4.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Prevalence of and risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: The Dionysos Nutrition and Liver Study

期刊

HEPATOLOGY
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 44-52

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hep.20734

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of and the risk factors for fatty liver have not undergone a formal evaluation in a representative sample of the general population. We therefore performed a cross-sectional study in the town of Campogalliano (Modena, Italy), within the context of the Dionysos Project. Of 5,780 eligible persons aged 18 to 75 years, 3,345 (58%) agreed to participate in the study. Subjects with suspected liver disease (SLD), defined on the basis of elevated serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and gamma-glutamyl-transferase (GGT) activity, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), or hepatitis C virus (HCV)-RNA positivity, were matched with randomly selected subjects of the same age and sex without SLD. A total of 311 subjects with and 287 without SLD underwent a detailed clinical, laboratory, and anthropometrical evaluation. Fatty liver was diagnosed by ultrasonography, and alcohol intake was assessed by using a 7-day diary. Multinomial logistic regression was used to detect risk factors for normal liver versus nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and for alcoholic fatty liver (AFLD) versus NAFLD. The prevalence of NAFLD was similar in subjects with and without SLD (25 vs. 20%, P =.203). At multivariable analysis, normal liver was more likely than NAFLD in older subjects and less likely in the presence of obesity, hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and systolic hypertension; AFLD was more likely than NAFLD in older subjects, males, and in the presence of elevated GGT and hypertriglyceridemia, and less likely in the presence of obesity and hyperglycemia. In conclusion, NAFLD is highly prevalent in the general population, is not associated with SLD, but is associated with many features of the metabolic syndrome.

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

4.8
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