4.7 Article

Metabolic syndrome is associated with severe fibrosis in chronic viral hepatitis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 80-89

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03538.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its possible impact on the severity of liver histological lesions have not been studied prospectively in chronic liver diseases. Aim To investigate the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with chronic viral hepatitis or non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, and to determine its associations with histological severity. Methods We prospectively included 317 patients (hepatitis B e antigen-negative chronic hepatitis B: 95, chronic hepatitis C: 176, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: 46) with liver biopsy. Metabolic syndrome was defined using the Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. Histological lesions were evaluated according to Ishak's or Brunt's classification. Results Metabolic syndrome was present in 10.4% of patients being significantly more prevalent in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis than in chronic viral hepatitis (41.3% vs. 5.1%, P < 0.001). In chronic viral hepatitis, cirrhosis (stages 5-6) was independently associated with increasing age, higher aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl-transpeptidase levels, severe necroinflammation and metabolic syndrome (P = 0.016). In non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, severe fibrosis (stages 3-4) was independently associated with severe necroinflammation and metabolic syndrome (P = 0.033). Presence of metabolic syndrome was not associated with presence or severity of steatosis both in chronic viral hepatitis and in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Conclusion Metabolic syndrome is more prevalent in non-alcoholic steatoliepatitis than in chronic viral hepatitis; it is associated independently with more severe fibrosis but not with the severity of steatosis, both in chronic viral hepatitis and in non-alcoholic steatoliepatitis.

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