Annals of nutrition & metabolism · 2023
Comparisons of Insulin Resistance- and Steatosis-Based Scores in Monitoring Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease Treatment Response.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ye Junzhao, Lin Yansong, Shao Congxian, Sun Yanhong, Feng Shiting, Zhong Bihui
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Quantitative measurements of liver fat contents (LFCs) by magnetic resonance imaging derived-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) are accurate but limited by availability, convenience, and expense in the surveillance of metabolic associated fatty liver (MAFLD). Insulin resistance (IR) and steatosis-associated serum indices are useful in screening for MAFLD, but their value in monitoring MAFLD with or without chronic hepatitis B virus (CHB) infection remains unclear and we aimed to evaluate these scores in predicting changes in LFC.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective study between January 2015 and December 2021 with 620 consecutive participants with MAFLD (212 participants with CHB) who received a 24-week lifestyle intervention. The homeostasis model assessment of IR (HOMA-IR), HOMA2 index, glucose-insulin ratio, quantitative insulin sensitivity check index, fasting insulin resistance index, fatty liver index (FLI), hepatic steatosis index (HSI), liver fat score (LFS), visceral adiposity index, and triglycerides * glucose were calculated.
RESULTS: When using endpoints such as LFS improvements of ≥5% or 10% or escalations of ≥5%, LFS had the highest area under the curve (AUC) values at all endpoints for MAFLD alone (0.756, 95% CI: 0.707-0.805; 0.761, 95% CI: 0.705-0.818; 0.807, 95% CI: 0.713-0.901, all p < 0.05, respectively). With CHB, the FLI (AUC = 0.750) and HIS (AUC = 0.770) exhibited the highest AUCs between the former two outcomes, respectively, but no score could predict LFC escalation of ≥5%.
CONCLUSION: Among IR and steatosis scores, changes in LFC through lifestyle interventions can be captured with LFS possessing moderate precision but not in those with CHB.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective study between January 2015 and December 2021 with 620 consecutive participants with MAFLD (212 participants with CHB) who received a 24-week lifestyle intervention. The homeostasis model assessment of IR (HOMA-IR), HOMA2 index, glucose-insulin ratio, quantitative insulin sensitivity check index, fasting insulin resistance index, fatty liver index (FLI), hepatic steatosis index (HSI), liver fat score (LFS), visceral adiposity index, and triglycerides * glucose were calculated.
RESULTS: When using endpoints such as LFS improvements of ≥5% or 10% or escalations of ≥5%, LFS had the highest area under the curve (AUC) values at all endpoints for MAFLD alone (0.756, 95% CI: 0.707-0.805; 0.761, 95% CI: 0.705-0.818; 0.807, 95% CI: 0.713-0.901, all p < 0.05, respectively). With CHB, the FLI (AUC = 0.750) and HIS (AUC = 0.770) exhibited the highest AUCs between the former two outcomes, respectively, but no score could predict LFC escalation of ≥5%.
CONCLUSION: Among IR and steatosis scores, changes in LFC through lifestyle interventions can be captured with LFS possessing moderate precision but not in those with CHB.