Why the study?
Does the combination of serum endoglin and FIB-4 index accurately detect hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C patients compared to liver biopsy?
Does the combination of serum endoglin and FIB-4 index accurately detect hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C patients compared to liver biopsy?
The combination of serum endoglin and FIB-4 index provides a highly accurate, non-invasive method for detecting and staging hepatic fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C.
Endoglin shows high accuracy for advanced fibrosis in HCV; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Background and aim: In patients infected with chronic hepatitis C virus, liver biopsy is the gold standard method of staging fibrosis. Different combinations of serum markers attempted to correlate with hepatic fibrosis in place of liver biopsy and have shown encouraging results. The aim of our study is to evaluate the diagnostic value of endoglin and FIB-4 as non-invasive markers of hepatic fibrosis in HCV patients. Methods: We estimated serum endoglin & FIB-4 index in 40 infected chronic hepatitis C patients. Histological staging of hepatic fibrosis was done according to the METAVIR scoring system. Results: Both endoglin and FIB-4 index showed positive correlation with age and aspartate transaminase and inverse correlation with albumin. The diagnostic performance determined by AUROCs for early fibrosis (≤F2), was 0.868 for endoglin and 0.887 for FIB-4, at cut off va- lues of 5.5 & 0.98 with sensitivity of 64.3% & 82.1%, and specificity of 100% & 85% respectively. For ad-vanced fibrosis (>F2), the AUROC was 0.98 for endoglin and 0.967 for FIB-4, obtained at cut off values of 6.29 & 1.6, with sensitivity of 100% & 91.7%, and specificity of 89.3% & 92.9%, respectively. Conclusion: Both serum endoglin and FIB-4 index are fairly accurate in differentiating stages of hepatic fibrosis; their combination in a single equation enhanced the accuracy of fibrosis detection in chronic HCV patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salem et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: