4.7 Article

Aspirin use is associated with lower indices of liver fibrosis among adults in the United States

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 43, 期 6, 页码 734-743

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13515

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL094400] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundRecent animal studies have shown that platelets directly activate hepatic stellate cells to promote liver fibrosis, whereas anti-platelet agents decrease liver fibrosis. It is unknown whether platelet inhibition by aspirin prevents liver fibrosis in humans. AimTo examine the association between aspirin use and liver fibrosis among adults with suspected chronic liver disease. MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. We identified 1856 individuals with suspected chronic liver disease (CLD). The degree of liver fibrosis was determined using four validated fibrosis indices and a composite index. ResultsThe use of aspirin was associated with a significantly lower composite liver fibrosis index calculated from FIB4, APRI, Forns and NFS [0.24 standard deviation (s.d.) units lower; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.06, P = 0.009]. The association of aspirin with lower fibrosis scores was significantly larger among those with suspected CLD compared to those without (-0.23 vs. -0.03 s.d. units; P interaction = 0.05). The negative association between aspirin use and lower fibrosis index was consistent across all four fibrosis indices (P = 0.002-0.08) in individuals with chronic viral hepatitis, suspected alcoholic liver disease and NASH. In comparison, no negative associations with liver fibrosis were seen with ibuprofen in parallel analyses. ConclusionsThe use of aspirin was associated with significantly lower indices of liver fibrosis among US adults with suspected chronic liver diseases. Aspirin and other anti-platelet drugs warrant further investigation for the prevention and treatment of liver fibrosis.

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

4.7
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