4.7 Review

Intestinal permeability in human nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 40, 期 12, 页码 2906-2916

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.14696

关键词

gut‐ liver axis; intestinal barrier; intestinal permeability; nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The gut-liver axis is considered to play a critical role in the development and progression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The integrity of the epithelial barrier is crucial to protect the liver against the invasion of microbial products from the gut, although its exact role in NAFLD onset and progression is not clear. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that addressed the intestinal permeability (IP) in association with NAFLD presence or severity as defined by the presence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and the degree of steatosis, hepatic inflammation or fibrosis. A total of 14 studies were eligible for inclusion. Results Studies investigating IP in adult (n = 6) and paediatric (n = 8) NAFLD showed similar results. Thirteen of the included studies focussed on small IP, two studies on whole gut permeability and none on colonic permeability. In the pooled analysis, NAFLD patients showed an increased small intestinal permeability compared to healthy controls based on dual sugar tests (standardized mean difference 0.79, 95% CI 0.49-1.08) and serum zonulin levels (standardized mean difference 1.04 ng/mL, 95% CI 0.40-1.68). No clear difference in IP was observed between simple steatosis and NASH patients. Furthermore, whole gut and small intestinal permeability increased with the degree of hepatic steatosis in 4/4 studies, while no association with hepatic inflammation or fibrosis was observed. Conclusion Based on the limited number of studies available, IP appears to be increased in NAFLD patients compared to healthy controls and is associated with the degree of hepatic steatosis.

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