92 and sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 88%, 81%, 64%, and 94%, respectively, when a threshold of 5.5 was applied. This results in a likelihood ratio of a positive test result (LR+) of 4.6, likelihood ratio of a negative test result (LR−) of 0.15 and a reasonable diagnostic odds ratio of 30.9. Consistent with other fibrosis biomarker models PAHA was less discriminatory (AUROC 0.78) for advanced fibrosis (Metavir beta-catenin inhibitor F3-F4). The strength of the PAHA model is the potential of this as a non-invasive liver fibrosis test in high HBV-prevalence societies (primarily developing

countries), where histologic assessment of HBV severity is restricted by availability, cost and potentially limited therapeutic consequence. It also has the attraction of having been developed in the highly HBV-endemic Asia-Pacific region, where HBV

infection is associated with up to 80–90% of HCC cases in Korea, China, Singapore, India, Vietnam, Taiwan and Papua New Guinea.3 Unfortunately, the authors have not proffered a cost for the PAHA model, as this may ultimately limit the utility of the test. Notably, details of the prevalence of excessive alcohol intake have not been provided. Also, in univariate analysis there was a significant difference in platelet count between the cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis groups, with thrombocytopenia already identifying cirrhosis in 50% of patients using the relatively cheap and available platelet count. this website The platelet count could predict the presence of advanced fibrosis MCE公司 in CHB, with AUROC of 0.68, negative predictive value 78% and specificity

87% in a study from Taiwan,15 thus potentially reducing the cost in relation to the proportion of patients requiring either liver biopsy or assessment with models based on panels of biomarkers. The study by Lee and colleagues has not compared the PAHA model with models incorporating direct markers of ECM turnover; hence it is uncertain if it would be superior to these. The ultimate test for PAHA lies in external validation in a different population, validation in different chronic liver disorders and comparison against other noninvasive models that incorporate direct markers of ECM turnover. Nevertheless, since the more complex models incorporating direct markers are not readily available in large parts of the Asia-Pacific region, PAHA would clearly have a role if it demonstrates improved accuracy for distinguishing significant fibrosis from non-significant or absent fibrosis in diagnosis and longitudinal assessment of treated and untreated patients with chronic liver disorders. In summary, PAHA is a refreshing addition to the armamentarium of clinicians managing CHB in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. Such combinations of clinicopathological markers may eventually replace the need for liver biopsy in many patients with CHB.