Vibration-controlled transient elastography for significant fibrosis in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Article information

Clin Mol Hepatol. 2024;30(Suppl):S106-S116

Publication date (electronic) : 2024 July 23

doi : https://doi.org/10.3350/cmh.2024.0371

Mi Na Kim ¹^,²^,^*, Jihyun An ³^,^*, Eun Hwa Kim ⁴, Hee Yeon Kim ⁵, Han Ah Lee ⁶, Jung Hwan Yu ⁷, Young-Joo Jin ⁷, Young Eun Chon ⁸, Seung Up Kim ¹^,², Dae Won Jun ⁹, Ji Won Han^,¹⁰

, Miyoung Choi^,¹¹

¹Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Yonsei Liver Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Guri, Korea

⁴Biostatistics Collaboration Unit, Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁵Department of Internal Medicine, Bucheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

⁶Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁷Department of Internal Medicine, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

⁸Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Gastroenterology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea

⁹Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

¹⁰Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

¹¹Division of Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare, Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author : Miyoung Choi Division of Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare, Collaborating Agency, Namsan Square 7F, 173 Toegye-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul 04554, Korea Tel: +82-2-2174-2848, Fax: +82-2-747-4918, E-mail: mychoi@neca.re.kr

Ji Won Han Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Korea Tel: +82-2-2258-2073, Fax: +82-2-2258-5775, E-mail: tmznjf@catholic.ac.kr

*Mi Na Kim and Jihyun An contributed equally as co-first authors.

Editor: Gi-Ae Kim, Kyung Hee University, Korea

Received 2024 May 18; Revised 2024 July 23; Accepted 2024 July 23.

Abstract

Background/Aims

Accurate diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is crucial when determining whether to initiate antiviral treatment (AVT). We conduct a meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) for significant liver fibrosis in AVT-naïve CHB patients with serum alanine transaminase (ALT) levels within 5-fold the upper limit of normal (ULN).

Methods

The Ovid-Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and KoreaMed databases were searched to identify studies that compared the performance of VCTE and liver biopsy (reference standard) when diagnosing significant liver fibrosis (≥F2) in AVT-naïve CHB patients with ALT within 5-fold the ULN. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (HSROC) and bivariate model were performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of VCTE in the meta-analysis.

Results

Eight studies (2,003 patients) were included. The summary sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66–0.86) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60–0.82), respectively. The HSROC for the diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72–0.86). The optimal cutoff value of VCTE for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis was 7.7 kPa with a sensitivity of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50–0.76) and specificity of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.72–0.90).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that VCTE has an acceptable diagnostic performance for significant liver fibrosis in AVT-naïve CHB patients with ALT within 5-fold the ULN.

Keywords: Chronic hepatitis B; Significant liver fibrosis; Vibration-controlled transient elastography; Antiviral treatment-naïve

Graphical Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Liver fibrosis is a main risk factor for progression to liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) [1]. Thus, accurate diagnosis of the liver fibrosis stage and timely initiation of effective intervention are crucial to improve the prognosis of patients with CHB. A longitudinal study of untreated CHB patients indicated that 7.4% of patients had progression of fibrosis stage during a median of 3.3 years of follow-up [2]. Indeed, regular assessment of liver fibrosis is required for patients with CHB who are not currently receiving antiviral treatment (AVT) to determine whether AVT should be initiated [3,4].

Although liver biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosis of liver fibrosis, its invasiveness, sampling variability, and inter-observer variations limit its clinical application [5,6]. Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) has been widely recommended as a noninvasive tool to assess liver fibrosis efficiently and precisely in patients with chronic liver disease, and has shown acceptable diagnostic accuracy [7-9]. Cumulative evidence indicates that the diagnostic performance of VCTE was also acceptable in patients with CHB [10-13].

The diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis is more important for patients with CHB who do not meet the serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) criterion for initiation of AVT. According to current guidelines, AVT can be initiated when significant inflammation or bridging fibrosis/cirrhosis is diagnosed, even if the ALT level does not meet the criteria [14-17]. While several meta-analyses have previously been conducted in patients with CHB [11-13], the analyses included studies regardless of whether the patients were receiving antiviral treatment or not. In addition, since the elevated ALT level more than 5-fold the upper limit of normal (ULN) can overestimate the value of VCTE [18,19], the exclusion of these patients could provide a more accurate assessment of the diagnostic performance of VCTE.

Accordingly, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of VCTE for significant liver fibrosis in AVT-naïve CHB patients with serum ALT levels within 5-fold the ULN.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the methodological recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [20] and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement [21].

Search strategy

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies assessing the diagnostic performance of VCTE for significant liver fibrosis in patients with CHB. The Ovid-Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and KoreaMed electronic databases were searched in June 2023. The search terms used to identify studies were as follows: (1) hepatitis B virus or hepatitis B or chronic hepatitis B or CHB; and (2) fibroscan or transient elastography or TE or vibration controlled transient elastography or VCTE.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included according to the following criteria: (1) patients with CHB were enrolled in the study; (2) liver biopsy was performed as the reference standard to stage fibrosis; and (3) the data were sufficient to calculate true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false- negative results for patients with fibrosis stage of ≥F2.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the articles did not focus on the diagnostic performance of VCTE; (2) special types of publications, such as patent, book section, case report, reply, letter, commentary, conference abstracts, review, or meta-analysis were excluded; (3) insufficient data to create a 2×2 table of test performance; (4) patients were diagnosed with chronic liver disease triggered by other etiologies such as alcoholic liver disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and autoimmune liver disease; (5) patients had already received AVT before undergoing biopsy or VCTE; and (6) patients had ALT more than 5-fold the ULN.

Identification of liver fibrosis

Significant liver fibrosis was identified as stage 2 to 4 fibrosis (F2–F4), using the corresponding scoring systems such as Metavir, Batts-Ludwig, and Scheuer.

Cut-off value for normal ALT

The ULN for ALT levels was defined as 40 IU/L in accordance with the values provided in the reimbursement criteria of South Korea [22], and by the European Association for the Study of the Liver [16] and Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver [17].

Study selection and data extraction

The selection of individual studies and data extraction were performed independently by two authors (MNK and JWH). Any disagreements regarding study selection or data extraction were resolved by a third author (DWJ). The basic and technical characteristics of the included studies and data regarding the diagnostic performance of VCTE were summarized in predesigned forms. Additionally, the necessary data for calculating true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives were extracted. In cases where this information was not explicitly provided in the study, these values were computed based on the reported diagnostic test sensitivity, specificity, and prevalence.

Quality assessment

The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was employed to evaluate the quality of the included studies [23]. The authors worked in pairs to independently assess the quality of selected studies, disagreements were addressed by consensus with the participation of a third reviewer (MC). The results of the QUADAS evaluation were visualized using Review Manager 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration).

Publication bias

A funnel plot was generated using the ‘mada’ and ‘meta’ packages in R version 4.3.1 to evaluate publication bias of the included studies. Egger’s test was used to evaluate funnel plot asymmetry.

Data synthesis and statistical analyses

The numbers of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives were calculated based on the reported population in biopsy-proven fibrosis stage. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (HSROC) and bivariate models were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random effects model. Study-specific estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated and graphically illustrated in a forest plot. The heterogeneity of the threshold effect was presented with the Q-I² statistic in a forest plot. We assessed statistical heterogeneity for threshold effects using I² and the Cochrane Q test. We assessed statistical heterogeneity for threshold effects using I² and the Cochrane Q test. These statistics were represented within a forest plot.

We used a linear mixed-effects model to analyze multiple-thresholds data from the individual studies, as recently proposed in the “diagmeta” package in R. The multiple-thresholds model is a multilevel random-effects model that enables the calculation of summarized sensitivities and specificities of different cut-off points, and the calculation of the predictive values, given the prevalence of the target condition of interest [24,25]. Funnel plot was generated by ‘mada’, ‘meta’ packages in R for the evaluation of publication bias. Egger’s test evaluated funnel plot asymmetry. P-value <0.05 was considered to indicate the existence of publication bias.

All statistical analyses were performed using R for Window (Version 4.3.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

RESULTS

Study selection

A flow diagram of our study selection process is presented in Figure 1. A total of 1,352 records were retrieved utilizing our primary search strategy, of which 125 were excluded due to duplication. In addition, 1,165 other irrelevant articles were excluded based on the titles and abstracts. After excluding the studies that did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, eight studies were finally selected.

Figure 1.

The flow diagram of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Study characteristics

The characteristics of the included studies are described in Table 1 [26-33]. These studies were published between 2011 and 2018. All the studies were conducted in Asian countries and had a cross-sectional design.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis

Diagnostic performance of VCTE for significant liver fibrosis

Eight studies (comprising 2,003 AVT-naïve CHB patients) evaluated the diagnostic performance of VCTE for significant liver fibrosis. The sensitivity was 0.60–0.95, and specificity was 0.31–0.88. The summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.66–0.86) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60–0.82), respectively (Fig. 2). As shown in Figure 3, the summary HSROC was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72–0.86).

Figure 2.

The forest plot of vibration-controlled transient elastography for the diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis. CI, confidence interval.

Figure 3.

The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve of vibration-controlled transient elastography for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis. HSROC; hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve; AUC, area under the curve.

A subgroup analysis was conducted for CHB patients with serum ALT levels within 2-fold the ULN. The summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.59–0.85) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.70–0.89), respectively (Supplementary Fig. 1). As shown in Supplementary Figure 2, the summary HSROC was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.66–0.92).

Optimal cut-off value of VCTE for the diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis

The optimal cutoff value of VCTE for the diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis was identified using the data from six studies that provided a single cut-off value and two studies that each provided two cut-off values. The cut-off values ranged from 5.5 to 8.0 kPa in the previous studies. The optimal cut-off value for VCTE was 7.7 kPa with a sensitivity of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50–0.76) and specificity of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.72–0.90). With this cut-off value of VCTE, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67–0.86).

Methodological quality

The results of quality assessment of the included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool are shown in Supplementary Figure 3. All the studies had low risk of bias.

Publication bias

The results of publication bias analysis are shown in the funnel plot (Supplementary Fig. 4). Application of Egger’s test revealed that significant publication bias was not found in the included studies (P=0.356).

DISCUSSION

In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included eight studies (comprising 2,003 AVT-naïve CHB patients) to investigate the diagnostic performance of VCTE for significant liver fibrosis in AVT-naïve CHB patients with ALT within 5-fold the ULN. The summary sensitivity, specificity, and HSROC of VCTE for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis were 0.78, 0.72, and 0.81, respectively. In addition, we identified the optimal cut-off value of VCTE as 7.7 kPa for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis in these patients.

Several guidelines recommend that AVT can be considered in CHB patients with elevated HBV-DNA levels who do not have ALT levels that are sufficiently elevated to meet the AVT initiation criteria if the patients have significant inflammation or bridging fibrosis/cirrhosis [14-17]. A recent meta-analysis reported that the pooled proportion of significant fibrosis was 32% in AVT-naïve CHB patients with ALT within the ULN [34]. Another meta-analysis demonstrated that 48% of AVT-naïve CHB patients with ALT levels 1- to 2-fold greater than the ULN had significant liver fibrosis [35]. Given that there is a substantial proportion of significant liver fibrosis among AVT-naïve CHB patients with normal or minimally elevated ALT levels, the diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis in these patients is crucial due to an increasing clinical need to better align the timing of AVT with CHB.

Numerous studies have validated the high diagnostic accuracy of VCTE for significant fibrosis and cirrhosis across various liver disease including viral hepatitis, compared to the gold standard of liver biopsy [7-9]. VCTE has advantages of its non-invasiveness, the ease of use, and ability to provide immediate results, which make it particularly useful in routine clinical practice and for monitoring disease progression or response to therapy [36].

While VCTE was initially studied in patients with chronic hepatitis C [37,38], it has also been proven to be useful in patients with CHB, with evidence largely drawn from studies conducted in Asian countries where CHB is prevalent. Several meta-analyses reported that the summary AUC of VCTE for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis in patients with CHB ranged from 0.81 to 0.86 [11,13,39]. However, the previous meta-analyses included individual studies of patients at various stages of CHB, including those receiving AVT, which did not allow for an accurate assessment of the performance of VCTE specifically in AVT-naïve patients.

In addition, liver stiffness (LS) improvement during AVT does not necessarily correlate with cirrhosis improvement in histology or imaging modality for several reasons. First, LS reflects the physical properties of the liver and can improve relatively quickly during antiviral therapy, whereas histological changes in fibrosis take longer to manifest. Second, decline in LS during antiviral therapy is a combination of resolution of hepatic inflammation, and regression of fibrosis. Finally, in cases of severe fibrosis or cirrhosis, irreversible changes may have occurred, where LS shows some improvement but histological fibrosis and cirrhosis remain [40,41].

A recent meta-analysis reported the acceptable diagnostic performance of VCTE for significant fibrosis particularly in AVT-naïve CHB patients [10]. The analysis of 23 studies (comprising 3,879 AVT-naïve CHB patients) demonstrated that the pooled sensitivity and specificity of VCTE were 0.76 and 0.79, respectively. The summary AUC of VCTE was 0.84. However, the study included patients with ALT more than 5-fold the ULN. Elevated ALT levels have been reported to overestimate the value of VCTE [18,19,42,43]. Kim et al. [44] found that value of VCTE tended to increase with ALT levels. In addition, higher ALT levels were found to contribute to the discordance of diagnostic results between VCTE and liver biopsy [45]. Thus, several previous studies excluded patients with ALT levels more than 5-fold the ULN to investigate the diagnostic performance of VCTE in CHB [46,47]. In consideration of these points, the recent European Association for the Study of the Liver guideline suggested an algorithm for the use of VCTE in patients with ALT within 5-fold the ULN [48].

Thus, our study focused on the diagnostic performance of VCTE for significant liver fibrosis in AVT-naïve CHB patients with ALT within 5-fold the ULN. Our results indicated that VCTE showed acceptable performance for the diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis, with a summary sensitivity of 0.78 and summary specificity of 0.72; these values were similar to those reported in similar pervious meta-analyses (ranges of sensitivity 0.73–0.81 and specificity 0.66–0.82) [10-13]. The HSROC of VCTE for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72–0.86). The HSROC is beneficial in the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests by joint analysis of sensitivity and specificity while accounting for the potential imperfections in the sensitivity and specificity of the reference test. This comprehensive approach incorporates both within-study and between-study variability, allowing for robust and reliable results that simpler models might not provide [49].

However, a HSROC value of 0.81, along with sensitivity values of 0.78 and specificity values of 0.72 respectively, indicates a moderate level of accuracy in diagnosing significant liver fibrosis. While this reflects reasonably good diagnostic performance similar to previous meta-analyses, the relative lower accuracy noted by the reviewer could be due to several factors. First, previous studies reported that VCTE performed better for diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis (F3 and F4) compared to significant fibrosis [12,13], due to more pronounced changes in LS associated with severe fibrosis and cirrhosis [50]. Second, different studies might use various thresholds to define significant liver fibrosis, affecting the pooled diagnostic accuracy. Third, the relatively small sized cohorts and subsequent small number of F2 stage patients in the included studies could impact the overall accuracy.

We also identified the optimal cut-off value of VCTE for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis, which was reported to be 7.7 kPa. Based on the descriptive statistics of included studies, the cut-off values for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis ranged from 5.5 to 8.0 kPa. In two previous meta-analyses, the reported cut-off value of VCTE were 7.2 and 7.25 kPa for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis [11,12], which were similar to that found in our study. The high specificity of the VCTE cut-off value identified in our study is advantageous to reduce the likelihood of false-positive results, which in turn minimizes the risk of unnecessary AVT. However, the relative low sensitivity of the cut-off values raises concerns about the potential to miss significant liver fibrosis in some patients. It is imperative in clinical practice to adopt a comprehensive approach to patient evaluation for significant liver fibrosis, taking into account the limitations of VCTE sensitivity at this cut-off value.

The main strengths of our meta-analysis are comprehensive search strategy and strict inclusion criteria. However, there are several limitations to be discussed. First, most of the included studies selected cut-off values based on the AUC instead of employing pre-specified values, which may increase the diagnostic accuracy of VCTE for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis in patients with CHB. Second, sufficient sensitivity analyses and evaluation of biases beyond publication bias were not conducted due to the small number of included studies. This limitation can affect the generalizability and reliability of the findings. Future research should include a larger number of studies to enable more comprehensive sensitivity analyses and thorough assessment of various biases. Third, all the included studies were conducted on Asian population, particularly in China, limiting the generalizability of this study. Fourth, the included studies were retrospective in nature, which may have introduced bias and limits determinations of causal inference. Finally, a meta-analysis of CHB patients restricted to those with ALT 1- to 2-fold greater than the ULN might be more helpful for deciding AVT initiation in accordance with current treatment guidelines. However, there were no studies specifically investigating this patient group. Instead, we conducted a subgroup analysis including three studies with CHB patients with serum ALT levels within 2-fold the ULN. The results were similar to the main findings. However, due to the small number of included studies in this subgroup analysis, caution is needed in interpreting these results as there is a potential for bias.

In conclusion, our study demonstrated that VCTE has an acceptable diagnostic performance for significant liver fibrosis in AVT-naïve CHB patients with ALT within 5-fold the ULN.

Notes

Authors’ contribution

Conception: Mi Na Kim, Dae Won Jun; Study design: Mi Na Kim, Dae Won Jun, Ji Won Han, Miyoung Choi; Data analysis and interpretation: Mi Na Kim, Jihyun An, Ji Won Han, Eun Hwa Kim, Dae Won Jun, Miyoung Choi; Review of the results: Mi Na Kim, Jihyun An, Eun Hwa Kim, Hee Yeon Kim, Han Ah Lee, Jung Hwan Yu, Young-Joo Jin, Young Eun Chon, Seung Up Kim, Dae Won Jun, Ji Won Han, Miyoung Choi; Drafting of the manuscript: Mi Na Kim; Overall study oversight and guarantor of the manuscript: Dae Won Jun, Ji Won Han, Miyoung Choi. All authors reviewed the paper and approved the final version.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a faculty research grant of Yonsei University College of Medicine (6-2023-0097). MID (Medical Illustration & Design), as part of the Medical Research Support Services at Yonsei University College of Medicine, provided exceptional support in medical illustration.

The authors thank the Clinical Practice Guideline Committee for Noninvasive Tests (NIT) to Assess Liver Fibrosis in Chronic Liver Disease of the Korean Association for the Study of the Liver (KASL) for providing the opportunity to conduct this research.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Supplementary material is available at Clinical and Molecular Hepatology website (http://www.e-cmh.org).

Supplementary Figure 1.

The forest plot of vibration-controlled transient elastography for the diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis in a subgroup analysis of patients with serum alanine transferase levels within 2-fold the upper limit of normal. CI, confidence interval.

cmh-2024-0371-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf

Supplementary Figure 2.

The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve of vibration-controlled transient elastography for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis in a subgroup analysis of patients with serum alanine transferase levels within 2-fold the upper limit of normal. HSROC; hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve; AUC, area under the curve.

cmh-2024-0371-Supplementary-Fig-2.pdf

Supplementary Figure 3.

The summary of methodological quality of nine studies according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies-2 tool. (A) Overall and (B) study-level of bias.

cmh-2024-0371-Supplementary-Fig-3.pdf

Supplementary Figure 4.

The funnel plot used to assess publication bias.

cmh-2024-0371-Supplementary-Fig-4.pdf

Abbreviations

ALT

alanine aminotransferase

AVT

antiviral treatment

CHB

chronic hepatitis B

confidence interval

HSROC

hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve

QUADAS

Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

ULN

upper limit of normal

VCTE

vibration-controlled transient elastography

References

1. Lin CL, Kao JH. Development of hepatocellular carcinoma in treated and untreated patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Clin Mol Hepatol 2023;29:605–622.

2. Wang T, Smith DA, Campbell C, Mokaya J, Freeman O, Salih H, et al. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) viral load, liver and renal function in adults treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) vs. untreated: a retrospective longitudinal UK cohort study. BMC Infect Dis 2021;21:610.

3. Lee SK, Kwon JH. HBeAg-positive grey-zone patients: Treatment beyond guideline recommendations? Clin Mol Hepatol 2023;29:825–827.

4. Yoo JJ, Park SY, Moon JE, Lee YR, Lee HA, Lee J, et al. Long-term prognosis and the need for histologic assessment of chronic hepatitis B in the serological immune-tolerant phase. Clin Mol Hepatol 2023;29:482–495.

5. Tapper EB, Lok AS. Use of liver imaging and biopsy in clinical practice. N Engl J Med 2017;377:756–768.

6. Oh JH, Sinn DH. Is liver biopsy essential to identifying the immune tolerant phase of chronic hepatitis B? Clin Mol Hepatol 2023;29:367–370.

7. Udompap P, Sukonrut K, Suvannarerg V, Pongpaibul A, Charatcharoenwitthaya P. Prospective comparison of transient elastography, point shear wave elastography, APRI and FIB-4 for staging liver fibrosis in chronic viral hepatitis. J Viral Hepat 2020;27:437–448.

8. Reinson T, Buchanan RM, Byrne CD. Noninvasive serum biomarkers for liver fibrosis in NAFLD: current and future. Clin Mol Hepatol 2023;29(Suppl):S157–S170.

9. Yu JH, Lee HA, Kim SU. Noninvasive imaging biomarkers for liver fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: current and future. Clin Mol Hepatol 2023;29(Suppl):S136–S149.

10. Mingkai L, Sizhe W, Xiaoying W, Ying L, Wu B. Diagnostic performance of elastography on liver fibrosis in antiviral treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B patients: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 2022;10:goac005.

11. Qi X, An M, Wu T, Jiang D, Peng M, Wang W, et al. Transient elastography for significant liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis B: A meta-analysis. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;2018:3406789.

12. Li Y, Huang YS, Wang ZZ, Yang ZR, Sun F, Zhan SY, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2016;43:458–469.

13. Chon YE, Choi EH, Song KJ, Park JY, Kim DY, Han KH, et al. Performance of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2012;7e44930.

14. Korean Association for the Study of the Liver (KASL). KASL clinical practice guidelines for management of chronic hepatitis B. Clin Mol Hepatol 2019;25:93–159.

15. Terrault NA, Lok ASF, McMahon BJ, Chang KM, Hwang JP, Jonas MM, et al. Update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B: AASLD 2018 hepatitis B guidance. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken) 2018;12:33–34.

16. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol 2017;67:370–398.

17. Sarin SK, Kumar M, Lau GK, Abbas Z, Chan HL, Chen CJ, et al. Asian-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatitis B: a 2015 update. Hepatol Int 2016;10:1–98.

18. Sagir A, Erhardt A, Schmitt M, Häussinger D. Transient elastography is unreliable for detection of cirrhosis in patients with acute liver damage. Hepatology 2008;47:592–595.

19. Arena U, Vizzutti F, Corti G, Ambu S, Stasi C, Bresci S, et al. Acute viral hepatitis increases liver stiffness values measured by transient elastography. Hepatology 2008;47:380–384.

20. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2nd edth ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2019.

21. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71.

22. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. Insurance Reimbursement Criteria for Liver Disease Medications. HIRA web site, <https://www.hira.or.kr/rc/insu/insuadtcrtr/InsuAdtCrtrPopup.do?mtgHmeDd=20221101&sno=4&mtgMtrRegSno=1&brdScnBltNo=4&brdBltNo=>. Accessed 1 May 2024.

23. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–536.

24. Schneider A, Linde K, Reitsma JB, Steinhauser S, Rücker G. A novel statistical model for analyzing data of a systematic review generates optimal cutoff values for fractional exhaled nitric oxide for asthma diagnosis. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;92:69–78.

25. Steinhauser S, Schumacher M, Rücker G. Modelling multiple thresholds in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016;16:97.

26. Lesmana CR, Salim S, Hasan I, Sulaiman AS, Gani RA, Pakasi LS, 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. J Clin Pathol 2011;64:916–920.

27. Leung VY, Shen J, Wong VW, Abrigo J, Wong GL, Chim AM, et al. Quantitative elastography of liver fibrosis and spleen stiffness in chronic hepatitis B carriers: comparison of shear-wave elastography and transient elastography with liver biopsy correlation. Radiology 2013;269:910–918.

28. Seo YS, Kim MY, Kim SU, Hyun BS, Jang JY, Lee JW, et al. Accuracy of transient elastography in assessing liver fibrosis in chronic viral hepatitis: A multicentre, retrospective study. Liver Int 2015;35:2246–2255.

29. Huang R, Jiang N, Yang R, Geng X, Lin J, Xu G, et al. Fibroscan improves the diagnosis sensitivity of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Exp Ther Med 2016;11:1673–1677.

30. Li Y, Cai Q, Zhang Y, Xie Q, Xu N, Jiang X, et al. Development of algorithms based on serum markers and transient elastography for detecting significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis B patients: Significant reduction in liver biopsy. Hepatol Res 2016;46:1367–1379.

31. Liang XE, Zhong C, Huang L, Yang S, Zhu Y, Chen Y, et al. Optimization of hepatitis B cirrhosis detection by stepwise application of transient elastography and routine biomarkers. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;32:459–465.

32. Zhao J, Zhai F, Cheng J, He Q, Luo J, Yang X, et al. Evaluating the significance of viscoelasticity in diagnosing early-stage liver fibrosis with transient elastography. PLoS One 2017;12e0170073.

33. Li Q, Chen L, Zhou Y. Diagnostic accuracy of liver stiffness measurement in chronic hepatitis B patients with normal or mildly elevated alanine transaminase levels. Sci Rep 2018;8:5224.

34. Li S, Shi L, Xu X, Wang H, You H, Jia J, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Significant histological changes among treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients with normal alanine aminotransferase levels by different criteria. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2023;58:648–658.

35. Nguyen LH, Chao D, Lim JK, Ayoub W, Nguyen MH. Histologic changes in liver tissue from patients with chronic hepatitis B and minimal increases in levels of alanine aminotransferase: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12:1262–1266.

36. Castera L. Noninvasive methods to assess liver disease in patients with hepatitis B or C. Gastroenterology 2012;142:1293–1302.e4.

37. Erman A, Sathya A, Nam A, Bielecki JM, Feld JJ, Thein HH, et al. Estimating chronic hepatitis C prognosis using transient elastography-based liver stiffness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Viral Hepat 2018;25:502–513.

38. Erman A, Krahn MD, Hansen T, Wong J, Bielecki JM, Feld JJ, et al. Estimation of fibrosis progression rates for chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review and meta-analysis update. BMJ Open 2019;9e027491.

39. Pavlov CS, Casazza G, Nikolova D, Tsochatzis E, Gluud C. Systematic review with meta-analysis: diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography for staging of fibrosis in people with alcoholic liver disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2016;43:575–585.

40. Castera L, Pinzani M. Biopsy and non-invasive methods for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis: does it take two to tango? Gut 2010;59:861–866.

41. Tsochatzis EA, Crossan C, Longworth L, Gurusamy K, Rodriguez-Peralvarez M, Mantzoukis K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of noninvasive liver fibrosis tests for treatment decisions in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2014;60:832–843.

42. Kim SU, Kim JK, Park JY, Ahn SH, Lee JM, Baatarkhuu O, et al. Variability in liver stiffness values from different intercostal spaces. Liver Int 2009;29:760–766.

43. Cho HJ, Seo YS, Lee KG, Hyun JJ, An H, Keum B, et al. Serum aminotransferase levels instead of etiology affects the accuracy of transient elastography in chronic viral hepatitis patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;26:492–500.

44. Kim SU, Seo YS, Cheong JY, Kim MY, Kim JK, Um SH, et al. Factors that affect the diagnostic accuracy of liver fibrosis measurement by Fibroscan in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010;32:498–505.

45. Myers RP, Crotty P, Pomier-Layrargues G, Ma M, Urbanski SJ, Elkashab M. Prevalence, risk factors and causes of discordance in fibrosis staging by transient elastography and liver biopsy. Liver Int 2010;30:1471–1480.

46. Wong GL, Wong VW, Choi PC, Chan AW, Chim AM, Yiu KK, et al. Clinical factors associated with liver stiffness in hepatitis B e antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7:227–233.

47. Ji D, Chen Y, Shang Q, Liu H, Tan L, Wang J, et al. Unreliable estimation of fibrosis regression during treatment by liver stiffness measurement in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Am J Gastroenterol 2021;116:1676–1685.

48. European Association for Study of Liver, ; Asociacion Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Higado. EASL-ALEH Clinical Practice Guidelines: Non-invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis. J Hepatol 2015;63:237–264.

49. Rosenberger KJ, Chu H, Lin L. Empirical comparisons of meta-analysis methods for diagnostic studies: a meta-epidemiological study. BMJ Open 2022;12e055336.

50. Mueller S, Sandrin L. Liver stiffness: a novel parameter for the diagnosis of liver disease. Hepat Med 2010;2:49–67.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Notes

Study Highlights

• Accurate diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis is more important for patients with chronic hepatitis B who do not meet the current criteria for antiviral treatment.

• Our study demonstrated that VCTE performs well to diagnose significant liver fibrosis in antiviral treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients with serum alanine transaminase levels within 5-fold the upper limit of normal.

• VCTE seems to be a useful noninvasive tool for diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis in antiviral treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients.

Study	Region	Study period	Design	Subjects (n)	Age (years)^a	Male (%)	Alanine aminotransferase (IU/mL)^a	HBV DNA^a	Fibrosis stage (%)
Study	Region	Study period	Design	Subjects (n)	Age (years)^a	Male (%)	Alanine aminotransferase (IU/mL)^a	HBV DNA^a	F0	F1	F2	F3	F4
Lesmana et al. [26] (2011)	Indonesia	2008–2010	Cross-sectional	117	40.6	53.8	47.6	6.1 (log₁₀ copies/mL)	2.6	35	38.5	20.5	3.4
Leung et al. [27] (2013)	China	2011–2012	Cross-sectional	226	48.8	65	69	5.6 (log IU/mL)	17	23	25	20	15
Seo et al. [28] (2015)	Korea	2006–2014	Cross-sectional	567	45	66.7	48	NA	28.4		26.8	24.3	20.5
Huang et al. [29] (2016)	China	2010–2013	Cross-sectional	263	33.5	60.8	44.1	NA	6.5	78.7	9.5	4.2	1.1
Li et al. [30] (2016)	China	2013–2015	Cross-sectional	307	40.4	73.3	38.8	4.67 (log₁₀ copies/mL)	27.7		54.1	10.8	7.5
Liang et al. [31] (2017)	China	NA	Cross-sectional	236	30.8	79.7	71.5	NA	3	24.6	32.6	22	17.8
Zhao et al. [32] (2017)	China	NA	Cross-sectional	99	37.7	64.6	46.7	NA	NA	81.8	18.2	NA	NA
Li et al. [33] (2018)	China	2013–2015	Cross-sectional	188	37	62.8	39	5.4 (log₁₀ copies/mL)	5.9	44.1	28.7	6.4	14.9