Prospective direct comparison of non‐invasive liver tests in outpatients with type 2 diabetes using intention‐to‐diagnose analysis

Summary Background No prospective diagnostic studies have directly compared widespread non‐invasive liver tests in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using the intention‐to‐diagnose method for each of the three main histological features of metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease ‐ namely fibrosis, metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatohepatitis (MASH), and steatosis. Aims To compare the performance of nine tests using the intention‐to‐diagnose rather than the standard method, which would exclude non‐evaluable participants Methods Biopsy was used as the reference with predetermined cut‐offs, advanced fibrosis being the main endpoint. The Nash‐FibroTest panel including FibroTest‐T2D, SteatoTest‐T2D and MashTest‐T2D was optimised for type 2 diabetes. FibroTest‐T2D was compared to vibration‐controlled transient elastography stiffness (VCTE), two‐dimensional shear‐wave elastography stiffness (TD‐SWE), and Fibrosis‐4 blood test. NashTest‐T2D was compared to aspartate aminotransferase. SteatoTest‐T2D was compared to the controlled attenuation parameter and the hepatorenal gradient. Results Among 402 cases, non‐evaluable tests were 6.7% for VCTE, 4.0% for hepatorenal gradient, 3.2% for controlled attenuation parameter, 1.5% for TD‐SWE, 1.2% for NashTest‐T2D, and 0.02% for Fibrosis‐4, aspartate aminotransferase and SteatoTest‐T2D. The VCTE AUROC for advanced fibrosis was over‐estimated by 6% (0.83 [95% CI: 0.78–0.87]) by standard analysis compared to intention‐to‐diagnose (0.77 [0.72–0.81] p = 0.008). The AUROCs for advanced fibrosis did not differ significantly in intention‐to‐diagnose between FibroTest‐T2D (0.77; 95% CI: 0.73–0.82), VCTE (0.77; 95% CI: 0.72–0.81) and TD‐SWE(0.78; 0.74–0.83) but were all higher than the Fibrosis‐4 score (0.70; 95% CI all differences ≥7%; p ≤ 0.03). For MASH, MashTest‐T2D had a higher AUROC (0.76; 95% CI: 0.70–0.80) than aspartate aminotransferase (0.72; 95% CI: 0.66–0.77; p = 0.035). For steatosis, AUROCs did not differ significantly between SteatoTest‐T2D, controlled attenuation parameter and hepatorenal gradient. Conclusions In intention‐to‐diagnose analysis, FibroTest‐T2D, TD‐SWE and VCTE performed similarly for staging fibrosis, and out‐performed Fibrosis‐4 in outpatients with type 2 diabetes. The standard analysis over‐estimated VCTE performance. ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT03634098.