Liver fibrosis stage based on the four factors (FIB-4) score or Forns index in adults with chronic hepatitis C
Marc Huttman,Tommaso Lorenzo Parigi,Mirko Zoncapè,Antonio Liguori,Maria Kalafateli,Anna H Noel-Storr,Giovanni Casazza,Emmanuel Tsochatzis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011929.pub2
2024-08-13
Abstract:Background: The presence and severity of liver fibrosis are important prognostic variables when evaluating people with chronic hepatitis C (CHC). Although liver biopsy remains the reference standard, non-invasive serological markers, such as the four factors (FIB-4) score and the Forns index, can also be used to stage liver fibrosis. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the FIB-4 score and Forns index in staging liver fibrosis in people with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) virus, using liver biopsy as the reference standard (primary objective). To compare the diagnostic accuracy of these tests for staging liver fibrosis in people with CHC and explore potential sources of heterogeneity (secondary objectives). Search methods: We used standard Cochrane search methods for diagnostic accuracy studies (search date: 13 April 2022). Selection criteria: We included diagnostic cross-sectional or case-control studies that evaluated the performance of the FIB-4 score, the Forns index, or both, against liver biopsy, in the assessment of liver fibrosis in participants with CHC. We imposed no language restrictions. We excluded studies in which: participants had causes of liver disease besides CHC; participants had successfully been treated for CHC; or the interval between the index test and liver biopsy exceeded six months. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data. We performed meta-analyses using the bivariate model and calculated summary estimates. We evaluated the performance of both tests for three target conditions: significant fibrosis or worse (METAVIR stage ≥ F2); severe fibrosis or worse (METAVIR stage ≥ F3); and cirrhosis (METAVIR stage F4). We restricted the meta-analysis to studies reporting cut-offs in a specified range (+/-0.15 for FIB-4; +/-0.3 for Forns index) around the original validated cut-offs (1.45 and 3.25 for FIB-4; 4.2 and 6.9 for Forns index). We calculated the percentage of people who would receive an indeterminate result (i.e. above the rule-out threshold but below the rule-in threshold) for each index test/cut-off/target condition combination. Main results: We included 84 studies (with a total of 107,583 participants) from 28 countries, published between 2002 and 2021, in the qualitative synthesis. Of the 84 studies, 82 (98%) were cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy studies with cohort-based sampling, and the remaining two (2%) were case-control studies. All studies were conducted in referral centres. Our main meta-analysis included 62 studies (100,605 participants). Overall, two studies (2%) had low risk of bias, 23 studies (27%) had unclear risk of bias, and 59 studies (73%) had high risk of bias. We judged 13 studies (15%) to have applicability concerns regarding participant selection. FIB-4 score The FIB-4 score's low cut-off (1.45) is designed to rule out people with at least severe fibrosis (≥ F3). Thirty-nine study cohorts (86,907 participants) yielded a summary sensitivity of 81.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 75.6% to 85.6%), specificity of 62.3% (95% CI 57.4% to 66.9%), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.30 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.38). The FIB-4 score's high cut-off (3.25) is designed to rule in people with at least severe fibrosis (≥ F3). Twenty-four study cohorts (81,350 participants) yielded a summary sensitivity of 41.4% (95% CI 33.0% to 50.4%), specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 89.5% to 94.9%), and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 5.6 (95% CI 4.4 to 7.1). Using the FIB-4 score to assess severe fibrosis and applying both cut-offs together, 30.9% of people would obtain an indeterminate result, requiring further investigations. We report the summary accuracy estimates for the FIB-4 score when used for assessing significant fibrosis (≥ F2) and cirrhosis (F4) in the main review text. Forns index The Forns index's low cut-off (4.2) is designed to rule out people with at least significant fibrosis (≥ F2). Seventeen study cohorts (4354 participants) yielded a summary sensitivity of 84.7% (95% CI 77.9% to 89.7%), specificity of 47.9% (95% CI 38.6% to 57.3%), and LR- of 0.32 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.41). The Forns index's high cut-off (6.9) is designed to rule in people with at least significant fibrosis (≥ F2). Twelve study cohorts (3245 participants) yielded a summary sensitivity of 34.1% (95% CI 26.4% to 42.8%), specificity of 97.3% (95% CI 92.9% to 99.0%), and LR+ of 12.5 (95% CI 5.7 to 27.2). Using the Forns index to assess significant fibrosis and applying both cut-offs together, 44.8% of people would obtain an indeterminate result, requiring further investigations. We report the summary accuracy estimates for the Forns index when used for assessing severe fibrosis (≥ F3) and cirrhosis (F4) in the main text. Comparing FIB-4 to Forns index There were insufficient studies to meta-analyse the performance of the Forns index for diagnosing severe fibrosis and cirrhosis. Therefore, comparisons of the two tests' performance were not possible for these target conditions. For diagnosing significant fibrosis and worse, there were no significant differences in their performance when using the high cut-off. The Forns index performed slightly better than FIB-4 when using the low/rule-out cut-off (relative sensitivity 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25; P = 0.0573; relative specificity 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84; P = 0.002). Authors' conclusions: Both the FIB-4 score and the Forns index may be considered for the initial assessment of people with CHC. The FIB-4 score's low cut-off (1.45) can be used to rule out people with at least severe fibrosis (≥ F3) and cirrhosis (F4). The Forns index's high cut-off (6.9) can be used to diagnose people with at least significant fibrosis (≥ F2). We judged most of the included studies to be at unclear or high risk of bias. The overall quality of the body of evidence was low or very low, and more high-quality studies are needed. Our review only captured data from referral centres. Therefore, when generalising our results to a primary care population, the probability of false positives will likely be higher and false negatives will likely be lower. More research is needed in sub-Saharan Africa, since these tests may be of value in such resource-poor settings.