4.7 Article

Fatty liver indices in the multiethnic United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 65-76

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13012

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [HHSN276201200161U]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundValidated non-invasive measures of fatty liver are needed that can be applied across populations and over time. A fatty liver index (FLI) including body mass index, waist circumference, triglycerides and gamma glutamyltransferase (GGT) activity was developed in an Italian municipality, but has not been validated widely or examined in a multiethnic population. AimsWe evaluated this FLI in the multiethnic U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and also to explore whether an improved index for the U.S. population (US FLI) could be derived. The US FLI would then used to examine U.S. time trends in fatty liver prevalence. MethodsWe studied 5869 fasted, viral hepatitis negative adult participants with abdominal ultrasound data on fatty liver in the 1988-1994 NHANES. Time trend analyses included 21712 NHANES 1988-1994 and 1999-2012 participants. ResultsThe prevalence of fatty liver was 20%. For the FLI, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC; 95% confidence interval (CI)] was 0.78 (0.74-0.81). The US FLI included age, race-ethnicity, waist circumference, GGT activity, fasting insulin and fasting glucose and had an AUC (95% CI) of 0.80 (0.77-0.83). Defining fatty liver as a US FLI 30, the prevalence increased from 18% in 1988-1991 to 29% in 1999-2000 to 31% in 2011-2012. ConclusionsFor predicting fatty liver, the US FLI was a modest improvement over the FLI in the multiethnic U.S. population. Using this measure, the fatty liver prevalence in the U.S. population increased substantially over two decades.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available