4.5 Article

Risk for Development of Severe Liver Disease in Lean Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study

期刊

HEPATOLOGY COMMUNICATIONS
卷 2, 期 1, 页码 48-57

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/hep4.1124

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences
  2. Bengt Ihre scholarship
  3. Swedish Gastroenterology Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are overweight or obese. However, a significant proportion of patients have a normal body mass index (BMI), denoted as lean NAFLD. The long-term prognosis of lean NAFLD is unclear. We conducted a cohort study of 646 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD. Patients were defined as lean (BMI < 25.0), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9), or obese (BMI >= 30.0) at the time of biopsy. Each case was matched for age, sex, and municipality to 10 controls. Overall mortality and development of severe liver disease were evaluated using population-based registers. Cox regression models adjusted for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, and fibrosis stage were used to examine the long-term risk of mortality and liver-related events in lean and nonlean NAFLD. Lean NAFLD was seen in 19% of patients, while 52% were overweight and 29% were obese. Patients with lean NAFLD were older, had lower trans-aminases, lower stages of fibrosis, and lower prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis at baseline compared to patients with a higher BMI. During a mean follow-up of 19.9 years (range 0.4-40 years) representing 12,631 person years and compared to patients who were overweight, patients with lean NAFLD had no increased risk for overall mortality (hazard ratio 1.06; P = 0.73) while an increased risk for development of severe liver disease was found (hazard ratio 2.69; P = 0.007). Conclusion: Although patients with lean NAFLD have lower stages of fibrosis, they are at higher risk for development of severe liver disease compared to patients with NAFLD and a higher BMI, independent of available confounders.

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