4.6 Article

Roles of alcohol drinking pattern in fatty liver in Japanese women

Journal

HEPATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 859-868

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12072-013-9449-9

Keywords

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; Metabolic syndrome; Alcohol consumption; Drinking frequency; Ultrasonography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several studies have reported an inverse association between moderate alcohol consumption and prevalence of fatty liver (FL) in men. We aimed to clarify this association in women. We collected health checkup data from 4,921 Japanese women without concurrent liver disease (mean age 46.4 years) and performed a cross-sectional study to evaluate the influence of alcohol drinking patterns (frequency and amount) on the prevalence of FL as assessed by ultrasonography. Alcohol consumption was reported in 30.8 % of participants, and FL was observed in 13.8 % (15.5 % nondrinkers, 10.1 % drinkers). Alcohol consumption was inversely associated with FL prevalence [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.79, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.98]. In analyses stratified by drinking frequency and/or amount of alcohol consumed, the risk of FL decreased for the following categories: 0.1-19.9 g/drinking day (AOR 0.61, 95 % CI 0.44-0.83) and 0.1-69.9 g/week (AOR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.55-0.98). The amount of alcohol consumed directly correlated with the prevalence of FL in daily drinkers (p < 0.05), whereas there was no correlation between the frequency of alcohol consumption and FL prevalence. Alanine aminotransferase levels were significantly lower for the following categories: 0.1-19.9 g/drinking day for 1-3 days a week (p = 0.016) and 0.1-69.9 g within 1-3 drinking days a week (p = 0.004). Minimal alcohol consumption appears to have protective effects against nonalcoholic FL disease in women, although an increase in the amount of alcohol consumed appears to nullify the protective effect.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available