The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Redefining risk of liver disease in the general population: analysis of the Health Survey for England 2016

Redefining risk of liver disease in the general population: analysis of the Health Survey for England 2016
Redefining risk of liver disease in the general population: analysis of the Health Survey for England 2016
Background and aims: the health, financial and societal arguments for public health action to prevent lifestyle related liver disease are clear. Primary care has frequently been suggested as a key location for prevention strategies. Evidence on the most appropriate cut-offs for liver biochemistry and indirect fibrosis markers, which may be used for screening before more definitive assessment, has predominantly been gathered in patients with existing liver disease. These thresholds may not be suitable in community settings. For the first time liver function tests, from a sample representative of the general population in England, are available. We explored the distribution of risk factors for liver disease, liver function test results and liver fibrosis scores in the Health Survey for England (HSE) 2016.
Method: cross-sectional survey with interview, examination and blood tests. Multi-stage, stratified, random probability sample designed to be representative of the population living in private households in England. Participants: 7,826 adults aged 18 years and over, of whom 3,791 had a blood test. Exposures and markers: Risk factors were alcohol consumption >14 units/wk, body mass index ≥25 and diabetes. Liver function tests were Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST). Liver fibrosis scores calculated were FIB-4 score (high>2.67), APRI score (high≥1.0), AST:ALT ratio (high>0.8), BARD score (high≥2).Results: 85.5% (84.4 to 86.7%,n=5670) of the population representative sample have at least one risk factor for liver disease. 25.9% (24.4 to 27.5%,n=4685) have two or more risk factors. 2.5% (2.0 to 3.1%,n=3388) had a high FIB-4; 11.5% (10.3 to 12.8%,n=3607) had a raised ALT; 86.0% (84.5 to 87.3%,n=3424) had a high AST:ALT ratio. Only 5.1% (4.3 to 6.0%,n=4031) of those with at least one risk factor and 7.9% (6.1 to 10.1%,n=3749) of those with two or more risk factors had been told by a health professional that they were at risk of liver disease. 12.9% (11.8 to 14.1%, n=4722) of the sample and 17.7% (10.9 to 27.3%, n=85) of those with a high FIB-4 score report ever being tested for liver disease.
Conclusion: this is the first analysis of liver biochemistry and indirect fibrosis markers in a sample representative of the general population of England. Modifiable lifestyle risk factors for liver disease are present in more than 85% of participants. Multiple risk factors are common and may be synergistic. Commonly used liver function tests and fibrosis scores showed large variation in positivity. Awareness of risk and testing for liver disease was low, even in those with multiple risk factors. The best approach to achieve detection of liver disease in primary care remains unclear.
chronic liver disease, risk-factors, liver function tests
0168-8278
e35
Glyn-Owen, Kate Anne
Parkes, Julie
59dc6de3-4018-415e-bb99-13552f97e984
Harris, Scott
19ea097b-df15-4f0f-be19-8ac42c190028
Aspinall, Richard
9dfc205b-4a5b-4fdd-a576-deb1af753f4e
Roderick, Paul
dbb3cd11-4c51-4844-982b-0eb30ad5085a
Glyn-Owen, Kate Anne
Parkes, Julie
59dc6de3-4018-415e-bb99-13552f97e984
Harris, Scott
19ea097b-df15-4f0f-be19-8ac42c190028
Aspinall, Richard
9dfc205b-4a5b-4fdd-a576-deb1af753f4e
Roderick, Paul
dbb3cd11-4c51-4844-982b-0eb30ad5085a

Glyn-Owen, Kate Anne, Parkes, Julie, Harris, Scott, Aspinall, Richard and Roderick, Paul (2019) Redefining risk of liver disease in the general population: analysis of the Health Survey for England 2016. Journal of Hepatology, 70 (1), e35. (doi:10.1016/S0168-8278(19)30199-0).

Record type: Meeting abstract

Abstract

Background and aims: the health, financial and societal arguments for public health action to prevent lifestyle related liver disease are clear. Primary care has frequently been suggested as a key location for prevention strategies. Evidence on the most appropriate cut-offs for liver biochemistry and indirect fibrosis markers, which may be used for screening before more definitive assessment, has predominantly been gathered in patients with existing liver disease. These thresholds may not be suitable in community settings. For the first time liver function tests, from a sample representative of the general population in England, are available. We explored the distribution of risk factors for liver disease, liver function test results and liver fibrosis scores in the Health Survey for England (HSE) 2016.
Method: cross-sectional survey with interview, examination and blood tests. Multi-stage, stratified, random probability sample designed to be representative of the population living in private households in England. Participants: 7,826 adults aged 18 years and over, of whom 3,791 had a blood test. Exposures and markers: Risk factors were alcohol consumption >14 units/wk, body mass index ≥25 and diabetes. Liver function tests were Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST). Liver fibrosis scores calculated were FIB-4 score (high>2.67), APRI score (high≥1.0), AST:ALT ratio (high>0.8), BARD score (high≥2).Results: 85.5% (84.4 to 86.7%,n=5670) of the population representative sample have at least one risk factor for liver disease. 25.9% (24.4 to 27.5%,n=4685) have two or more risk factors. 2.5% (2.0 to 3.1%,n=3388) had a high FIB-4; 11.5% (10.3 to 12.8%,n=3607) had a raised ALT; 86.0% (84.5 to 87.3%,n=3424) had a high AST:ALT ratio. Only 5.1% (4.3 to 6.0%,n=4031) of those with at least one risk factor and 7.9% (6.1 to 10.1%,n=3749) of those with two or more risk factors had been told by a health professional that they were at risk of liver disease. 12.9% (11.8 to 14.1%, n=4722) of the sample and 17.7% (10.9 to 27.3%, n=85) of those with a high FIB-4 score report ever being tested for liver disease.
Conclusion: this is the first analysis of liver biochemistry and indirect fibrosis markers in a sample representative of the general population of England. Modifiable lifestyle risk factors for liver disease are present in more than 85% of participants. Multiple risk factors are common and may be synergistic. Commonly used liver function tests and fibrosis scores showed large variation in positivity. Awareness of risk and testing for liver disease was low, even in those with multiple risk factors. The best approach to achieve detection of liver disease in primary care remains unclear.

Text
EASL-ILC2019-AbstractBook - Version of Record
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy

More information

Published date: 1 April 2019
Additional Information: Published in Journal of Hepatology. 2019. Apr 1;70(1):e35
Keywords: chronic liver disease, risk-factors, liver function tests

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 445418
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/445418
ISSN: 0168-8278
PURE UUID: aaa2d380-9aeb-48d9-8010-b7fdcc0f5690
ORCID for Julie Parkes: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6490-395X
ORCID for Paul Roderick: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-9475-6850

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 08 Dec 2020 17:31
Last modified: 30 Nov 2024 02:37

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Kate Anne Glyn-Owen
Author: Julie Parkes ORCID iD
Author: Scott Harris
Author: Richard Aspinall
Author: Paul Roderick ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×