4.1 Article

Changes in liver steatosis evaluated by transient elastography with the controlled attenuation parameter in HIV-infected patients

期刊

HIV MEDICINE
卷 17, 期 10, 页码 766-773

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hiv.12384

关键词

body mass index; controlled attenuation parameter; HIV; liver steatosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives There are scant data on the progression of hepatic steatosis (HS) in HIV infection. We therefore evaluated changes in HS over time in HIV-infected patients using the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP). Methods A prospective cohort of 326 HIV-infected patients was included in this study. All patients underwent a CAP measurement. Changes in steatosis were evaluated by calculating the median (Q1-Q3) difference between baseline and 12-month CAP values. Results The median (Q1-Q3) CAP was 221 (196-252) dB/m at baseline and 224 (198-257) dB/m at the 12-month visit (P = 0.617). Significant steatosis, that is, CAP >= 238 dB/m, was observed in 76 individuals (37%) at baseline and in 80 (39%) at the 12-month visit (P = 0.683). The following variables were associated with Delta CAP: plasma HIV RNA [< 50 vs. >= 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL: median (Q1-Q3) Delta CAP, 4 (-21, 27) vs. -21 (-49, 4) dB/m, respectively; P = 0.024]; body mass index (BMI) [no increase vs. increase: -13 (-40, 4) vs. 14 (-6, 32) dB/m, respectively; P < 0.001]; triglycerides [no increase vs. increase: -1 (-30, 22) vs. 15 (-3, 40) dB/m, respectively; P = 0.001]; fasting plasma glucose [not impaired vs. impaired: -4 (-31, 16) vs. 30 (15, 49) dB/m, respectively; P < 0.001]; and raltegravir [no vs. yes: 5 (-20, 29) vs. -11 (-37.5, 15) dB/m, respectively; P = 0.018]. The only factor independently associated with Delta CAP was BMI [B (standard error): 9.03 (1.9); P < 0.001]. Conclusions Increases in CAP values over a period of 12 months in HIV-infected patients were strongly associated with elevations in BMI. Other metabolic factors and antiretroviral drugs were not predictors of CAP changes independent of BMI.

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

4.1
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