| Literature DB >> 26450572 |
Vera Saad1,2, Brandy Wicklow3,4,5,6, Kristy Wittmeier7,8,9,10, Jacqueline Hay11,12, Andrea MacIntosh13,14, Niranjan Venugopal15,16, Lawrence Ryner17,18, Lori Berard19,20, Jonathan McGavock21,22,23,24.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To develop a screening algorithm to detect hepatic steatosis in overweight and obese adolescents.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26450572 PMCID: PMC4599758 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-015-0465-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Participant characteristics stratified by the presence of hepatic steatosis
| Hepatic Steatosis ( | No Hepatic Steatosis ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 24 | 64 | <0.001 |
| Age (yrs) | 15 ± 2 | 15 ± 2 | 0.53 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 33.8 ± 4.9 | 31 ± 4.5 | 0.002 |
| BMI Z score | 2.2 ± 0.4 | 1.9 ± 0.4 | <0.001 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 111 ± 12 | 100 ± 13 | <0.001 |
| Body fat percent (%) | 38.9 ± 6.1 | 38 ± 5.9 | 0.43 |
| Hepatic Triglyceride (%F/W) | 13.0 ± 12.5 | 3.0 ± 1.2 | <0.001 |
| HOMA | 6.4 ± 8.0 | 3.6 ± 3.2 | 0.43 |
| HDL-cholesterol (mmol/L) | 1.1 ± 0.3 | 1.2 ± 0.3 | 0.23 |
| Triglycerides (mmol/L) | 1.6 ± 0.7 | 1.1 ± 0.5 | <0.001 |
| AST (U/L) | 26.4 ± 13.7 | 21.7 ± 8.8 | 0.008 |
| ALT (U/L) | 31.8 ± 22.8 | 19.0 ± 13.7 | <0.001 |
| Systolic BP (mmHg) | 116 ± 12 | 114 ± 11 | 0.35 |
| Diastolic BP (mmHg) | 62 ± 8 | 65 ± 8 | 0.08 |
| Metabolic syndrome | 40 % | 12 % | <0.001 |
Data are means ± standard deviation unless otherwise stated. BMI Body mass index, HOMA-IR homeostatic model assessment- insulin resistance, HDL High density lipoprotein, AST aspartate aminotransferase, ALT alanine aminotransferase, BP blood pressure
Fig. 1Receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting hepatic steatosis with serum transaminase values. a = Aspartate transaminase (AST); b = Alanine transaminase (ALT)
a ALT threshold levels used in screening for hepatic steatosis and corresponding sensitivities and specificities for all participants
| ALT (U/L) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Positive predictive value | Negative predictive value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| >20 | 64 % | 77 % | 57 % | 82 % |
| >25 | 48 % | 86 % | 62 % | 77 % |
| >30 | 33 % | 90 % | 61 % | 74 % |
| >35 | 24 % | 92 % | 59 % | 71 % |
| >40 | 19 % | 94 % | 62 % | 71 % |
| >66 U/L | 10 % | 99 % | 75 % | 71 % |
| b | ||||
| ALT threshold levels used in screening for hepatic steatosis and corresponding sensitivities and specificities for boys only | ||||
| ALT (U/L) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Positive predictive value | Negative predictive value |
| >20 | 79 % | 63 % | 73 % | 71 % |
| >25 | 66 % | 78 % | 80 % | 65 % |
| >30 | 45 % | 89 % | 85 % | 57 % |
| >35 | 38 % | 89 % | 82 % | 53 % |
| >40 | 29 % | 95 % | 88 % | 51 % |
| >66 U/L | 20 % | 100 % | 100 % | 50 % |
Predictors of hepatic steatosis in overweight and obese adolescents
| Point Estimate | 95 % CI | |
|---|---|---|
| BMI Z score | 2.67 | 0.94–9.67 |
| Indigenous vs Other | 0.59 | 0.12–2.96 |
| Caucasian vs Other | 0.75 | 0.17–3.27 |
| Metabolic Syndrome | ||
| Components | ||
| 1 vs 0 | 0.95 | 0.14–6.50 |
| 2 vs 0 | 1.64 | 0.26–10.52 |
| 3 or 4 vs 0 | 6.54 | 0.87–49.05 |
| Sex (M vs F) | 3.61 | 1.31–9.93 |
| AST (U/L) | 3.14 | 1.22–8.09 |
Conventional variables used to predict hepatic steatosis in obese adolescents
| Point Estimate | 95 % CI | |
|---|---|---|
| MS 1 vs 0 | 1.05 | 0.16–7.05 |
| MS 2 vs 0 | 2.09 | 0.33–13.26 |
| MS 3 or 4 vs 0 | 8.34 | 1.16–60.0 |
| Sex (M vs F) | 4.40 | 1.64–11.83 |
| AST (U/L) > 19 | 3.74 | 1.49–9.38 |
MS metabolic syndrome count, AST aspartate transaminase
Fig. 2Receiver operating curve for the utility of the new algorithm for predicting the presence of hepatic steatosis in overweight and obese adolescents Results of a multiple regression analysis that included ALT > 20 U/L, male sex, waist circumference and the presence of the metabolic syndrome