, which enabled identification of patients without advanced fibrosis. According to Angulo et al [21], NPV and PPV for the NAFLD fibrosis score were high – NPV ≥87% and PPV – ≥78%, respectively. Some results were still indeterminate (NAFLD fibrosis scores between −1.455 and 0.676); thus, these patients require liver biopsy to assess liver fibrosis severity.
Our studies have shown that both the BARD and NAFLD fibrosis scores have relatively high sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, both of them showed very high values of NPV (ie, 96.70% and 98.11%, respectively) and were very similar to the results reported by McPherson’s et al. [31], Raszeja-Wyszomirska et al. [32], and a Chinese study [33]. Compared to our findings, NPV found in Argentinian patients was lower – 81.3% for both BARD and NAFLD fibrosis scores [34]. Moreover, PPV was lower than NPV, comparable to other study results – 68.57% for the BARD score and 70.59% for the NAFLD score. Our findings identified 30.9% of patients whose results were indeterminate. The percentage of such patients was similar to the results of other studies [33,34].
According to Wong et al. [33], implementation of the NAFLD fibrosis score to the Chinese population should help avoid liver biopsy in 79% of patients. The researchers emphasize the role this parameter plays in primary health care, since it provides certain data necessary for identification of those patients with NAFLD who require livery biopsy for diagnosis of advanced fibrosis and assessment of its severity [1].
Otherwise, McPherson et al. [31] believe that the FIB-4 test has the best diagnostic value, although only slightly better than that of the BARD and NAFLD fibrosis scores (age × AST [IU/l]/platelet count [×109/litre] × radical ALT [IU/l]). In the FIB-4 test, the AUROC curve is 0.86, while in the BARD and NAFLD fibrosis scores were 0.77 and 0.81, respectively. According to the authors, FIB-4 tests can rule out advanced liver fibrosis beyond any doubt; thus liver biopsy is avoidable in 62% of patients, as compared to 52% based on the NAFLD fibrosis score (69.1% in our study) and only 38% based on the BARD score. Moreover, Shah et al. [35] also found the FIB-4 index superior to 7 other non-invasive markers of fibrosis in NAFLD [32]. In their study, the AUROC curve for the BARD and the NAFLD fibrosis scores, and the FIB-4 index, were 0.700, 0.768 and 0.802, respectively. Importantly, our results showed that the AUROC curve for the BARD and NAFLD fibrosis scores was much higher compared to the 2 other studies. The AUROC curve for both scores was as high as for the FIB-4 in the study by McPherson et al. [31] and much higher than that reported by Shah et al. [35].
Another useful technique for assessment of advanced liver fibrosis is ultrasound-based transient elastography (Fibroscan), which shows a significant correlation between liver stiffness measurements and fibrosis staging confirmed by liver biopsy in NAFLD patients [36]. It is a non-invasive procedure, but has some significant limitations in obese patients [37]. The failure rate is 2–10% of patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2. The currently available procedure is designed only for patients with standard morphology. A newly developed XL probe provides higher accuracy of advanced fibrosis evaluation in patients with increased BMI and shows promising results, yet has not been widely used. In the near future it is likely to become the gold standard for diagnosis of advanced fibrosis, and can eliminate the need for liver biopsy and the other non-invasive markers.
The literature contains only a few reports concerning the risk factors of advanced fibrosis. According to our findings, age ≥50 years, obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2), diabetes mellitus, and the platelet count ≤200 (×109/L) favored the development of advanced fibrosis. The AST/ALT ratio ≥0.8 was a particularly important factor – OR for it was 20. Likewise, Ong et al. [38] demonstrated that obesity, as a component of metabolic syndrome, was independently associated with advanced fibrosis. There are reports, however, that found no relationship between BMI, diabetes mellitus, and aced fibrosis [32,38]. In one of them the differences can be related to the fact that BMI ≥28 kg/m2 was considered a risk factor of advanced fibrosis, and not BMI ≥30 kg/m2 as in our study [32]. We found that only obesity and not overweight was associated with advanced liver fibrosis. In the other study statistical significance was not demonstrated due to the small number of patients [39].
Conclusions
Our study results reveal that BARD and NAFLD fibrosis scores have high NPV values, are capable of excluding advanced liver fibrosis and markedly reducing the incidence of liver biopsies in patients with NAFLD. This invasive procedure is required only in a certain group of patients. Obesity, diabetes mellitus, more advanced age, platelet count ≤200×109/L, and AST/ALT ratio = 0.8 or higher are considered the risk factors of advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.
References
1. Armstrong MJ, Houlihan DD, Bentham L, Presence and severity of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in a large prospective primary care cohort: J Hepatol, 2012; 56; 234-40, pmid: 21703178
2. Browning JD, Szczepaniak LS, Dobbins R, Prevalance of hepatic steatosis in an urban population in the United States: impact of ethnicity: Hepatology, 2004; 40; 1387-95, pmid: 15565570
3. Wieckowska A, Feldstein AE, Diagnosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: invasive versus noninvasive: Semin Liver Dis, 2008; 28; 386-95, pmid: 18956295
4. Das K, Das K, Mukherjee PS, Nonobese population in a developing country has a high prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver and significant liver disease: Hepatology, 2010; 51; 1593-602, pmid: 20222092
5. Nomura H, Kashiwagi S, Hayashi J, Prevalence of fatty liver disease in a general population of Okinawa, Japan: Japn J Med, 1998; 27; 142-49
6. Bedogni G, Miglioli L, Masutti F, Prevalence of and risk foactors for nonalcoholic liver disease. The Dyonisos nutrition and liver study: Hepatology, 2005; 42; 44-52, pmid: 15895401
7. Adams LA, Feldstein AE, Non-invasive diagnosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: Dig Dis, 2011; 12; 10-16
8. Estep JM, Birerdinc A, Younossi Z, Non-invasive diagnostic tests for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Curr Mol Med, 2010; 10; 166-72, pmid: 20196730
9. Sanyal AJ, Banas C, Sargeant C, Similarities and differences in outcomes of cirrhosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and hepatitis C: Hepatology, 2006; 43; 682-89, pmid: 16502396
10. Bugianesi E, Leone N, Vanni E, Expanding the natural history of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis from cryptogenic cirrhosis to hepatocellular carcinoma: Gastroenterology, 2002; 123; 134-40, pmid: 12105842
11. Marrero JA, Fontana RJ, Su GL, NAFLD may be a common underlying liver disease in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: Hepatology, 2002; 36; 1349-54, pmid: 12447858
12. Farrell GC, Larter CZ, Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: from steatosis to cirrhosis: Hepatology, 2006; 43; S99-112, pmid: 16447287
13. Lu P, Liu H, Yin H, Yang L, Expression of angiotensinogen during hepatic fibrogenesis and its effect on hepatic stellate cells: Med Sci Monit, 2011; 17(9); BR248-56, pmid: 21873937
14. Colak Y, Ozturk O, Senates E, SIRT1 as a potential therapeutic target for treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Med Sci Monit, 2011; 17(5); HY5-9, pmid: 21525818
15. Vizzutti F, Arena U, Nobili V, Non-invasive assessment of fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Ann Hepatol, 2009; 8; 89-94, pmid: 19502649
16. Vuppalanchi R, Chalasani N, Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: Selected practical issues in their evaluation and management: Hepatology, 2009; 49; 306-17, pmid: 19065650
17. Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Heurtier A, Sampling variability of liver biopsy in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Gastroenterology, 2005; 128; 1898-906, pmid: 15940625
18. Merriman RB, Ferrell LD, Patti MG, Correlation of paired liver biopsies in morbidly obese patients with suspected nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Hepatology, 2006; 44; 874-80, pmid: 17006934
19. Pais R, Lupşor M, Poantă L, Liver biopsy versus noninvasive methods-fibroscan and fibrotest in the diagnosis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a review of the literature: Rom J Intern Med, 2009; 47; 331-40, pmid: 21179914
20. Harrison SA, Oliver D, Arnold HL, Development and validation of a simple NALFD clinical scoring system for identifying patient without advanced disease: Gut, 2008; 57; 1441-47, pmid: 18390575
21. Angulo P, Hui JM, Marchesini G, The NAFLD fibrosis score: a noninvasive system that identifies liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD: Hepatology, 2007; 45; 846-54, pmid: 17393509
22. Guha IN, Parkes J, Roderick P, Noninvasive markers of fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: validating the European Liver Fibrosis Panel and exploring simple markers: Hepatology, 2008; 47; 455-60, pmid: 18038452
23. Dixon JB, Bhathal PS, O’Brien PE, Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: predictors of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis in the severely obese: Gastroenterology, 2001; 121; 91-100, pmid: 11438497
24. Palekar NA, Naus R, Larson SP, Clinical model for distinguishing nonalcoholic steatohepatitis from simple steatosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Liver Int, 2006; 26; 151-56, pmid: 16448452
25. Ratziu V, Giral P, Charlotte F, Liver fibrosis in overweight patients: Gastroenterology, 2000; 118; 1117-23, pmid: 10833486
26. Gholam PM, Flancbaum L, Machan JT, Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in severely obese subjects: Am J Gastroenterol, 2007; 102; 399-408, pmid: 17311652
27. Miyaaki H, Ichikawa T, Nakao K, Clinicopathological study of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in Japan: the risk factors for fibrosis: Liver Int, 2008; 28; 519-24, pmid: 17976158
28. Kleiner DE, Brunt EM, Natta MV, Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Hepatology, 2005; 41; 1313-21, pmid: 15915461
29. Tiniakos DG, Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: histological diagnostic criteria and scoring systems: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2010; 22; 643-50, pmid: 19478676
30. Wieckowska A, McCullough AJ, Feldstein AE, Noninvasive diagnosis and monitoring of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: present and future: Hepatology, 2007; 46; 582-89, pmid: 17661414
31. McPherson S, Stewart SF, Henderson E, Simple non-invasive fibrosis scoring systems can reliably exclude advanced fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Gut, 2010; 59; 1265-69, pmid: 20801772
32. Raszeja-Wyszomirska J, Szymanik B, Ławniczak M, Validation of the BARD scoring system in Polish patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): BMC Gastroenterol, 2010; 10; 67, pmid: 20584330
33. Wong VW, Wong GL, Chim AM, Validation of the NAFLD fibrosis score in a Chinese population with low prevalence of advanced fibrosis: Am J Gastroenterol, 2008; 103; 1682-88, pmid: 18616651
34. Ruffillo G, Fassio E, Alvarez E, Comparison of NAFLD fibrosis score and BARD score in predicting fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: J Hepatol, 2011; 54; 160-63, pmid: 20934232
35. Shah AG, Lydecker A, Murray K, Comparison of noninvasive markers of fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Clin Gastroterol Hepatol, 2009; 10; 1104-12
36. Yoneda M, Yoneda M, Mawatari H, Noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis by measurement of stiffness in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): Dig Liv Dis, 2008; 40; 371-78
37. De Ledinghen V, Vergniol J, Foucher J, Feasibility of liver transient elastography with FibroScan using a new probe for obese patients: Liver Int, 2010; 30; 1043-48, pmid: 20492500
38. Ong JP, Elariny H, Collantes R, Predictors of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and advanced fibrosis in morbidly obese patients: Obes Surg, 2005; 15; 310-15, pmid: 15826462
39. Uslusoy HS, Nak SG, Gulten M, Noninvasive predictors for liver fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: World J Hepatol, 2011; 3; 219-27, pmid: 21954411
In Press
Clinical Research
Institutional and Regional Variations in Access to Clinical Trials and Next-Generation Sequencing in Turkis...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951027
Clinical Research
Low-Intensity Blood Flow-Restricted Multi-Joint Exercise Improves Muscle Function in Patients With Patellof...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.950516
Review article
Musculoskeletal Ultrasound and MRI in the Evaluation of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A ReviewMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951283
Clinical Research
Sensory Processing, Dissociation, and Affective Symptoms in Misophonia: A Cross-Sectional Study of 35 AdultsMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.950938
Most Viewed Current Articles
17 Jan 2024 : Review article 10,187,196
Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron VariantDOI :10.12659/MSM.942799
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e942799
13 Nov 2021 : Clinical Research 3,708,487
Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination and Its Associated Factors Among Cancer Patients Attending the Oncology ...DOI :10.12659/MSM.932788
Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e932788
14 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research 2,341,643
Prevalence and Variability of Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Patients with Elevated Tryptase LevelsDOI :10.12659/MSM.937990
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937990
16 May 2023 : Clinical Research 706,524
Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Stude...DOI :10.12659/MSM.940387
Med Sci Monit 2023; 29:e940387






