| Literature DB >> 24381750 |
Ana Paula Grotti Clemente1, Bárbara Dal Molin Netto1, Aline di Piano Ganen1, Lian Tock2, Danielle Arisa Caranti3, Marco Túlio de Mello4, Sergio Tufik5, Ana R Dâmaso6.
Abstract
Objectives. The present study aimed at determining cut-off points of visceral fat to predict NAFLD and analyzed metabolic disorders of obese adolescents. Methods. Cross-sectional study involved 165 obese adolescents ranged in age from 15 to 19 years. Glycemia, hepatic transaminases, lipid profile, and insulin resistance were analyzed. Visceral and subcutaneous fat were measured by ultrasound and body composition by plesthysmography. Results. The NAFLD adolescents had significantly higher values for body mass, BMI-for-age, BMI, total fat, waist circumference, and visceral fat when compared with non-NAFLD obese adolescents in both genders. Moreover, there were significant positive correlations between visceral fat with the variables BMI-for-age (r = 0.325,), TG (r = 0.277), AST (r = 0.509), ALT (r = 0.519), WC (r = 0.390), and visceral/subcutaneous ratio (r = 0.790) for NAFLD group. Total fat, triglycerides, and visceral fat were the independent predictors to NAFLD. Analysis of the ROC curves revealed cut-off points of visceral fat of 4.47 cm for girls and 4.21 cm for boys. Conclusions. The results may suggest that abdominal ultrasonography procedure may be a safe alternative method of assessing visceral adiposity aiming to be considered to the development of preventive and treatment strategies in obese individuals. This clinial trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT01358773).Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24381750 PMCID: PMC3872012 DOI: 10.1155/2013/724781
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Metab ISSN: 2090-0724
Anthropometric and body composition characteristics of the studied population.
| Non-NAFLD | NAFLD | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total ( | Male ( | Female ( | Total ( | Male ( | Female ( | |||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Age (years) | 16.38 | 1.52 | 16.16 | 1.28 | 16.47 | 1.61 | 17.21 | 1.83a | 16.67 | 1.44 | 17.46 | 1.95b |
| Weight (kg) | 92.05 | 9.79 | 96.75 | 8.08c | 90.14 | 9.82 | 97.05 | 9.04a | 103.31 | 4.20b,c | 94.21 | 9.24 |
| Height (cm) | 165.19 | 6.87 | 171.2 | 6.36c | 162.76 | 5.45 | 165.59 | 7.43 | 171.93 | 5.87a | 162.73 | 6.21 |
| HAZ (Z score) | 0.01 | 0.89 | −0.13 | 0.95 | 0.08 | 0.86 | −0.01 | 0.88 | −0.18 | 0.89 | 0.07 | 0.87 |
| BAZ (Z score) | 2.76 | 0.44 | 2.78 | 0.42 | 2.76 | 0.45 | 2.95 | 0.44a | 3.04 | 0.46b | 2.90 | 0.43 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 33.74 | 3.12 | 33.04 | 2.62 | 34.02 | 3.28 | 35.44 | 3.27a | 35.07 | 3.00b | 35.61 | 3.40b |
| Total fat (%) | 42.84 | 6.39 | 36.98 | 6.53 | 45.22 | 4.57c | 45.57 | 5.97a | 41.61 | 6.69b | 47.37 | 4.68b,c |
| Fat free mass (%) | 57.16 | 6.42a | 63.04 | 6.59c | 54.78 | 4.57 | 54.10 | 6.20 | 57.34 | 7.89b | 52.63 | 4.68b,c |
| Total fat (kg) | 39.45 | 7.77 | 35.94 | 7.58 | 40.87 | 7.44c | 44.28 | 7.49a | 43.02 | 7.51b | 44.86 | 7.50b |
| Fat free mass (kg) | 52.54 | 7.54 | 60.94 | 6.86c | 49.13 | 4.54 | 52.77 | 7.47 | 60.28 | 6.99c | 49.38 | 4.72 |
| Waist Circumference (cm) | 96.34 | 7.47 | 98.49 | 5.45c | 95.45 | 8.02 | 100.96 | 7.73a | 105.63 | 6.23b,c | 99.04 | 7.52b |
| Visceral fat (cm) | 3.67 | 1.22 | 3.84 | 1.21 | 3.60 | 1.23 | 4.45 | 1.33a | 5.24 | 1.39b,c | 4.09 | 1.15b,c |
| Subcutaneous fat (cm) | 3.53 | 0.87 | 3.41 | 0.81 | 3.58 | 0.89 | 3.54 | 0.73 | 3.47 | 0.63 | 3.57 | 0.78 |
| Visceral/Subcutaneous ratio | 1.09 | 0.43 | 1.18 | 0.41 | 1.06 | 0.43 | 1.32 | 0.49a | 1.55 | 0.43b,c | 1.21 | 0.48c |
BMI: body mass index; HAZ: height-for-age Z score; BAZ: BMI-for-age.
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Mean values were significantly different according to independent t-test (P < 0.05).
aComparison of the group with NAFLD versus group non-NAFLD.
bComparison of the group with NAFLD versus group non-NAFLD by genders.
cComparison of the genders at the same group.
Biochemical characteristics of the studied population.
| Non-NAFLD | NAFLD | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total ( | Male ( | Female ( | Total ( | Male ( | Female ( | |||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 89.74 | 5.77 | 91.58 | 6.06c | 88.89 | 5.48 | 91.8 | 6.52 | 94.29 | 4.92 | 90.56 | 6.92 |
| Insulin ( | 15.21 | 8.26 | 16.26 | 12.27 | 14.72 | 5.61 | 17.95 | 6.98a | 17.62 | 6.65 | 18.11 | 7.22b |
| Total Cholesterol (mg/dL) | 163.49 | 31.45 | 170.62 | 34.17 | 160.2 | 29.82 | 171.63 | 32.64a | 168.12 | 35.42 | 173.38 | 31.57b |
| HDL-c (mg/dL) | 46.84 | 9.85 | 42.93 | 8.40 | 48.65 | 10.01c | 44.29 | 9.08 | 39.88 | 8.51 | 46.50 | 8.63c |
| LDL-c (mg/dL) | 97.06 | 28.24 | 104.14 | 28.72 | 93.8 | 27.64 | 103.98 | 27.27 | 104.52 | 30.3 | 103.70 | 26.11 |
| VLDL-c (mg/dL) | 19.57 | 9.37 | 23.55 | 11.35c | 17.75 | 7.75 | 23.43 | 10.13a | 23.94 | 10.00 | 23.18 | 10.33b |
| TG, (mg/dL) | 97.73 | 46.83 | 117.55 | 57.08c | 88.62 | 38.47 | 116.67 | 51.05a | 119.18 | 51.03 | 115.41 | 51.77b |
| AST, U/L | 22.77 | 5.98 | 25.1 | 6.62c | 21.7 | 5.38 | 24.69 | 10.84a | 32.35 | 15.34c | 20.85 | 4.29 |
| ALT, U/L | 27.79 | 14.68 | 31.06 | 17.54 | 26.28 | 13.06 | 34.22 | 24.19 | 52.06 | 34.13b,c | 25.29 | 8.70 |
| GGT, U/L | 23.73 | 11.86 | 28.82 | 16.34c | 21.4 | 8.26 | 29.29 | 22.41 | 37.12 | 33.26 | 25.38 | 13.32 |
| HOMA-IR | 3.35 | 1.96 | 3.71 | 2.96 | 3.18 | 1.23 | 4.1 | 1.65a | 4.1 | 1.56 | 4.09 | 1.71b |
| Quick | 0.32 | 0.02c | 0.32 | 0.02 | 0.33 | 0.02 | 0.31 | 0.02 | 0.31 | 0.02 | 0.31 | 0.01b |
Reference values: glucose (60–110 mg/dL), insulin (20 μU/mL), HOMA-IR (2.0), total cholesterol (170 mg/dL), TG (33-129 mg/dL), HDL cholesterol (38 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol (<130 mg/dL), AST (10–40 U/L), ALT (10–35 U/L), and GGT (17–30 U/L) (Burgert et al. [12]).
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Mean values were significantly different according to indenpendent t-test (P < 0.05).
aComparison of the group with NAFLD versus group non-NAFLD.
bComparison of the group with NAFLD versus group non-NAFLD by genders.
cComparison of the genders at the same group.
Correlations between visceral fat, biochemical, and anthropometric parameters.
| Non-NAFLD ( | NAFLD ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson |
| Pearson |
| |
| Weight (kg) | 0.301 |
| 0.233 | 0.070 |
| BAZ (Z score) | 0.246 |
| 0.325 |
|
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.235 |
| 0.219 | 0.09 |
| Total fat (kg) | 0.220 |
| 0.087 | 0.505 |
| Fat free mass (kg) | 0.143 | 0.147 | 0.192 | 0.138 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 0.210 |
| 0.390 |
|
| Visceral/subcutaneous ratio | 0.771 |
| 0.790 |
|
| VLDL-c (mg/dL) | −0.005 | 0.964 | 0.271 | 0.052 |
| TG, (mg/dL) | −0.004 | 0.968 | 0.277 |
|
| AST, U/L | −0.070 | 0.461 | 0.509 |
|
| ALT, U/L | −0.140 | 0.176 | 0.519 |
|
| GGT, U/L | 0.016 | 0.271 | −0.010 |
|
Logistic regression analysis with NAFLD adolescents.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| BAZ (Z score) | 0.382 | 0.222 |
| Total fat (kg) | 1.101 |
|
| Fat free mass (kg) | 0.971 | 0.401 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 1.070 | 0.066 |
| Insulin ( | 1.010 | 0.728 |
| TG, (mg/dL) | 1.009 |
|
| AST, U/L | 0.943 | 0.283 |
| ALT, U/L | 1.043 | 0.079 |
| GGT, U/L | 1.002 | 0.906 |
| Visceral fat (cm) | 1.606 |
|
Figure 1Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the identification of NAFLD based on the visceral fat (cm) of adolescents. The area under the ROC curve of the boys was 0.784 (95% confidence interval 0.658–0.910). The WC cut-off point for the boys was 4.20 cm. And the area under the ROC curve of the girls was 0.615 (95% confidence interval 0.509–0.721). The WC cut-off point for the girls was 4.47 cm.