Comparison of screening strategies with two new tests to score and diagnose varices needing treatment

Background and aims: We aimed to improve non-invasive screening of varices needing treatment (VNT) and compare different screening strategies. Methods: 2,290 patients with chronic liver disease were included in a retrospective study. Etiologies were: virus: 50.0%, NAFLD: 29.5%, alcohol: 20.5%, VNT: 14.9%. Test descriptors were performance (spared endoscopy) and safety (missed VNT). VNT tests were evaluated according to their safety levels either for individual screening (95% negative predictive value (NPV)), population screening (95% sensitivity) or undifferentiated screening (100% sensitivity/NPV) without missed VNT. The tests provided three categories: missed VNT <5%, VNT 100% specificity (new category), both sparing endoscopies, and intermediate (endoscopy required). Results: Independent VNT predictors (etiology, sex, age, platelets, prothrombin index, albumin, ALT, liver stiffness) were included in two tests: VNT virus alcohol NAFLD test (VANT) and varice risk score (VARS). We report results of the whole population. Considering population screening, performances were, Baveno VI criteria: 24.1%, Anticipate: 24.7%, VariScreen: 35.3%, VANT: 40.2% (p<0.001 vs other tests). VANT spared 58.0% more endoscopies in the whole population than Baveno criteria in compensated advanced chronic liver diseases. Considering individual screening, VARS performance was, in all patients: 62.0% vs 42.9% for the expanded Baveno VI criteria (p<0.001), and, in NAFLD: 72.8% vs 65.1% for the NAFLD cirrhosis criteria (p<0.001). Considering undifferentiated screening, VARS performance was 12%. The VARS score estimated VNT probability from 0 to 100% (AUROC: 0.826). Conclusion: VANT and VARS spared from 12% (undifferentiated screening) to 40% (population screening) or 62% (individual screening) of endoscopies in main-etiology patients without ascites

A novel spleen‐dedicated stiffness measurement by FibroScan® improves the screening of high‐risk oesophageal varices

International audienc

Individual and population screening of varices needing treatment by a simple, safe and accurate test.

BACKGROUND Several tests have been developed to screen VNT in different screening settings. We aimed to develop simple estimators to quantify VNT risk and spare endoscopy while missing <5% of VNT, adapted to different screenings in the main etiologies. METHODS 2,368 patients with chronic liver disease were included. The main VNT predictors were platelets, prothrombin index (PI) and LSM. Their interactions led to score construction, LIP: (LSM*45)/(PI*platelets), and BLIP: BMI-adjusted LIP in NAFLD. Scores were categorized either for population (VNT sensitivity ≥95%) or individual (negative predictive value ≥95%) VNT screening. RESULTS 1) Scores diagnosing VNT. AUROCs were, PLER: 0.767 Anticipate: 0.773 (p=0.059 vs previous), LIP: 0.779 (p=0.136), PLEASE: 0.789 (p=0.196). 2) Population screening performance was in increasing order (with missed VNT rate), Baveno6 criteria: 23.9% (2.5%), Anticipate 24.5%, p=0.367 vs previous (3.3%), PLER 27.3%, p<0.001 (3.6%), LIP 33.4%, p<0.001 (4.2%), PLEASE 35.2%, p=0.006 (3.6%). In NAFLD, LIP 38.6%, BLIP 40.8%, p=0.038. 3) Individual screening performance was, expanded Baveno6 criteria: 42.7%, LIP 54.1%, p<0.001. In NAFLD, performance was, NAFLD-cirrhosis criteria: 66.7%, BLIP 74.6%, p<0.001. CONCLUSION LIP combined simplicity, performance and safety in each etiology. In NAFLD, BMI-adjusted LIP outperformed other tests

Including Ratio of Platelets to Liver Stiffness Improves Accuracy of Screening for Esophageal Varices That Require Treatment.

BACKGROUND & AIMS Based on platelets and liver stiffness measurements, the Baveno VI criteria (B6C), the expanded B6C (EB6C), and the ANTICIPATE score can be used to rule out varices needing treatment (VNT) in patients with compensated chronic liver disease. We aimed to improve these tests by including data on the ratio of platelets to liver stiffness. METHODS In a retrospective analysis of data from 10 study populations, collected from 2004 through 2018, we randomly assigned data from 2368 patients with chronic liver disease of different etiologies to a derivation population (n = 1579; 15.1% with VNT, 50.2% with viral hepatitis, 28.9% with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, 28.9% with alcohol-associated liver disease, 20.8% with model for end-stage liver disease scores of 9.5 ± 3.0, and 93.0% with liver stiffness measurements ≥10 kPa) or a validation population (n = 789). Test results were compared with results from a sequential algorithm (VariScreen). VariScreen incorporated data on platelets or liver stiffness measurements and then the ratio of platelets to liver stiffness measurement, adjusted for etiology, patient sex, and international normalized ratio. RESULTS In the derivation population, endoscopies were spared for 23.9% of patients using the B6C (VNT missed in 2.9%), 24.3% of patients using the ANTICIPATE score (VNT missed in 4.6%), 34.5% of patients using VariScreen (VNT missed in 2.9%), and 41.9% of patients using the EB6C (VNT missed in 10.9%). Differences in spared endoscopy rates were significant (P ≤ .001), except for B6C vs ANTICIPATE and in missed VNT only for EB6C vs the others (P ≤ .009). VariScreen was the only safe test regardless of sex or etiology (missed VNT, ≤5%). Moreover, VariScreen secured screening without missed VNT in patients with model for end-stage liver disease scores higher than 10. This overall strategy performed better than a selective strategy restricted to patients with compensated liver disease. Test performance and safety did not differ significantly among populations. CONCLUSIONS In a retrospective study of data from 2368 patients with chronic liver disease, we found that the B6C are safe whereas the EB6C are unsafe, based on missed VNT. The VariScreen algorithm performed well in patients with chronic liver disease of any etiology or severity-it is the only test that safely rules out VNT and can be used in clinical practice

Comparison of screening strategies with two new tests to score and diagnose varices needing treatment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS We aimed to improve non-invasive screening of varices needing treatment (VNT) and compare different screening strategies. METHODS 2,290 patients with chronic liver disease were included in a retrospective study. Etiologies were: virus: 50.0%, NAFLD: 29.5%, alcohol: 20.5%, VNT: 14.9%. Test descriptors were performance (spared endoscopy) and safety (missed VNT). VNT tests were evaluated according to their safety levels either for individual screening (95% negative predictive value (NPV)), population screening (95% sensitivity) or undifferentiated screening (100% sensitivity/NPV) without missed VNT. The tests provided three categories: missed VNT <5%, VNT 100% specificity (new category), both sparing endoscopies, and intermediate (endoscopy required). RESULTS Independent VNT predictors (etiology, sex, age, platelets, prothrombin index, albumin, ALT, liver stiffness) were included in two tests: VNT virus alcohol NAFLD test (VANT) and varice risk score (VARS). We report results of the whole population. Considering population screening, performances were, Baveno VI criteria: 24.1%, Anticipate: 24.7%, VariScreen: 35.3%, VANT: 40.2% (p<0.001 vs other tests). VANT spared 58.0% more endoscopies in the whole population than Baveno criteria in compensated advanced chronic liver diseases. Considering individual screening, VARS performance was, in all patients: 62.0% vs 42.9% for the expanded Baveno VI criteria (p<0.001), and, in NAFLD: 72.8% vs 65.1% for the NAFLD cirrhosis criteria (p<0.001). Considering undifferentiated screening, VARS performance was 12%. The VARS score estimated VNT probability from 0 to 100% (AUROC: 0.826). CONCLUSION VANT and VARS spared from 12% (undifferentiated screening) to 40% (population screening) or 62% (individual screening) of endoscopies in main-etiology patients without ascites

Individual and population screening of varices needing treatment by a simple, safe and accurate test

Background: Several tests have been developed to screen varices needing treatment (VNT) in different screening settings. We aimed to develop simple estimators to quantify VNT risk and spare endoscopy while missing &lt;5% of VNT, adapted to different screenings in the main etiologies.Methods: 2,368 patients with chronic liver disease were included. The main VNT predictors were platelets, prothrombin index (PI) and LSM. Their interactions led to score construction, LIP: (LSM*45)/(PI*platelets), and BLIP: BMI-adjusted LIP in NAFLD. Scores were categorized either for population (VNT sensitivity &gt;= 95%) or individual (negative predictive value &gt;95%) VNT screening.Results: 1) Scores diagnosing VNT. AUROCs were, PLER: 0.767 Anticipate: 0.773 (p=0.059 vs pre-vious), LIP: 0.779 (p=0.136), PLEASE: 0.789 (p=0.196). 2) Population screening performance was in increasing order (with missed VNT rate), Baveno6 criteria: 23.9% (2.5%), Anticipate: 24.5%, p=0.367 vs previous (3.3%), PLER: 27.3%, p&lt;0.001 (3.6%), LIP: 33.4%, p&lt;0.001 (4.2%), PLEASE: 35.2%, p=0.006 (3.6%). In NAFLD, LIP: 38.6%, BLIP: 40.8%, p=0.038. 3) Individual screening per-formance was, expanded Baveno6 criteria: 42.7%, LIP: 54.1%, p&lt;0.001. In NAFLD, performance was, NAFLD-cirrhosis criteria: 66.7%, BLIP: 74.6%, p&lt;0.001.Conclusion: LIP combined simplicity, performance and safety in each etiology. In NAFLD, BMI-adjusted LIP outperformed other tests.(c) 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved

Including Ratio of Platelets to Liver Stiffness Improves Accuracy of Screening for Esophageal Varices That Require Treatment

International audienceBackground & aims: Based on platelets and liver stiffness measurements, the Baveno VI criteria (B6C), the expanded B6C (EB6C), and the ANTICIPATE score can be used to rule out varices needing treatment (VNT) in patients with compensated chronic liver disease. We aimed to improve these tests by including data on the ratio of platelets to liver stiffness.Methods: In a retrospective analysis of data from 10 study populations, collected from 2004 through 2018, we randomly assigned data from 2368 patients with chronic liver disease of different etiologies to a derivation population (n = 1579; 15.1% with VNT, 50.2% with viral hepatitis, 28.9% with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, 20.8% with alcohol-associated liver disease, with model for end-stage liver disease scores of 9.5 ± 3.0, and 93.0% with liver stiffness measurements ≥10 kPa) or a validation population (n = 789). Test results were compared with results from a sequential algorithm (VariScreen). VariScreen incorporated data on platelets or liver stiffness measurements and then the ratio of platelets to liver stiffness measurement, adjusted for etiology, patient sex, and international normalized ratio.Results: In the derivation population, endoscopies were spared for 23.9% of patients using the B6C (VNT missed in 2.9%), 24.3% of patients using the ANTICIPATE score (VNT missed in 4.6%), 34.5% of patients using VariScreen (VNT missed in 2.9%), and 41.9% of patients using the EB6C (VNT missed in 10.9%). Differences in spared endoscopy rates were significant (P ≤ .001), except for B6C vs ANTICIPATE and in missed VNT only for EB6C vs the others (P ≤ .009). VariScreen was the only safe test regardless of sex or etiology (missed VNT ≤5%). Moreover, VariScreen secured screening without missed VNT in patients with model for end-stage liver disease scores higher than 10. This overall strategy performed better than a selective strategy restricted to patients with compensated liver disease. Test performance and safety did not differ significantly among populations.Conclusions: In a retrospective study of data from 2368 patients with chronic liver disease, we found that the B6C are safe whereas the EB6C are unsafe, based on missed VNT. The VariScreen algorithm performed well in patients with chronic liver disease of any etiology or severity. It is the only test that safely rules out VNT and can be used in clinical practice