Optimizing the Use of the Gamma-Glutamyl Transpeptidase-to-Platelet Ratio and Transient Elastography to Identify Liver Cirrhosis in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B Concurrent with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Background and Aim. Little information is available about the assessment and optimal use of the gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio (GPR) and transient elastography (TE) in predicting liver cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and concurrent nonalcoholic fatty liver disea...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Disease markers 2019, Vol.2019 (2019), p.1-11
Hauptverfasser: Gao, Zhiliang, Li, Yi-Ping, Chen, Zheng, Zeng, Jie, Xu, Shi-cheng, Zhang, Geng-lin, Zhang, Ting
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background and Aim. Little information is available about the assessment and optimal use of the gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio (GPR) and transient elastography (TE) in predicting liver cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and concurrent nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). This study is aimed at comparing their diagnostic performances and developing an optimal approach for predicting liver cirrhosis in CHB patients with NAFLD. Methods. Consecutive CHB patients with NAFLD were enrolled. The GPR was calculated, and TE was performed using liver biopsy as a reference standard. The accuracy of predicting liver cirrhosis using GPR and TE was assessed and compared, and an optimal approach was developed. Results. Both TE and GPR correlated significantly with the histological fibrosis stage. TE and GPR had excellent performance in predicting liver cirrhosis, and the comparison of areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves revealed that TE was superior to GPR (0.95 vs. 0.85, P=0.039). Moreover, the dual cutoffs established by the likelihood ratio showed that GPR had a similar misclassification but higher indeterminate rate than TE (54.5% vs. 11.7%, P
ISSN:0278-0240
1875-8630
DOI:10.1155/2019/2585409