Prognostic value of liver stiffness measurement vs. biochemical response in primary biliary cholangitis
- PMID: 41047080
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2025.09.024
Prognostic value of liver stiffness measurement vs. biochemical response in primary biliary cholangitis
Abstract
Background & aims: Both liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and biochemical response have prognostic significance in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). However, the frequency and clinical relevance of discordant biochemical and LSM changes remain unclear. We aim to determine the performance of the most recent or current LSM (LSMc) in predicting first hepatic decompensation (HD) in the setting of discordant biochemical and LSM responses.
Methods: In this international, multicenter study, we included patients with at least two reliable LSM performed at least 6 months apart. Patients with prior HD, liver transplantation or hepatocellular carcinoma were excluded. Biochemical response was based on the Paris-II criteria. LSM response was defined as stable or any reduction in LSM. The primary outcome was the occurrence of the first HD. Secondary outcomes were liver transplantation and liver-related death. The influence of LSM on HD was estimated using Cox regression analysis.
Results: A total of 1,793 patients with PBC were analyzed. Over a median follow-up of 22 (IQR 12-39) months, 3.3% developed HD. Up to 55% of patients with PBC exhibited discordance between LSM and biochemical response. Among patients with LSM response, achieving Paris-II criteria was associated with a lower risk of HD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.25, 95% CI 0.06-0.97, p <0.044). Among patients with biochemical response, LSM response did not influence the risk of developing HD (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21-1.96, p = 0.429). The LSMc >10 kPa strongly predicted HD (HR 14.5, 95% CI 6.9-30.6, p <0.001), irrespective of biochemical response and prior LSM trajectories.
Conclusions: Discordance between LSM and biochemical response is frequent. Most recent or current LSM is the strongest predictor of first liver-related events in patients with PBC, irrespective of prior biochemical response or LSM trajectory.
Impact and implications: Both liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and biochemical response have prognostic significance in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. However, the clinical relevance and how discordant biochemical and LSM changes should be best interpreted remain unclear. In this large international multicenter study, we demonstrated that once the current LSM is known, prior LSM trajectories and biochemical changes did not improve the prediction of liver-related events in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. Our finding addresses a common clinical dilemma in risk-stratifying PBC patients with discordant biochemical and LSM responses. Importantly, the use of the latest LSM value for risk prediction significantly simplifies the use of LSM in clinical decision-making for PBC patients with multiple LSM readings.
Keywords: Liver stiffness; clinically significant portal hypertension; decompensation; non-invasive; portal hypertension; prediction; vibration-controlled elastography.
Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of interest These authors disclose the following: A.J. Montano-Loza has served on advisory boards for Intercept Pharmaceuticals. B.E. Hansen reports grants from Intercept Pharmaceuticals and Zambon Nederland B.V. and consulting work for Intercept Pharmaceuticals and Novartis. A.E. Kremer reports consulting work for Advanz, CymaBay, Dr. Falk Pharma, Gilead, GSK, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, and Mirum and grants from Gilead and Intercept Pharmaceuticals. A. Parés consults for Intercept and Novartis. A. Floreani reports consulting activities for Intercept Pharmaceuticals. P. Trivedi has received grant support from the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, GlaxoSmithKline, Guts UK, PSC Support, LifeArc, NIHR, Intercept Pharma, Dr Falk Pharma, Gilead Sciences, and Bristol Myers Squibb. He has also received speaker fees from Albireo/IPSEN, Advanz/Intercept and Dr. Falk, and advisory board/consultancy fees from ChemoMab, Cymabay, Intercept, Dr. Falk Pharma, Albireo/Ipsen, Pliant Pharma and GlaxoSmithKline. He received grants from Merck. C. Corpechot reports grants from Intercept Pharmaceuticals, and consulting work for Echosens, Cymabay, Gilead, Ipsen, Calliditas, and Intercept Pharmaceuticals. T. Bruns has served on advisory boards for AdvanzPharma/Intercept Pharmaceuticals and Gilead, and has received speaker fees from Dr Falk Pharma. J. Dyson has received speaker fees from Intercept Pharmaceuticals and Dr. Falk Pharma, GSL, Ipsen and Intercept and received consultancy fees from Umecrine, and acted as a scientific expert for NICE. G. Dalekos reports consulting activities and speaker fees for Genesis Pharma, Gilead and Ipsen. C. Rigamonti has received speaker fees from Advanz Pharma. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
