liver fibrosis worse

[Samson4]

Hello. My fibroscan results were a cap of 336 and kpa of 11. They're now cap of 278 and kpa of 12.8. I know scarring can take a while to get better, but any idea why it would get worse when fatty liver is getting better? Thanks, Liz

[BU2B]

My understanding is that NAFLD is Stage one of NASH. Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. NAFLD can get better with diet an exercise if caught before it becomes NASH when cirrhosis develops - which is not reversible.

I am kind of in the same boat - my liver enzymes and tests are not outstandingly horrible enough to cause concern. However my cirrhosis and portal hypertension have gotten much worse.

My suggestion is to talk to  nash2 and others here for advice and a good explanation of the numbers you’ve posted - then make yourself some notes and have a good talk with your liver team. 🫶🏽✌️

[Samson4 in reply to BU2B]

There are 4 different stages of nash. Stage 4 is cirrhosis. I have stage 3. I am asking about why my fibrosis is worsening when fatty liver is improving. I do not have cirrhosis. Thanks

[Josie-Anne]

Hi Samson4,

I understand completely how you feel mine is currently at 343 and started with fatty liver disease which is through 20 odd years of strong pain killers, one doctor at a haematology appointment accused me of being an alcoholic and not forthcoming with the true measure of alcohol consumption which was awful as I don’t drink. I was told to drink plenty of water, certain foods and supplements like vitamin A high doses can up the score which it did with me and vitamin B3 niacin is bad for your liver. We tend to think that the vitamins are good for us but not all apparently.

[ThyroidDeb]

You might want to get a biopsy. It's not pleasant but not nearly as bad as I had invisioned. My hepotoligist doesn't believe in the fibroscan, too many variables to give false readings. In my case all my test said something different. My numbers on fibroscan from gastroligist had me at cirrhosis 4 and advanced fatty liver. Biopsy showed Stage 1 fibrosis and mild fatty liver. Good luck.

[Samson4 in reply to ThyroidDeb]

I had a biopsy, and it verified the fibroscan results. I am just trying to figure out why my fibrosis is getting worse, but fatty liver is getting better. Hopefully the scan is not accurate. Thanks

[goldencody in reply to ThyroidDeb]

My fibroscan had me at stage 2 Nash yet my biospy has me at stage 3 Nash. So my results are opposite your results. Not sure what to believe

[Samson4 in reply to goldencody]

From what I have been told a biopsy is the most accurate reading of your liver. I know it is frustrating when the results vary.

[Kjun54321 in reply to ThyroidDeb]

My fibroscan did the same for me. My liver biopsy was NASH Fibrosis Stage 1. My biopsy was done by an endoscopy. Slept right through it. Good Luck!

[isi123]

Hi Samson4,

The fibroscan recovers information from a part of the liver and from the recovered values ​​it keeps the median (simplifying). First, not all the liver has the same degrees of fibrosis, there are portions that may be more fibrotic than others, it is not something uniform. It can also be influenced by inflammation of the liver or your body weight. The most important thing is to eliminate the cause that has generated the liver damage and if it is NAFLD, you are on the right track. Do not give up

[Onesmallstep1969]

Fibroscan accuracy varies by skill of the operator. Many times an inaccurate score can happen if they hit a rib. MRE (magnetic resonance elastography) has almost a 98 to99% accuracy while Fibroscan is somewhere under 75% in many cases. There are other technologies which also are superior to Fibroscan.

[MINTVCX in reply to Onesmallstep1969]

True but it is worth to mention about prevalence of the disease and probability of the disease before any test. For example even 99,99% accurate test when is performed amongst people with very low probability of the disease is going to be false positive in most cases.

Good example is HIV test (but it applies to all tests):

"For example, take a test with 99.5% sensitivity and 99.5% specificity. If this test is used in a setting where 0.2% of people have HIV (for example, among the general population in the UK), the probability of a reactive result being correct is 28.5%. The number of people given an incorrect reactive result (71.5%) is greater than the number given a correct result (28.5%).

In contrast, if the same test is used in a setting where 8% of people have HIV (for example, among gay and bisexual men in the UK), the probability of a reactive result being correct is 94.5%. There are far fewer false positives (5.5%), but they still occur."

To sum up good to remember about this fact.