Disease Markers

Disease Markers / 2020 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 2471252 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2471252

JianPing Wu, WeiLin Mao, "Review of Serum Biomarkers and Models Derived from Them in HBV-Related Liver Diseases", Disease Markers, vol. 2020, Article ID 2471252, 12 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2471252

Review of Serum Biomarkers and Models Derived from Them in HBV-Related Liver Diseases

Academic Editor: Roberta Rizzo
Received17 Jan 2020
Accepted11 Jul 2020
Published21 Jul 2020

Abstract

A series of predictive scoring systems is available for stratifying the severity of conditions and assessing the prognosis in patients with HBV-related liver diseases. We show nine of the most popular serum biomarkers and their models (i.e., serum cystatin C, homocysteine, C-reactive protein, C-reactive protein to albumin ratio, aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index, fibrosis index based on four factors, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase to platelet ratio, albumin-bilirubin score, and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase to albumin ratio) that have gained great interest from clinicians. Compared with traditional scoring systems, these serum biomarkers and their models are easily acquired, simple, and relatively inexpensive. In the present review, we summarize the latest studies focused on these serum biomarkers and their models as diagnostic and prognostic indexes in HBV-related liver diseases.

1. Introduction

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a worldwide epidemic. According to WHO, ~2 billion people worldwide have been infected with HBV, of whom 240 million have chronic HBV infection (CHB) [1]. In total, ~1 million people die each year from HBV-related complications [2]. China has a high prevalence of HBV infection, with ~93 million patients with CHB, and 60% of liver cirrhosis cases and 80% of hepatocellular carcinoma cases are caused by HBV infection [3]. HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (HBV-ACLF), HBV-related liver cirrhosis (HBV-LC), and HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HBV-HCC) represent severe end-stage liver diseases with rapid progression and extremely high mortality [4]. Early identification and precise evaluation of the severity and stages of these diseases will help improve clinical management to decrease the mortality.

Several scoring systems are available to assess liver function and the severity of liver injury, such as the Child-Pugh (CP) score or the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. However, some limitations of these two scores have been described [5, 6]. Recently, some models, indices, or scores derived from serum biomarkers or combinations of these serum biomarkers have been proposed, such as serum cystatin C (CysC), homocysteine (Hcy), C-reactive protein (CRP), aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI), fibrosis index based on four factors (FIB-4), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase to platelet ratio (GPR), albumin-bilirubin score (ALBI), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase to albumin ratio (GAR), and CRP to albumin ratio (CAR), and used in many HBV-related liver diseases, including CHB, HBV-ACLF, HBV-LC, and HBV-HCC, to evaluate their diagnostic and prognostic potential. Compared with traditional scoring systems, these serum biomarkers and their models are easily acquired, simple, and relatively inexpensive. Several studies have reported that these serum biomarkers and their models can complement other scoring systems to monitor and assess the severity and progression of HBV infection. However, the data on this issue are still controversial.

This review summarizes the results of the latest research on these serum biomarkers and their models as diagnostic and prognostic indices in HBV-related liver diseases. Furthermore, we examine the future directions in this field of research.

1.1. Serum Cystatin C (CysC)

Serum CysC is a cysteine proteinase inhibitor produced at a constant rate and freely filtered by the glomerular membrane. Several studies suggest that CysC is an accurate indicator of mild renal dysfunction in contrast to classic biomarkers such as the serum creatinine (Cr) or Cr-based formulae [7, 8]. Previous studies have demonstrated that CysC could be a useful predictor of acute kidney injury in patients with cardiac surgery [9], advanced liver diseases [10], and undergoing liver transplantation [11]. Additionally, CysC has been recently found to be a good biomarker of worse outcomes in patients with LC [12, 13].

Wan et al. [14] developed a novel prognostic index combining CysC with total bilirubin (TBil) that was a strong indicator for predicting the 3-month mortality in HBV-ACLF patients. It is noteworthy that in this study, the prognostic index had a higher accuracy than the CP or MELD scores when predicting the mortality of HBV-ACLF patients who had normal Cr levels.

Recently, Wu et al. [15] reported that CysC and the MELD score were positively correlated; higher CysC and MELD scores were also found to be significantly associated with death in all HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis (HBV-DeCi) patients. However, only CysC was an independent factor predicting worse prognosis in patients with normal Cr levels.

1.2. Serum Homocysteine (Hcy)

Serum Hcy is a sulfur-containing amino acid that is formed as an intermediary during hepatic methionine metabolism. It may either be remethylated to methionine or catabolized in the transsulfuration pathway to cysteine. Serum Hcy is well-documented as a predictor for cardiovascular diseases [1618]. The liver plays a central role in Hcy synthesis and metabolism. Thus, it is conceivable that in liver damage situations, alterations in Hcy may occur [1922].

Zhu and Ma [23] showed that serum levels of Hcy positively correlated with the MELD score and Cr, and there was an inverse correlation estimated for the glomerular filtration rate in the ACLF group. Furthermore, increased Hcy was associated with a worse prognosis in these patients.

1.3. Serum C-Reactive Protein (CRP)

Serum CRP is an acute phase protein found in the blood stream, the levels of which increase in response to inflammation. It has also been extensively studied in coronary artery diseases, malignant tumors, tissue necrosis, and bacterial translocation [2427]. Several studies have been performed on the association of CRP with the severity of inflammation in liver disease, such as fatty liver and chronic hepatitis C (CHC) [2831]. Few studies have been performed to examine the value of the CRP in assessing the conditions of liver function damage among HBV-related liver diseases.

Zhu et al. [32] showed that CRP and the leukocyte count were positively correlated, but there were no correlations between CRP and the MELD score. The authors suggested that CRP, similar to the MELD score, is an additional independent predictor of short-term mortality. A combination of CRP and the MELD score could increase the prediction efficiency to 92%.

1.4. CRP to Albumin Ratio (CAR)

CAR, which is calculated as CRP level divided by the albumin level, was initially used to assess the outcome of patients with acute medical admissions and sepsis [33, 34]. The prognostic ability of CAR has been recently reported in patients with infection, malignancy, and other diseases [3538]. However, to date, the clinical usefulness of CAR in HBV-related diseases has only been investigated in a limited number of studies.

Huang et al. [39] found that an increased CAR was significantly associated with worse outcomes in HBV-DeCi patients. CAR was first identified as a better prognostic factor compared with the MELD and CP scores using time-dependent ROC curves and time-dependent DeCi.

In a following investigation, Wang et al. [40] showed that the CAR, MELD, and CP scores were positively correlated. The CAR and MELD scores were also found to be a significant predictor of mortality in HBV-DeCi patients. Their analysis suggests that CAR had more accuracy than that of CRP alone in terms of its prognostic ability in HBV-DeCi patients.

1.5. Albumin-Bilirubin Score (ALBI)

The ALBI score was initially reported by Johnson et al. to estimate liver function status in HCC patients [41]. The ALBI score involves only 2 objective parameters, albumin and TBil, and it is calculated by the following formula: [41]. The ALBI score has recently been reported to assess liver dysfunction and prognosis in patients with primary biliary cholangitis and upper gastrointestinal bleeding [42, 43]. Furthermore, the ALBI score has been investigated in several HBV-related liver diseases and has also been proposed as a predictor of worse prognosis in patients with these conditions.

Chen et al. [44] reported that the ALBI score was effective for predicting 1-, 2-, and 3-year mortality in HBV-related LC patients and superior to the CP and MELD scores.

During the same year, Chen and Lin [45] showed that the ALBI score and the MELD and CP scores were positively correlated in ACLF patients. They suggested that both the ALBI and MELD scores were independent predictors of short-term mortality. The combination of the ALBI and MELD scores provided better prediction of mortality than that of the MELD score alone in ACLF patients.

Next, Lei et al. [46] also demonstrated that the ALBI score is a strong indicator of the severity of liver function damage in patients with HBV-ACLF, HBV-LC, or HBV-HCC similar to the CP and MELD scoring systems. A higher ALBI was associated with worse prognosis.

Qi [47] reported that a high ALBI score may be used as an accurate predictor of 1-month mortality in HBV-DeCi patients and may assist physicians in determining treatment options.

One year thereafter, Wang et al. [48] revealed the ALBI score as a predicting index with a good performance to assess long-term prognosis and provide a better prognostic ability compared to MELD scores in patients with HBV-LC. However, the performance of ALBI was not superior to the CP score.

Fujita et al. [49] reported that the ALBI score can be used to stage liver fibrosis in CHB patients and differentiate cirrhotic from noncirrhotic status with an accuracy that is comparable to that of other serum markers. It is noteworthy that higher ALBI scores predicted a worse HCC-free survival.

In a prospective study including 229 HCC patients who underwent hepatectomy, Zou et al. [50] reported that the ALBI score provided better prediction of postoperative outcomes than the CP score. Moreover, the combination of future liver remnants and the ALBI score has the advantage of predicting postoperative morbidity and posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in HBV-HCC patients undergoing hepatic resection compared with future liver remnants or ALBI alone.

More recently, Mai et al. [51] reported that the ALBI-APRI score is an effective and new predictive index of PHLF for HBV-HCC, and its accuracy in predicting the risk of PHLF is better than that of the CP, ALBI, and APRI scores.

1.6. Gamma-Glutamyl Transpeptidase to Platelet Ratio (GPR)

Lemoine et al. [52] first proposed GPR as a more accurate routine laboratory biomarker than APRI and FIB-4 for staging liver fibrosis in CHB patients in West Africa in June 2015. The formula for calculating GPR is as follows: [52]. Several studies have attempted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of GPR for detecting HBV-related fibrosis, but their results were inconsistent.

Li et al. [53] reported that GPR was better than APRI and FIB-4 for assessing hepatic fibrosis in CHB patients with high HBV DNA (≥5 log10 copies/mL) and normal or mildly elevated ALT (≤2 times ULN) in a Chinese population. It is recommended to make GPR widely available to this particular population.

Next, Ren et al. [54] demonstrated that GPR has advantages compared with APRI in identifying fibrosis, significant fibrosis, and extensive fibrosis, and it was comparable with FIB-4 in diagnostic performance.

Moreover, Liu et al. [55] showed that GPR, APRI, and FIB-4 all have moderate accuracy in the prediction of different levels of liver fibrosis, though GPR has the best performance regardless of the HBeAg state.

In agreement with these findings, Lee et al. [56] also showed that GPR and FIB-4 can significantly screen the liver fibrosis status in CHB patients and that GPR displayed the best diagnostic performance.

A meta-analysis by Lian et al. [57] reported that GPR has a moderate diagnostic accuracy for predicting HBV-related significant fibrosis, severe fibrosis, and cirrhosis. Although the diagnostic accuracy of GPR is not high, GPR should be widely used in clinical practice for its strengths.

Wang et al. [58] demonstrated that GPR has a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy compared with APRI and FIB-4 in Chinese patients with CHB. Age and elevated AST and TBil may affect the diagnostic accuracy of GPR.

Next, Zhang et al. [59] indicated that the accuracy of GPR to diagnose significant fibrosis and extensive fibrosis was comparable to that of APRI, while its accuracy to diagnose cirrhosis was better. Additionally, the responsiveness of GPR was greater than that of APRI and FIB-4 during treatment with nucleoside/nucleotide analogues.

Nevertheless, Li et al. [60], Huang et al. [61], and Lu et al. [62] indicated that although GPR is a novel diagnostic model for liver fibrosis or cirrhosis, it does not display advantages compared to APRI and FIB-4 for identifying significant fibrosis, severe fibrosis, and cirrhosis in Chinese CHB patients.

Next, Hu et al. [63] demonstrated that GPR is more accurate, sensitive, and easy to use than FIB-4 and APRI, and it can significantly improve the sensitivity and specificity of hepatic fibrosis diagnosis in CHB when combined with FIB-4 or APRI.

During the same year, Desalegn et al. [64] found that APRI, FIB-4, and GPR had good diagnostic performance for assessing liver fibrosis or cirrhosis in CHB patients in East Africa. However, the sensitivities of all the tests were poor.

Next, Hamidi et al. [65] showed that APRI, FIB-4, and GGT were successful for the detection of liver fibrosis in CHB patients. GPR and FIB-4 may be useful for predicting advanced fibrosis in cases with CHB.

Wang et al. [66] demonstrated that age may influence the diagnostic thresholds and performance of APRI, FIB-4, and GPR for significant fibrosis in CHB patients. These scores performed poorly for identifying significant fibrosis in younger patients (≤30 years).

Wang et al. [67] found that a represents a risk factor for the adverse prognosis of HBV-HCC after hepatic resection, and GPR served as a strong predictive factor for HBV-HCC overall survival.

In a following investigation, Pang et al. [68] also demonstrated that a low GPR may correlate with good survival and recurrence-free survival after therapy in HBV-HCC patients. Moreover, the GPR can be applied to evaluate liver function and stage of liver fibrosis and to predict the prognosis in these patients.

Park et al. [69] showed that GPR could serve as an effective index to assess the risk of HCC development in CHB patients.

Liu et al. [70] demonstrated that age, GPR, and the MELD score are independent risk factors associated with HBV-ACLF prognosis. Incorporating GPR into the MELD score may improve the prognostic assessment of patients with HBV-ACLF.

Finally, Wang et al. [71] and Yu et al. [72] proposed that GPR may be used as an accurate and convenient alternative to liver biopsy in evaluating liver fibrosis and inflammation in CHB patients.

1.7. Aspartate Aminotransferase to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI)

APRI was suggested by Wai et al. [73] to predict fibrosis and cirrhosis in CHC. The formula for the calculation of APRI is as follows: [73]. In 2015, WHO published its first guideline on the management of CHB. They recommend the use of APRI as a noninvasive tool to detect liver cirrhosis in resource-limited settings [74]. Several studies have assessed the role of APRI in CHB patients, though the results remain controversial.

Wai et al. [75] reported that the accuracy of the best predictive models for APRI was only modest for significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in CHB patients.

Shin et al. [76] found that APRI might be a readily available index for predicting significant fibrosis, with CHB and APRI potentially being used to decrease the number of liver biopsies.

During the same year, Lin et al. [77] indicated that APRI is a good estimator of liver fibrosis and is more accurate for CHC than CHB.

Furthermore, Zhang et al. [78] suggested that an in combination with a can detect moderate to severe fibrosis in CHB patients.

In a subsequent investigation, Hung et al. [79] demonstrated that APRI could serve as a surrogate for the evaluation of liver functional reserve, assessment of hepatic fibrosis, and prediction of survival for HBV-related HCC patients.

Next, Liu et al. [80] proposed that patient age may influence cirrhosis, and they claimed that APRI may have better accuracy for CHB patients, especially .

Additionally, Lesmana et al. [81] showed that transient elastography (TE) and APRI both have good diagnostic accuracy for detecting F3 and greater fibrosis. APRI is better than TE for detecting F2 and greater fibrosis. A combination of both methods does not significantly increase the diagnostic accuracy and is not recommended.

Wang et al. [82] indicated that both FIB-4 and APRI are useful in identifying those without significant fibrosis with >85% accuracy. Stratifying those with or would have reduced the number of biopsies performed in the entire cohort by 72%.

Gumusay et al. [83] also suggested that hyaluronic acid, the enhanced liver fibrosis panel, and APRI have better diagnostic values for predicting moderate to severe fibrosis. However, a liver biopsy was needed for the detection of mild fibrosis in CHB patients.

During the same year, Ucar et al. [84] reported that APRI, FIB-4, and Forn’s index have better diagnostic value in patients with significant fibrosis than the diagnostic value in those with no/minimal fibrosis.

Shrivastava et al. [85] concluded that APRI and FIB-4 can be utilized in combination as a screening tool to monitor CHB patients, especially in resource-limited settings.

Xiao et al. [86] showed that APRI and FIB-4 correlate with HBV-related fibrosis levels in HCC patients. However, the accuracy of APRI and FIB-4 for predicting HBV-related LC in adult HCC patients is not very high.

In contrast, Houot et al. [87] indicated that APRI had a lower performance than FIB-4, TE, and the FibroTest in CHC and CHB.

Moreover, Huang et al. [88] also found that APRI and FIB-4 had a worse predictive ability for identifying significant, advanced LF and cirrhosis than real-time ultrasound elastography in CHB patients in China, with lower sensitivity and accuracy.

Jin et al. [89] performed a meta-analysis to determine the accuracy of APRI in the prediction of hepatic fibrosis. The summarized results suggested that APRI displayed limited value in determining HBV-related fibrosis and cirrhosis.

A systemic review and meta-analysis were performed on data from 39 studies including 16 articles focused on APRI alone, 21 articles on APRI and FIB-4, and two articles on FIB-4 for detecting different levels of liver fibrosis in patients with CHB. Xiao et al. [90] demonstrated that APRI and FIB-4 have moderate diagnostic accuracy for predicting fibrosis. Although the diagnostic accuracy of FIB-4 and APRI is not high, they can still be considered as a choice for the prediction of fibrosis caused by CHB infection in regions with limited healthcare resources.

Finally, Mao et al. [91] showed that elevated APRI was associated with an increased severity of liver disease and short-term mortality in HBV-LC patients. Their results indicated that APRI and the MELD score were two independent models for predicting adverse outcomes. A combination of the MELD score and APRI further augmented the predicting power.

1.8. Fibrosis Index Based on Four Factors (FIB-4)

The FIB-4 index was initially developed by Sterling et al. to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HCV/HIV coinfection [92]. The formula for the calculation of FIB-4 is as follows: [92]. The FIB-4 index has also been validated in HBV-infected patients in numerous studies, but the diagnostic value of FIB-4 remains controversial.

Mallet et al. [93] stated that the FIB-4 index was accurate in the evaluation of nil-to-moderate fibrosis in CHB.

In a subsequent investigation, Kim et al. [94] pointed out that FIB-4 cut-offs of 1.6 and 3.6 provided a 93.2% negative predictive value and a 90.8% positive predictive value for the detection of cirrhosis, respectively. Based on these results, liver biopsies could be avoided in 70.5% of the study population.

Additionally, Erdogan et al. [95] suggested that the FIB-4 index may be useful in estimating the extent of fibrosis in CHB patients.

Ma et al. [96] demonstrated that APRI, FIB-4, and Lok’s model are very effective in staging fibrosis in CHB patients. FIB-4 and Lok’s model are the best models to distinguish between extensive and significant fibrosis.

Koksal et al. [97] showed that FIB-4, RPR, and platelet count were better for displaying advanced fibrosis. Moreover, these markers can be used to monitor the response to treatment.

Kim et al. [98] confirmed that not only APRI but also FIB-4 was an effective predictor of HCC development and CHB patient prognosis.

More recently, Lee et al. [99] denoted that FIB-4 is useful for the noninvasive prediction of HCC development, while APRI and GPR were less useful.

Li et al. [100] reported that FIB-4 and APRI predicted the hepatic fibrosis stage with a high degree of accuracy in both CHB and CHC patients. FIB-4 was a slightly better predictor in CHC populations but not in CHB populations.

However, Zhu et al. [101] showed that APRI and FIB-4 were not superior to FibroScan for the diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in Western Chinese CHB patients.

Furthermore, Kim et al. [102] indicated that APRI and FIB-4 models were not suitable for use in clinical practice in CHB patients for the assessment of liver fibrosis, especially in gauging improvements in liver fibrosis following therapy.

A meta-analysis by Li et al. [103] indicated that FIB-4 is valuable for detecting significant fibrosis and cirrhosis but has suboptimal accuracy when excluding fibrosis and cirrhosis in HBV-infected patients.

Another meta-analysis by Yin et al. [104] showed that FIB-4 has a relatively high diagnostic value for detecting liver fibrosis in CHB when the diagnostic threshold value was greater than 2.0.

1.9. Gamma-Glutamyl Transpeptidase to Albumin Ratio (GAR)

GAR is calculated as GGT level divided by albumin level. It is an accurate and low-priced index to identify patients with obvious fibrosis or cirrhosis.

Li et al. [105] reported that GAR is a simple noninvasive biomarker compared to APRI and FIB-4 to stage significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in CHB patients and represents a novel noninvasive alternative to liver biopsy.

2. Conclusions

This review assessed the value of serum biomarkers and their models in HBV-related liver diseases. The significance of serum CysC, serum Hcy, serum CRP, CAR, ALBI score, FIB-4 index, APRI, GPR, and GAR in the diagnosis and prognosis of HBV-related liver diseases has been indicated in many studies, as shown above. The most crucial studies regarding these serum biomarkers and their models are summarized in Table 1.


Study typeStudySample sizeMain findingsRefs.

Serum CysC
 ProspectiveWan et al. (2015)72 ACLFCysC plus total bilirubin can predict the short-term outcomes in HBV-ACLF patients.[14]
 RetrospectiveWu et al. (2019)75 DeCiHigh CysC can be considered a simple marker of 3-month mortality in HBV-DeCi patients.[15]
Serum Hcy
 RetrospectiveZhu et al. (2018)52 ACLF, 52 CHB, and 65 HCsSerum Hcy can be an effective predictor of a worse prognosis in HBV-ACLF patients.[23]
Serum CRP
 RetrospectiveZhu et al. (2017)140 DeCiElevated CRP was associated with short-term mortality in HBV-DeCi patients.[32]
CAR
 RetrospectiveHuang et al. (2017)329 DeCiCAR was associated with the prognosis of HBV-DeCi and is superior to the MELD and CP scores in HBV-DeCi mortality prediction.[39]
 RetrospectiveWang et al. (2019)113 DeCiHigh CAR was associated with 1-month mortality in HBV-DeCi patients.[40]
ALBI score
 RetrospectiveChen et al. (2017)806 LCALBI is a simple predictor of long-term mortality in LC patients compared with the CP and MELD scores.[44]
 RetrospectiveChen et al. (2017)84 AoCLF, 56 CHB, and 48 HCsA high ALBI score may be used as a predictor for the 3-month mortality in HBV-ACLF patients.[45]
 RetrospectiveLei et al. (2018)138 ACLF, 130 LC, and 127 HCCALBI showed parallel tendencies to the CP and MELD scores in HBV-ACLF, HBV-LC, and HBV-HCC patients.[46]
 RetrospectiveQi et al. (2018)81 DeCiALBI is an accurate index to predict 1-month outcomes in HBV-DeCi patients.[47]
 RetrospectiveWang et al. (2019)398 LCThe ALBI score accurately predicts the severity and prognosis of HBV-LC patients, and its prognostic performance was superior to the MELD score.[48]
 RetrospectiveFujita et al. (2019)91 CHBThe ALBI score can be used for liver fibrosis staging in CHB, and a lower ALBI score predicts better HCC-free survival.[49]
 ProspectiveZou et al. (2018)229 HCCThe ALBI score was a superior predictive value of postoperative outcomes over the CP score.[50]
 RetrospectiveMai et al. (2019)1,055 HCCThe ALBI-APRI score is an accurate predictive model of posthepatectomy liver failure for HCC patients.[51]
GPR
 RetrospectiveLemoine et al. (2016)135 treatment-naïve CHBGPR is a more accurate index than that of APRI and FIB-4 to stage liver fibrosis in CHB patients.[52]
 RetrospectiveLi et al. (2016)1521 CHBGPR shows advantages in assessing hepatic fibrosis in patients with and times ULN compared with APRI and FIB-4.[53]
 RetrospectiveRen et al. (2017)160 treatment-naïve CHBGPR is a simple laboratory marker to stage liver fibrosis in CHB patients.[54]
 RetrospectiveLiu et al. (2018)2016 CHBGPR had the best performance in predicting different stages of fibrosis compared with APRI and FIB-4.[55]
 RetrospectiveLee et al. (2018)278 CHBFIB-4 and GPR are a simple model for evaluating the severity of liver fibrosis in CHB patients.[56]
 Meta-analysisLian et al. (2019)10 studiesGPR has moderate diagnostic accuracy for predicting HBV-related significant fibrosis, severe fibrosis, and cirrhosis.[57]
 ProspectiveWang et al. (2016)312 CHBGPR was a more reliable laboratory marker than APRI and FIB-4 for predicting the stage of liver fibrosis in Chinese CHB patients.[58]
 RetrospectiveZhang et al. (2018)1168 CHBGPR is considered a simple index for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and the dynamic assessment of treatment responses in Chinese CHB patients.[59]
 RetrospectiveLi et al. (2016)372 CHBGPR does not display advantages compared to APRI and FIB-4 for identifying significant fibrosis, severe fibrosis, and cirrhosis in CHB patients.[60]
 RetrospectiveHuang et al. (2017)256 CHBGPR does not show advantages compared to APRI and FIB-4 in assessing liver fibrosis, advanced fibrosis, or cirrhosis in Chinese CHB patients.[61]
 RetrospectiveLu et al. (2018)397 treatment-naïve CHBGPR does not appear to represent a significant step forward compared with FIB-4 and APRI.[62]
 RetrospectiveHu et al. (2017)390 treatment-naïve CHBGPR can improve the sensitivity and specificity of hepatic fibrosis diagnosis in CHB when combined with FIB-4 or APRI.[63]
 RetrospectiveDesalegn et al. (2017)582 treatment-naïve CHBAPRI, FIB-4, and GPR had good diagnostic properties in CHB patients, though the sensitivities of the tests were low.[64]
 RetrospectiveHamidi et al. (2019)202 CHBGPR and FIB-4 may be useful for predicting advanced fibrosis in CHB.[65]
 RetrospectiveWang et al. (2019)496 CHBAge may influence the diagnostic thresholds and performance of APRI, FIB-4, and GPR for significant fibrosis in CHB patients.[66]
 RetrospectiveWang et al. (2016)357 HCCGPR served as an independent predictive factor for HBV-HCC overall survival.[67]
 RetrospectivePang et al. (2016)182 HCCGPR is a simple predictor of outcomes in HBV-HCC.[68]
 RetrospectivePark et al. (2017)1109 CHBGPR can serve as a noninvasive index to assess the risk of HCC development in CHB patients.[69]
 Retrospective+prospectiveLiu et al. (2018)355 ACLFIncorporating GPR into MELD may provide more accurate survival prediction in HBV-ACLF patients.[70]
 RetrospectiveWang et al. (2018)519 CHBGPR can be an effective model for predicting liver inflammation in CHB.[71]
 RetrospectiveYu et al. (2019)160 treatment-naïve CHBGPR is an effective model to assess liver fibrosis and inflammation activity.[72]
APRI
 RetrospectiveWai et al. (2006)218 treatment-naïve CHBAPRI was not able to accurately predict cirrhosis in CHB patients.[75]
 RetrospectiveShin et al. (2008)264 CHBAPRI may be an effective index for predicting significant fibrosis in CHB.[76]
 RetrospectiveLin et al. (2008)48 CHB, 40 CHC, and 9 HCs.APRI could be used to decrease the number of liver biopsies.[77]
 RetrospectiveZhang et al. (2008)137 CHBAPRI combined with hyaluronic acid could achieve a better diagnostic accuracy of liver fibrosis.[78]
 RetrospectiveHung et al. (2010)76 HCCAPRI can be an effective model for assessing liver fibrosis and predicting survival in HBV-HCC patients.[79]
 Cross-sectional studyLiu et al. (2011)623 CHBAPRI may have better accuracy for CHB patients, especially years in age.[80]
 Cross-sectional studyLesmana et al. (2011)117 CHBAPRI is a simple index to screen liver fibrosis in the primary care setting.[81]
 RetrospectiveWang et al. (2013)239 CHBBoth FIB-4 and APRI are useful for the identification of those without significant fibrosis. However, they have a poor positive predictive value.[82]
 ProspectiveGumusay et al. (2013)58 CHB and 30 HCsCombination of the enhanced liver fibrosis panel and APRI has a better diagnostic value in predicting in CHB patients.[83]
 RetrospectiveUcar et al. (2013)73 CHBAPRI, FIB-4, and Forn’s index have a better diagnostic value in patients with significant fibrosis than the diagnostic value in those with no/minimal fibrosis.[84]
 Cross-sectional studyShrivastava et al. (2013)52 CHB and 25HCsAPRI and FIB-4 can be utilized in combination as screening tools to monitor CHB patients.[85]
 Retrospective+prospectiveXiao et al. (2016)2176 LC accompanied with HCCAPRI and FIB-4 correlate with liver fibrosis, but they have low accuracy for predicting HBV-LC in HCC patients.[86]
 Systematic review+meta-analysisHouot et al. (2016)71 studiesAPRI had lower performance than that of FIB-4, TE, and FibroTest in CHC and CHB.[87]
 RetrospectiveHuang et al. (2019)91 CHBReal-time ultrasound elastography is reliable for the assessment of liver fibrosis in CHB patients and has better discrimination power than that of APRI and FIB-4.[88]
 Meta-analysisJin et al. (2012)9 studiesAPRI displayed limited value in identifying HBV-related fibrosis and cirrhosis.[89]
 Systematic review+meta-analysisXiao et al. (2015)39 articlesAPRI and FIB-4 can identify HBV-related fibrosis with a moderate sensitivity and accuracy.[90]
 RetrospectiveMao et al. (2016)193 CHB and 88 HCsAPRI can be a simple predictor of adverse outcomes in HBV-DeCi patients.[91]
FIB-4
 RetrospectiveMallet et al. (2009)138 CHBFIB-4 is a cheap index to screen liver fibrosis in CHB.[93]
 Cross-sectional studyKim et al. (2010)668 CHBFIB-4 may reduce the need for liver biopsy in the majority of CHB patients.[94]
 RetrospectiveErdogan et al. (2013)221 CHBFIB-4 may be useful in estimating the extent of fibrosis in CHB patients.[95]
 RetrospectiveMa et al. (2013)1168 CHBFIB-4 and Lok’s model are the most effective models for distinguishing significant and extensive fibrosis.[96]
 RetrospectiveKoksal et al. (2016)228 CHBFIB-4, RPR, and platelet count were better for demonstrating advanced fibrosis.[97]
 RetrospectiveKim et al. (2016)542 CHBAPRI and FIB-4 were effective predictors of HCC development and CHB patient prognosis.[98]
 RetrospectiveKim et al. (2019)444 CHBFIB-4 is useful for the noninvasive prediction of HCC development, while APRI and GPR were less useful.[99]
 RetrospectiveLi et al. (2014)284 CHBFIB-4 and APRI predicted the liver fibrosis stage with a high degree of accuracy in both CHB and CHC patients.[100]
 ProspectivelyZhu et al. (2011)175 CHBAPRI and FIB-4 were not superior to FibroScan for the diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in Western Chinese CHB patients.[101]
 RetrospectiveKim et al. (2016)575 CHBFIB-4 is not reliable for detecting the regression of fibrosis following antiviral treatment.[102]
 Meta-analysisLi et al. (2014)22 studiesFIB-4 is valuable for detecting significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in HBV-infected patients but has suboptimal accuracy when excluding fibrosis and cirrhosis.[103]
 Meta-analysisYin et al. (2017)26 studiesFIB-4 has a high diagnostic value for detecting liver fibrosis in CHB patients when the diagnostic threshold value is greater than 2.0.[104]
GAR
 RetrospectiveLi et al. (2017)822 CHBGAR shows obvious advantages when predicting significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in Chinese CHB patients compared with APRI and FIB-4.[105]

Abbreviations: ACLF—acute-on-chronic liver failure; CHB—chronic hepatitis B; CHC—chronic hepatitis C; CP—Child-Pugh score; DeCi—decompensated cirrhosis; HBV—hepatitis B virus; HCC—hepatocellular carcinoma; HCs—healthy controls; LC—liver cirrhosis; MELD—model for end-stage liver disease; APRI—aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index; FIB-4—fibrosis index based on the four factors; GPR—gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase to platelet ratio; TE—transient elastography; ULN—upper limit of normal.

The last decade has seen significant progress in the development of noninvasive liver disease assessments in CHB patients. These assessments are not only used to identify patients with a high risk of adverse outcomes but also to monitor disease progression and therapeutic responses after interventions. Additionally, several studies also pointed out that these models should be used in combination with other noninvasive indices to achieve more efficient diagnostic and prognostic efficiency. Of course, the clinical utility of these serum biomarkers and their models as diagnostic and prognostic indices in HBV-related liver diseases requires further verification, and concrete steps should be undertaken to define standards that can serve as guidelines for effectively using serum biomarkers and their models as tools for diagnostic and prognostic assessments.

Abbreviations

ACLF:Acute-on-chronic liver failure
APRI:Aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index
CHB:Chronic hepatitis B
CHC:Chronic hepatitis C
CP:Child-Pugh score
Cr:Creatinine
DeCi:Decompensated cirrhosis
FIB-4:Fibrosis index based on four factors
GPR:Gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase to platelet ratio
HBV:Hepatitis B virus
HCC:Hepatocellular carcinoma
HCs:Healthy controls
LC:Liver cirrhosis
MELD:Model for end-stage liver disease
TE:Transient elastography
TBil:Total bilirubin
ULN:Upper limit of normal.

Data Availability

This is a review article and it does not need data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. J. J. Ott, G. A. Stevens, J. Groeger, and S. T. Wiersma, “Global epidemiology of hepatitis B virus infection: new estimates of age-specific HBsAg seroprevalence and endemicity,” Vaccine, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 2212–2219, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. R. Lozano, M. Naghavi, K. Foreman et al., “Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010,” Lancet, vol. 380, no. 9859, pp. 2095–2128, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. F. S. Wang, J. G. Fan, Z. Zhang, B. Gao, and H. Y. Wang, “The global burden of liver disease: the major impact of China,” Hepatology, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2099–2108, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. R. Jalan, P. Gines, J. C. Olson et al., “Acute-on chronic liver failure,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1336–1348, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. F. Durand and D. Valla, “Assessment of prognosis of cirrhosis,” Seminars in Liver Disease, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 110–122, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. B. J. McMahon, “The natural history of chronic hepatitis B virus infection,” Hepatology, vol. 49, no. S5, pp. S45–S55, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. D. J. Newman, H. Thakkar, R. G. Edwards et al., “Serum cystatin C measured by automated immunoassay: a more sensitive marker of changes in GFR than serum creatinine,” Kidney International, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 312–318, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. M. G. Shlipak, K. Matsushita, J. Ärnlöv et al., “Cystatin C versus creatinine in determining risk based on kidney function,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 369, no. 10, pp. 932–943, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. M. G. Shlipak, S. G. Coca, Z. Wang et al., “Presurgical serum cystatin C and risk of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery,” American Journal of Kidney Diseases, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 366–373, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. A. L. Gerbes, V. Gülberg, M. Bilzer, and M. Vogeser, “Evaluation of serum cystatin C concentration as a marker of renal function in patients with cirrhosis of the liver,” Gut, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 106–110, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. D. Wagner, D. Kniepeiss, P. Stiegler et al., “The assessment of GFR after orthotopic liver transplantation using cystatin C and creatinine-based equations,” Transplant International, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 527–536, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. D. Markwardt, L. Holdt, C. Steib et al., “Plasma cystatin C is a predictor of renal dysfunction, acute-on-chronic liver failure, and mortality in patients with acutely decompensated liver cirrhosis,” Hepatology, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1232–1241, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. R. Maiwall, A. Kumar, A. Bhardwaj, G. Kumar, A. S. Bhadoria, and S. K. Sarin, “Cystatin C predicts acute kidney injury and mortality in cirrhotics: a prospective cohort study,” Liver International, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 654–664, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. Z. Wan, Y. Wu, J. Yi et al., “Combining serum cystatin C with total bilirubin improves short-term mortality prediction in patients with HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 1, article e0116968, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. J. Wu, Q. Wu, M. Wu, and W. Mao, “Serum cystatin C predicts mortality in HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2019, Article ID 7272045, 6 pages, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. Homocysteine Studies Collaboration, “Homocysteine and risk of ischemic heart disease and Stroke,” JAMA, vol. 288, no. 16, pp. 2015–2022, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. L. E. Bautista, I. A. Arenas, A. Penuela, and L. X. Martinez, “Total plasma homocysteine level and risk of cardiovascular disease: a metaanalysis of prospective cohort studies,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 882–887, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. S. E. Vollset, H. Refsum, A. Tverdal et al., “Plasma total homocysteine and cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality: the Hordaland Homocysteine Study,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 74, pp. 130–136, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. P. Ventura, M. C. Rosa, G. Abbati et al., “Hyperhomocysteinaemia in chronic liver diseases: role of disease stage, vitamin status and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase genetics,” Liver International, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 49–56, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. M. A. Gabr, S. S. E.-D. Bessa, and E. A. El-Zamarani, “Portal vein thrombosis in Egyptian patients with liver cirrhosis: role of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T gene mutation,” Hepatology Research, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 486–493, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M. Gulsen, Z. Yesilova, S. Bagci et al., “Elevated plasma homocysteine concentrations as a predictor of steatohepatitis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease,” Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1448–1455, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. R. A. Bhanji, M. Ma, V. G. Bain, and A. J. Montano-Loza, “Hyperhomocysteinemia is associated with severity of cirrhosis and negative impact after liver transplantation,” Liver International, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 696–704, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. H. D. Zhu and Y. C. Ma, “Serum homocysteine as a prognostic biomarker for short-term mortality in HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure patients,” Clinical Laboratory, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 727–733, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. Shameem, R. Bhargava, Z. Ahmad, T. Saad, N. Fatima, and A. Malik, “Association between serum C-reactive protein levels and other important predictive markers of outcome in COPD,” Acta Medica Iranica, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 18–20, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  25. S. Nagaoka, T. Yoshida, J. Akiyoshi et al., “Serum C-reactive protein levels predict survival in hepatocellular carcinoma,” Liver International, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1091–1097, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. F. Garcia-Rio, M. Miravitlles, J. B. Soriano et al., “Systemic inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a population-based study,” Respiratory Research, vol. 11, p. 63, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  27. A. Peisajovich, L. Marnell, C. Mold, and T. W. Du Clos, “C-reactive protein at the interface between innate immunity and inflammation,” Expert Review of Clinical Immunology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 379–390, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. P. Andreozzi, G. Viscogliosi, F. Colella et al., “Predictors of liver fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The role of metabolic syndrome, insulin-resistance and inflammation,” Recenti Progressi in Medicina, vol. 103, no. 12, pp. 570–574, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. L. N. Ma, X. Y. Liu, X. Luo et al., “Serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein are associated with HBV replication, liver damage and fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B,” Hepato-Gastroenterology, vol. 62, no. 138, pp. 368–372, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  30. M. Atta, M. Cabral, G. Santos, R. Paraná, and A. Atta, “Inflammation biomarkers in chronic hepatitis C: association with liver histopathology, HCV genotype and cryoglobulinemia,” Inflammation Research, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 1101–1106, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. C. Sjöwall, K. Cardell, E. A. Boström et al., “High prevalence of autoantibodies to C-reactive protein in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection: association with liver fibrosis and portal inflammation,” Human Immunology, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 382–388, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. S. Zhu, Y. Waili, X. Qi, Y. Chen, Y. Lou, and B. Chen, “Serum C-reactive protein predicts early mortality in hospitalized patients with HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis,” Medicine, vol. 96, no. 4, article e5988, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. E. Fairclough, E. Cairns, J. Hamilton, and C. Kelly, “Evaluation of a modified early warning system for acute medical admissions and comparison with C-reactive protein/albumin ratio as a predictor of patient outcome,” Clinical Medicine, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 30–33, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. O. T. Ranzani, F. G. Zampieri, D. N. Forte, L. C. P. Azevedo, and M. Park, “C-reactive protein/albumin ratio predicts 90-day mortality of septic patients,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 3, article e59321, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. M. H. Kim, J. Y. Ahn, J. E. Song et al., “The C-reactive protein/albumin ratio as an independent predictor of mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock treated with early goal-directed therapy,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 7, article e0132109, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. X.-L. Wei, F.-H. Wang, D.-S. Zhang et al., “A novel inflammation-based prognostic score in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: the C-reactive protein/albumin ratio,” BMC Cancer, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 350, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. A. Kinoshita, H. Onoda, N. Imai et al., “The C-reactive protein/albumin ratio, a novel inflammation-based prognostic score, predicts outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 803–810, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. M. Wu, J. Guo, L. Guo, and Q. Zuo, “The C-reactive protein/albumin ratio predicts overall survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer,” Tumour Biology, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 12525–12533, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. S. S. Huang, D. M. Xie, Y. J. Cai et al., “C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio is a predictor of hepatitis B virus related decompensated cirrhosis: time-dependent receiver operating characteristics and decision curve analysis,” European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 472–480, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. C. J. Wang, J. P. Wu, W. Q. Zhou, W. L. Mao, and H. B. Huang, “The C-reactive protein/albumin ratio as a predictor of mortality in patients with HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis,” Clinical Laboratory, vol. 65, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. P. J. Johnson, S. Berhane, C. Kagebayashi et al., “Assessment of liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a new evidence-based approach-the ALBI grade,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 550–558, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. A. W. H. Chan, R. C. K. Chan, G. L. H. Wong et al., “New simple prognostic score for primary biliary cirrhosis: albumin-bilirubin score,” Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1391–1396, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. D. Zou, X. Qi, C. Zhu et al., “Albumin-bilirubin score for predicting the in-hospital mortality of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in liver cirrhosis: a retrospective study,” The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 180–186, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. R. C. Chen, Y. J. Cai, J. M. Wu et al., “Usefulness of albumin-bilirubin grade for evaluation of long-term prognosis for hepatitis B-related cirrhosis,” Journal of Viral Hepatitis, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 238–245, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. B. Chen and S. Lin, “Albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score at admission predicts possible outcomes in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure,” Medicine, vol. 96, no. 24, article e7142, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. Q. Lei, Y. Zhang, C. Ke et al., “Value of the albumin-bilirubin score in the evaluation of hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure, liver cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma,” Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 3074–3079, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. X. T. Qi, “Albumin-bilirubin score predicts short-term mortality in patients with hepatitis B virus-related decompensated cirrhosis,” Clinical Laboratory, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 777–783, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. J. Wang, Z. Zhang, X. Yan et al., “Albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) as an accurate and simple prognostic score for chronic hepatitis B-related liver cirrhosis,” Digestive and Liver Disease, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 1172–1178, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. K. Fujita, T. Nomura, A. Morishita et al., “Albumin-bilirubin score differentiates liver fibrosis stage and hepatocellular carcinoma incidence in chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a retrospective cohort study,” The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 220–225, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. H. Zou, Y. Wen, K. Yuan, X. Y. Miao, L. Xiong, and K. J. Liu, “Combining albumin-bilirubin score with future liver remnant predicts post-hepatectomy liver failure in HBV-associated HCC patients,” Liver International, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 494–502, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. R.-Y. Mai, Y.-Y. Wang, T. Bai et al., “Combination of ALBI and APRI to predict post-hepatectomy liver failure after liver resection for HBV-related HCC patients,” Cancer Management and Research, vol. Volume 11, pp. 8799–8806, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. M. Lemoine, Y. Shimakawa, S. Nayagam et al., “The gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase to platelet ratio (GPR) predicts significant liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic HBV infection in West Africa,” Gut, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 1369–1376, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. Q. Li, W. Li, Y. Huang, and L. Chen, “The gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio predicts liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in HBeAg-positive chronic HBV infection patients with high HBV DNA and normal or mildly elevated alanine transaminase levels in China,” Journal of Viral Hepatitis, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 912–919, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. T. Ren, H. Wang, R. Wu, and J. Niu, “Gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio predicts significant liver fibrosis of chronic hepatitis B patients in China,” Gastroenterology Research and Practice, vol. 2017, Article ID 7089702, 7 pages, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. D. P. Liu, W. Lu, Z. Q. Zhang et al., “Comparative evaluation of GPR versus APRI and FIB-4 in predicting different levels of liver fibrosis of chronic hepatitis B,” Journal of Viral Hepatitis, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 581–589, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. J. Lee, M. Y. Kim, S. H. Kang et al., “The gamma-glutamyl transferase to platelet ratio and the FIB-4 score are noninvasive markers to determine the severity of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B infection,” British Journal of Biomedical Science, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 128–132, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. M. J. Lian, J. Q. Zhang, S. D. Chen, D. D. Zhang, Y. Y. Yang, and G. L. Hong, “Diagnostic accuracy of γ-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio for predicting hepatitis B-related fibrosis: a meta-analysis,” European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 599–606, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. R.-Q. Wang, Q.-S. Zhang, S.-X. Zhao et al., “Gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase to platelet ratio index is a good noninvasive biomarker for predicting liver fibrosis in Chinese chronic hepatitis B patients,” The Journal of International Medical Research, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1302–1313, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. W. Zhang, M. Sun, G. Chen et al., “Reassessment of gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase to platelet ratio (GPR): a large-sample, dynamic study based on liver biopsy in a Chinese population with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection,” Gut, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 989–991, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. Q. Li, J. Song, Y. Huang et al., “The gamma-glutamyl-transpeptidase to platelet ratio does not show advantages than APRI and Fib-4 in diagnosing significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a retrospective cohort study in China,” Medicine, vol. 95, no. 16, article e3372, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. R. Huang, G. Wang, C. Tian et al., “Gamma-glutamyl-transpeptidase to platelet ratio is not superior to APRI,FIB-4 and RPR for diagnosing liver fibrosis in CHB patients in China,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 8543, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. X. J. Lu, X. H. Li, Z. X. Yuan et al., “Assessment of liver fibrosis with the gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase to platelet ratio: a multicentre validation in patients with HBV infection,” Gut, vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 1903-1904, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. Y. C. Hu, H. Liu, X. Y. Liu et al., “Value of gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio in diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 23, no. 41, pp. 7425–7432, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. H. Desalegn, H. Aberra, N. Berhe, S. G. Gundersen, and A. Johannessen, “Are non-invasive fibrosis markers for chronic hepatitis B reliable in sub-Saharan Africa?” Liver International, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1461–1467, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. A. A. Hamidi, A. Oncul, B. Y. Ozguven et al., “Diagnostic accuracy of different noninvasive scores for detecting advanced fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B,” European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1439–1443, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. W. Wang, X. Zhao, G. Li et al., “Diagnostic thresholds and performance of noninvasive fibrosis scores are limited by age in patients with chronic hepatitis B,” Journal of Medical Virology, vol. 91, no. 7, pp. 1279–1287, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. W.-L. Wang, X.-L. Zheng, Z.-Y. Zhang et al., “Preoperative γ-glutamyl transpeptidase to platelet ratio (GPR) is an independent prognostic factor for HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma after curative hepatic resection,” Medicine, vol. 95, no. 27, article e4087, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. Q. Pang, J. B. Bi, Z. X. Wang et al., “Simple models based on gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase and platelets for predicting survival in hepatitis B-associated hepatocellular carcinoma,” OncoTargets and Therapy, vol. 9, pp. 2099–2109, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. Y. E. Park, B. K. Kim, J. Y. Park et al., “Gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio is an independent predictor of hepatitis B virus-related liver cancer,” Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1221–1229, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. L. Liu, Q. Lan, L. Lin et al., “Gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio predicts the prognosis in HBV-associated acute-on-chronic liver failure,” Clinica Chimica Acta, vol. 476, pp. 92–97, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. J. Wang, J. Xia, R. Zhang et al., “A novel index using routine clinical parameters for predicting significant liver inflammation in chronic hepatitis B,” Journal of Viral Hepatitis, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1151–1160, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. K. Yu, Z. Du, Q. Li et al., “Comparison of non-invasive models for predicting liver damage in chronic hepatitis B patients,” Gastroenterología y Hepatología, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 281–288, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. C. T. Wai, J. K. Greenson, R. J. Fontana et al., “A simple noninvasive index can predict both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C,” Hepatology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 518–526, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. Guidelines for the Prevention, Care and Treatment of Persons with Chronic Hepatitis B Infection, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2015.
  75. C. T. Wai, C. L. Cheng, A. Wee et al., “Non-invasive models for predicting histology in patients with chronic hepatitis B,” Liver International, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 666–672, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. W. G. Shin, S. H. Park, M. K. Jang et al., “Aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI) can predict liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B,” Digestive and Liver Disease, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 267–274, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. C. S. Lin, C. S. Chang, S. S. Yang, H. Z. Yeh, and C. W. Lin, “Retrospective evaluation of serum markers APRI and AST/ALT for assessing liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis B and C patients with hepatocellular carcinoma,” Internal Medicine, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 569–575, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. Y. X. Zhang, W. J. Wu, Y. Z. Zhang, Y. L. Feng, X. X. Zhou, and Q. Pan, “Noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis with combined serum aminotransferase/platelet ratio index and hyaluronic acid in patients with chronic hepatitis B,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 14, no. 46, pp. 7117–7121, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. H. H. Hung, C. W. Su, C. R. Lai et al., “Fibrosis and AST to platelet ratio index predict post-operative prognosis for solitary small hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma,” Hepatology International, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 691–699, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. H. B. Liu, J. P. Zhou, Y. Zhang, X. H. Lv, and W. Wang, “Prediction on liver fibrosis using different APRI thresholds when patient age is a categorical marker in patients with chronic hepatitis B,” Clinica Chimica Acta, vol. 412, no. 1-2, pp. 33–37, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. C. R. A. Lesmana, S. Salim, I. Hasan et al., “Diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography (FibroScan) versus the aspartate transaminase to platelet ratio index in assessing liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B: the role in primary care setting,” Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 64, no. 10, pp. 916–920, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. H. Wang, L. Xue, R. Yan et al., “Comparison of FIB-4 and APRI in Chinese HBV-infected patients with persistently normal ALT and mildly elevated ALT,” Journal of Viral Hepatitis, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. e3–10, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. Ö. Gümüşay, S. Özenirler, A. Atak et al., “Diagnostic potential of serum direct markers and non-invasive fibrosis models in patients with chronic hepatitis B,” Hepatology Research, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 228–237, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. F. Ucar, S. Sezer, Z. Ginis et al., “APRI, the FIB-4 score, and Forn’s index have noninvasive diagnostic value for liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B,” European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1076–1081, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. R. Shrivastava, S. Sen, D. Banerji, A. K. Praharaj, G. S. Chopra, and S. S. Gill, “Assessment of non-invasive models for liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B virus related liver disease patients in resource limited settings,” Indian Journal of Pathology & Microbiology, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 196–199, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. G. Xiao, F. Zhu, M. Wang et al., “Diagnostic accuracy of APRI and FIB-4 for predicting hepatitis B virus-related liver fibrosis accompanied with hepatocellular carcinoma,” Digestive and Liver Disease, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1220–1226, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. M. Houot, Y. Ngo, M. Munteanu, S. Marque, and T. Poynard, “Systematic review with meta-analysis: direct comparisons of biomarkers for the diagnosis of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C and B,” Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 16–29, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. D. Huang, T. Lin, S. Wang et al., “The liver fibrosis index is superior to the APRI and FIB-4 for predicting liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B patients in China,” BMC Infectious Diseases, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 878, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. W. Jin, Z. Lin, Y. Xin, X. Jiang, Q. Dong, and S. Xuan, “Diagnostic accuracy of the aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index for the prediction of hepatitis B-related fibrosis: a leading meta-analysis,” BMC Gastroenterology, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 14, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. G. Xiao, J. Yang, and L. Yan, “Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index and fibrosis-4 index for detecting liver fibrosis in adult patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a systemic review and meta-analysis,” Hepatology, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 292–302, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. W. Mao, Q. Sun, J. Fan, S. Lin, and B. Ye, “AST to platelet ratio index predicts mortality in hospitalized patients with hepatitis B-related decompensated cirrhosis,” Medicine, vol. 95, no. 9, article e2946, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. R. K. Sterling, E. Lissen, N. Clumeck et al., “Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection,” Hepatology, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1317–1325, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. V. Mallet, V. Dhalluin-Venier, C. Roussin et al., “The accuracy of the FIB-4 index for the diagnosis of mild fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B,” Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 409–415, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. B. K. Kim, D. Y. Kim, J. Y. Park et al., “Validation of FIB-4 and comparison with other simple noninvasive indices for predicting liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in hepatitis B virus-infected patients,” Liver International, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 546–553, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. S. Erdogan, H. O. Dogan, S. Sezer et al., “The diagnostic value of non-invasive tests for the evaluation of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B patients,” Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 300–308, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. J. Ma, Y. Jiang, and G. Gong, “Evaluation of seven noninvasive models in staging liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection,” European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 428–434, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. A. R. Koksal, H. Alkim, S. Boga et al., “Effect of entecavir and tenofovir treatment on noninvasive fibrosis scores: which one is better?” American Journal of Therapeutics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. e429–e438, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. J. H. Kim, J. W. Kim, J. W. Seo, W. H. Choe, and S. Y. Kwon, “Noninvasive tests for fibrosis predict 5-year mortality and hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 882–888, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. M. N. Kim, J. H. Lee, Y. E. Chon, Y. Ha, and S. G. Hwang, “Fibrosis-4, aspartate transaminase-to-platelet ratio index, and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio for risk assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B patients: comparison with liver biopsy,” European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 433–439, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. J. Li, S. C. Gordon, L. B. Rupp et al., “The validity of serum markers for fibrosis staging in chronic hepatitis B and C,” Journal of Viral Hepatitis, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 930–937, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. X. Zhu, L. C. Wang, E. Q. Chen et al., “Prospective evaluation of FibroScan for the diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis compared with liver biopsy/AST platelet ratio index and FIB-4 in patients with chronic HBV infection,” Digestive Diseases and Sciences, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 2742–2749, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. W. R. Kim, T. Berg, T. Asselah et al., “Evaluation of APRI and FIB-4 scoring systems for non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B patients,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 773–780, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. Q. Li, C. Lu, W. Li, Y. Huang, and L. Chen, “The gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-albumin ratio predicts significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis B patients,” Journal of Viral Hepatitis, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1143–1150, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. Z. Yin, J. Zou, Q. Li, and L. Chen, “Diagnostic value of FIB-4 for liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis B: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 14, pp. 22944–22953, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. Y. Li, Y. Chen, and Y. Zhao, “The diagnostic value of the FIB-4 index for staging hepatitis B-related fibrosis: a meta-analysis,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 8, article e105728, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Jian Ping Wu and Wei Lin Mao. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views348
Downloads251
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.