Abstract:Background and Aims: Multiple non-invasive tests (NITs) for identifying advanced fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are available, but, due to the limitations of single NITs, the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) guidelines suggest a two-step strategy, combining the Fibrosis-4 Index (FIB-4) score with the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test to improve diagnostic accuracy and minimize unnecessary liver biopsies. However, few real-world studies have used such a sequential approach. We here evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the ELF test in patients with recently established metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and assessed the clinical utility of applying a two-step strategy, including the ELF test following the FIB-4 score assessment, in patients with MASLD. Methods: We enrolled 153 patients diagnosed with MASLD who underwent liver biopsy at the Dong-A University Hospital between June 2018 and August 2023. The degree of fibrosis was determined based on liver biopsy results. Various NITs were used, including the Aminotransferase-to-Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), FIB-4 score, NAFLD Fibrosis score (NFS) and ELF test. The diagnostic efficacy of these NITs was evaluated based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Additionally, the performance of each test was further examined both when applied individually and in a two-step approach, where FIB-4 was used followed by ELF testing. Key metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were used for this analysis. Results: Overall, 153 patients with MASLD (mean age: 46.62 years; 52.3% men; 28.1% with type 2 diabetes) were included. The performance of the NITs in identifying advanced fibrosis was as follows: the AUROC of the APRI, FIB-4, NFS, and ELF tests were 0.803 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.713–0.863), 0.769 (95% CI, 0.694–0.833), 0.699 (95% CI, 0.528–0.796), and 0.829 (95% CI, 0.760–0.885), respectively. The combination of the FIB-4 score ≥ 1.30 and the ELF score ≥ 9.8 showed 67.86% sensitivity, 90.40% specificity, a PPV of 75.18%, an NPV of 86.78%, an accuracy of 83.64%, and an AUROC of 0.791 for predicting the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis. This approach excluded 28 patients (71.8%) from unnecessary liver biopsies. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that ELF testing maintained diagnostic accuracy in assessing liver fibrosis in patients with MASLD in real-world practice. This test was used as a second step in the evaluation, reducing clinically unnecessary invasive liver biopsies and referrals to tertiary institutions. This approach allows assessment of MASLD severity in primary care settings without requiring additional equipment.

Degree of Discordance Between FIB-4 and Transient Elastography: An Application of Current Guidelines on General Population Cohort

Optimizing Use of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Fibrosis Score, Fibrosis-4 Score, and Liver Stiffness Measurement to Identify Patients With Advanced Fibrosis

FIB-4 Reliability in Patients With Severe Obesity: Lower Cutoffs Needed?

Identifying and Linking Patients At Risk for MASLD with Advanced Fibrosis to Care in Primary Care

Poor accuracy and sustainability of the first‐step FIB4 EASL pathway for stratifying steatotic liver disease risk in the general population

S1703 The Role of Fibroscan in Assessment of Liver Fibrosis in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Dysfunction Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD)

Performance of American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Care Pathway for the risk stratification of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the US population

Factors Associated with Discordance in the Assessment of Fibrosis Stage Between Transient Elastography and Liver Biopsy in NAFLD Patients.

FIB-4 and Severe Liver Disease Outcomes in Primary Care: A Stratified Cox Analysis

Distribution of Fibrosis‐4 index and vibration‐controlled transient elastography‐derived liver stiffness measurement for patients with metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease in health check‐up

Diagnostic performances of Fibrosis‐4 index and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score in metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease in Asian primary care clinics

Liver Fibrosis Index-4 Does Not Correlate to Liver Elastography in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Comparison of blood-based liver fibrosis scores in the Mount Sinai Health System, MASLD Registry, and NHANES 2017-2020 study

Fibrosis‐4 Index as an Independent Predictor of Mortality and Liver‐Related Outcomes in NAFLD

Sequential Diagnostic Approach Using FIB-4 and ELF for Predicting Advanced Fibrosis in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease

S1935 How Accurate Is FIB-4 vs Fibroscan in Clinical Practice: Comparing Methodology of Liver Fibrosis Assessment

Fibrofast and Fibrosis-4 versus Fibroscan as Indicators of Hepatic Fibrosis in Non Alcholic Fatty Liver Disease Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study

Prevalence of Low FIB‐4 in MASLD‐Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicentre Study

Using the FIB-4, automatically calculated, followed by the ELF test in second line to screen primary care patients for liver disease

S1750 Limited Success of Point-of-Care Screening for Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD) Related Fibrosis Using FIB-4/Transient Elastography in a Weight Management/Diabetes Clinic

How effective are experienced hepatologists at staging fibrosis using non‐invasive fibrosis tests in patients with metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease?