4.6 Article

Genotype-specific mechanisms for hepatic steatosis in chronic hepatitis C infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 873-881

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1746.2002.02813.x

关键词

body mass index; cholesterol; fatty liver; fibrosis; genotype; hepatitis C; insulin; insulin resistance; liver; triglyceride

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hepatic steatosis is common in hepatitis C, but the relative importance of host and viral factors is controversial. In the present prospective study, we examined metabolic factors associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver and viral genotype as predictors of steatosis and fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C infection. Methods: In 124 chronic hepatitis C patients, the association between liver histology and the following was investigated: demographic and anthropometric data, alcohol intake, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglyceride, transferrin saturation, ferritin, insulin, c-peptide, glucose and insulin resistance (homeostasis model). Results: By multivariate analysis, genotype 3 was associated with increased steatosis grade (P = 0.02). There were significant pairwise interactions between genotype 3 status and total cholesterol (P = 0.01), current alcohol intake (P = 0.04) and serum ALT (P = 0.01). This showed that the etiology of steatosis was different in patients with genotype 3 and those with non-genotype 3 chronic hepatitis C infection. In genotype 3 patients, the degree of steatosis was inversely associated with serum cholesterol (P = 0.005) and positively associated with serum triglyceride (P = 0.02). There was no association between body mass index (BMI) and the extent of steatosis. Among patients with other genotypes, the steatosis grade was strongly influenced by BMI (P < 0.0001) and serum ALT (P < 0.01). Independent predictors of fibrosis were age (P = 0.001), past alcohol intake (P = 0.04), ALT (

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