4.6 Article

Sarcopenia is associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in men with type 2 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES & METABOLISM
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 362-369

出版社

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabet.2019.10.004

关键词

Diabetes mellitus type 2; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; Sarcopenia

资金

  1. NRF [2017R1D-1A1B03034581]
  2. Republic of Korea and an Inha University research grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. - Recent epidemiological studies have suggested an association between sarcopenia and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in the general population, prompting our investigation into the gender-specific association between sarcopenia and NAFLD in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods. - In this cross-sectional study, 4210 patients with T2DM were recruited from the Seoul Metabolic Syndrome Cohort. Appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) was estimated from bioimpedance analysis measurements, and the skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) was calculated by dividing the sum of ASM by body weight. Sarcopenia was defined as a gender-specific SMI value > 2 standard deviations (SDs) below the mean for healthy young adults. NAFLD was defined as the presence of hepatic steatosis on ultrasonography with no other causes of chronic liver disease. Results. - Among the entire study population (mean age: 57.4 +/- 10.8 years), 1278 (30.4%) had NAFLD and 1240 (29.5%) had sarcopenia, and the prevalence of NAFLD was significantly higher in those with sarcopenia: 46.2% vs 25.1% (P < 0.001) in men; 38.3% vs 25.4% (P < 0.001) in women. Sarcopenia was significantly associated with higher risk of NAFLD in men (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-2.17), whereas the association was attenuated in women after adjusting for clinical risk factors. Conclusion. - Sarcopenia is independently associated with NAFLD in men with T2DM, which suggests that sarcopenia may be a risk factor for NAFLD in men with T2DM. (C) 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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