Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

RJ Lilford 1,*, L Bentham 1, A Girling 1, I Litchfield 1, R Lancashire 1, D Armstrong 2, R Jones 2, T Marteau 3, J Neuberger 1, P Gill 1, R Cramb 4, S Olliff 4, D Arnold 5, K Khan 4, MJ Armstrong 6, DD Houlihan 6, PN Newsome 6, PJ Chilton 1, K Moons 7, D Altman 8

1 School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK
2 Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK
3 Health Psychology Section, Kings College London, London, UK
4 Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
5 School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
6 National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Unit, Birmingham, UK
7 Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
8 Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

You might also be interested in:
{{classification.Category.Concept}}

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate mildly abnormal liver function test (LFT) results in general practice among patients who do not have known liver disease.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study of people with abnormal LFT results identified in primary care. Participants were intensively investigated using a common protocol and followed up for 2 years. Substudies investigated the psychological sequelae of abnormal test results, clinicians' reasons for testing, decision options when LFT results were abnormal and early detection of liver fibrosis.

SETTING

Eleven primary-care practices: eight in Birmingham and three in Lambeth.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with abnormal LFT results who did not have pre-existing or obvious liver disease. Eight analytes were included in the panel of LFTs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Statistical tests were used to identify the interactions between clinical features, the initial pattern of abnormal LFT results and (1) specific viral, genetic and autoimmune diseases, such as viral hepatitis, haemochromatosis and primary biliary cirrhosis; (2) a range of other serious diseases, such as metastatic cancer and hypothyroidism; (3) 'fatty liver' not associated with the above; and (4) the absence of detectable disease.

RESULTS

Fewer than 5% of people with abnormal LFT results had a specific disease of the liver, and many of these were unlikely to need treatment. The diagnostic potential of the LFT panel is largely subsumed into just two analytes: alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP). Gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) offers a small increase in sensitivity at the margin at the cost of a large loss of specificity. Eighty-four per cent of abnormal LFT results remain abnormal on retesting 1 month later. In many cases, carrying out a definitive or specific test will be more efficient than repeating LFTs, with a view to specific testing only if the test remains abnormal. An ultrasound diagnosis of 'fatty liver' was present in nearly 40% of patients with abnormal LFTs and a small amount of weight loss over 2 years was associated with a reduced incidence of liver fat. There was a J-shaped relationship between alcohol intake and fatty liver in men. An abnormal LFT result causes temporary anxiety, which does not appear to promote sustained behaviour change.

CONCLUSIONS

Liver disease is rare among people with abnormal LFT results in primary care. Only two analytes (ALT and ALP) are helpful in identifying the majority of liver disease. GGT adds little information in return for a high false-positive rate but it is sensitive to alcohol intake. LFT results seldom revert from abnormal to normal over a 1-month period, and modelling shows that repeating an abnormal LFT panel, as recommended in the current guidelines, is inefficient. LFTs are often undertaken to meet perceived patient need for a blood test, but as they are neither specific nor indicative of any particular disease they are among the least suitable tests for this purpose. Obesity and raised ALT provide strong evidence for a presumptive diagnosis of 'fatty' liver. Abnormal LFTs and 'fatty' liver provoke only short-term anxiety and neither is associated with sustained weight loss. Even a small amount of weight loss reduces liver fat.

FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) the cases of 'fatty liver' and controls should be followed up in the long term to identify features that predict development of hepatosteatosis and then cirrhosis; (2) the acceptability of replacing the traditional six- to eight-analyte LFT panel with a drop down menu including the ALT/ALP combination should be evaluated.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate mildly abnormal liver function test (LFT) results in general practice among patients who do not have known liver disease.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study of people with abnormal LFT results identified in primary care. Participants were intensively investigated using a common protocol and followed up for 2 years. Substudies investigated the psychological sequelae of abnormal test results, clinicians' reasons for testing, decision options when LFT results were abnormal and early detection of liver fibrosis.

SETTING

Eleven primary-care practices: eight in Birmingham and three in Lambeth.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with abnormal LFT results who did not have pre-existing or obvious liver disease. Eight analytes were included in the panel of LFTs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Statistical tests were used to identify the interactions between clinical features, the initial pattern of abnormal LFT results and (1) specific viral, genetic and autoimmune diseases, such as viral hepatitis, haemochromatosis and primary biliary cirrhosis; (2) a range of other serious diseases, such as metastatic cancer and hypothyroidism; (3) 'fatty liver' not associated with the above; and (4) the absence of detectable disease.

RESULTS

Fewer than 5% of people with abnormal LFT results had a specific disease of the liver, and many of these were unlikely to need treatment. The diagnostic potential of the LFT panel is largely subsumed into just two analytes: alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP). Gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) offers a small increase in sensitivity at the margin at the cost of a large loss of specificity. Eighty-four per cent of abnormal LFT results remain abnormal on retesting 1 month later. In many cases, carrying out a definitive or specific test will be more efficient than repeating LFTs, with a view to specific testing only if the test remains abnormal. An ultrasound diagnosis of 'fatty liver' was present in nearly 40% of patients with abnormal LFTs and a small amount of weight loss over 2 years was associated with a reduced incidence of liver fat. There was a J-shaped relationship between alcohol intake and fatty liver in men. An abnormal LFT result causes temporary anxiety, which does not appear to promote sustained behaviour change.

CONCLUSIONS

Liver disease is rare among people with abnormal LFT results in primary care. Only two analytes (ALT and ALP) are helpful in identifying the majority of liver disease. GGT adds little information in return for a high false-positive rate but it is sensitive to alcohol intake. LFT results seldom revert from abnormal to normal over a 1-month period, and modelling shows that repeating an abnormal LFT panel, as recommended in the current guidelines, is inefficient. LFTs are often undertaken to meet perceived patient need for a blood test, but as they are neither specific nor indicative of any particular disease they are among the least suitable tests for this purpose. Obesity and raised ALT provide strong evidence for a presumptive diagnosis of 'fatty' liver. Abnormal LFTs and 'fatty' liver provoke only short-term anxiety and neither is associated with sustained weight loss. Even a small amount of weight loss reduces liver fat.

FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) the cases of 'fatty liver' and controls should be followed up in the long term to identify features that predict development of hepatosteatosis and then cirrhosis; (2) the acceptability of replacing the traditional six- to eight-analyte LFT panel with a drop down menu including the ALT/ALP combination should be evaluated.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions