4.8 Article

Differences and similarities in early atherosclerosis between patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and chronic hepatitis B and C

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 6, Pages 1126-1132

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2007.01.021

Keywords

non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; chronic viral hepatitis; atherosclerosis; metabolic syndrome; insulin resistance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: To compare carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) - an index of early atherosclerosis - among patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), patients with chronic hepatitis B (HBV) or C (HCV) and control subjects. Methods: We studied 60 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven NASH, 60 patients with HCV, 35 patients with HBV, and 60 healthy controls who were comparable for age and sex. Common carotid IMT was measured with ultrasonography in all participants by a single operator blinded to subjects' characteristics. Results: Carotid IMT measurements were markedly different among the groups; the lowest values were in controls, intermediate in patients with HBV or HCV, and highest in those with NASH (0.84 +/- 0.1 vs. 0.97 +/- 0.1 vs. 1.09 +/- 0.2 vs. 1.23 +/- 0.2 mm, respectively; p < 0.001). The marked differences in carotid IMT that were observed among the groups were little affected by adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, smoking, LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance (by homeostasis model assessment) and components of the Adult Treatment Panel Ill-defined metabolic syndrome. Concordantly, in logistic regression analysis, NASH, HBV and HCV predicted carotid IMT independent of potential confounders. Conclusions: These data suggest that NASH, HCV and HBV are strongly associated with early atherosclerosis independent of classical risk factors, insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome components. (C) 2007 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available