4.5 Article

IMPACT OF TYPE 2 DIABETES ON NONALCOHOLIC STEATOHEPATITIS AND ADVANCED FIBROSIS IN PATIENTS WITH NONALCOHOLIC FATTY LIVER DISEASE

期刊

ENDOCRINE PRACTICE
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 444-453

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.4158/EP-2019-0342

关键词

-

资金

  1. Zhongshan Hospital
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81570718]
  3. Shanghai Science and Technology Committee Foundation [16411954800]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of T2DM on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and advanced fibrosis. Methods: A total of 221 NAFLD patients who had undergone a liver biopsy were included in this study. Subjects were divided into a non-T2DM group and a T2DM group based on glycemic control. NASH was diagnosed by the joint presence of steatosis, ballooning, and lobular inflammation. The steatosis, activity, and fibrosis (SAF) score and NAFLD activity score (NAS) were used to evaluate the severity of NAFLD. The severity of liver fibrosis was evaluated based on the fibrosis stage. Results: The total percentages of NASH and advanced fibrosis in this study were 95.0% and 50.2%, respectively. The percentages of NASH and advanced fibrosis in NAFLD patients with T2DM were 96.1% and 56.5%, respectively, which were higher than those in the non-T2DM group. SAF score (especially activity and fibrosis stage) and NAS (especially ballooning) were higher in NAFLD patients with T2DM than in NAFLD patients without T2DM. Glycemic control and insulin resistance were positively associated with SAF, NAS, and fibrosis stage. Additionally, T2DM elevated the risk of a high NAS and advanced fibrosis. Conclusion: T2DM increases the risk of serious NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Liver biopsy can be performed in NAFLD patients with T2DM to confirm the stage of NAFLD. Screening of NASH and advanced fibrosis in NAFLD patients with T2DM is needed.

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

4.5
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