4.4 Article

Primary Biliary Cirrhosis is More Severe in Overweight Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 47, 期 3, 页码 E28-E32

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e318261e659

关键词

primary biliary cirrhosis; metabolic syndrome; nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; steatosis; overweight

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Goals: We sought to determine whether features of metabolic syndrome (MS) and histologic features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are associated with increased fibrosis in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). Backgrounds: PBC is a chronic, progressive cholestatic disease. MS is strongly associated with NASH and fibrosis progression in some liver diseases. Study: Patients with PBC seen consecutively at the University of Miami between 1985 and 2008 who had antimitochondrial antibody positivity and a liver biopsy performed at this center at the time of diagnosis were identified. Demographics, clinical features, and biochemical parameters were collected. All liver biopsies were reviewed by a single blinded pathologist for features of NASH, PBC, and fibrosis. The impact of NASH and features of MS on liver biopsy findings were analyzed. Results: Forty-nine patients [median age 51 (34 to 78) years, 98% females] were enrolled. Higher degree of steatosis, severe inflammatory grade, and severe biliary duct damage were each associated with advanced fibrosis (P<0.0001). Regarding MS, only overweight status [body mass index (BMI) >= 25] was associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver activity score (NAS) Z5 (P<0.0001), biliary duct damage (P<0.0001), and advanced fibrosis (71% vs. 32%, P=0.007). Patients with NASZ5 had more severe fibrosis (14/15, 96% vs. 11/34, 44%; P=0.0001) and more severe biliary duct damage (13/15, 87% vs. 3/34, 9%; P=<0.0001). Conclusions: NASH and BMIZ25 are associated with severe biliary duct damage and fibrosis in patients with PBC. BMI could become a useful noninvasive tool to predict advanced fibrosis in PBC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据