| Literature DB >> 31584681 |
David E Kleiner1, Elizabeth M Brunt2, Laura A Wilson3, Cynthia Behling4, Cynthia Guy5, Melissa Contos6, Oscar Cummings7, Matthew Yeh8, Ryan Gill9, Naga Chalasani10, Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri11, Anna Mae Diehl12, Srinivasan Dasarathy13, Norah Terrault14, Kris Kowdley15, Rohit Loomba16, Patricia Belt3, James Tonascia3,17, Joel E Lavine18, Arun J Sanyal19.
Abstract
Importance: The histologic evolution of the full spectrum of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and factors associated with progression or regression remain to be definitively established. Objective: To evaluate the histologic evolution of NAFLD and the factors associated with changes in disease severity over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort substudy from the Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network (NASH CRN) NAFLD Database study, a noninterventional registry, was performed at 8 university medical research centers. Masked assessment of liver histologic specimens was performed, using a prespecified protocol to score individual biopsies. Participants included 446 adults with NAFLD enrolled in the NASH CRN Database studies between October 27, 2004, and September 13, 2013, who underwent 2 liver biopsies 1 or more year apart. Data analysis was performed from October 2016 to October 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression and regression of fibrosis stage, using clinical, laboratory, and histologic findings, including the NAFLD activity score (NAS) (sum of scores for steatosis, lobular inflammation, and ballooning; range, 0-8, with 8 indicating more severe disease).Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31584681 PMCID: PMC6784786 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JAMA Netw Open ISSN: 2574-3805
Figure 1. Flow Diagram Showing Participants Evaluated and Included in the Study
FLINT indicates the Farnesoid X Receptor Ligand Obeticholic Acid in NASH Treatment Trial; PIVENS, Pioglitazone versus Vitamin E versus Placebo for the Treatment of Nondiabetic Patients with Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Trial; and NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
aThe total number of biopsies was 1059.
Baseline Characteristics by Steatohepatitis Diagnosis at Screening
| Patient Characteristics | NAFL | Steatohepatitis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Borderline | Definite | |||
| No. | 86 | 84 | 276 | |
| Age at biopsy, mean (SD), y | 45 (11) | 45 (11) | 49 (11) | .007 |
| Male, No. (%) | 34 (39.5) | 34 (40.5) | 84 (30.4) | .12 |
| White race, No. (%) | 74 (89.2) | 71 (89.9) | 229 (87.1) | .81 |
| Hispanic or Latino, No. (%) | 10 (11.6) | 6 (7.1) | 24 (8.7) | .60 |
| Diabetes, No. (%) | 18 (20.9) | 16 (19.0) | 115 (41.7) | <.001 |
| Smoking history, No. (%) | ||||
| Current smoker | 9 (10.5) | 13 (15.5) | 18 (6.5) | .04 |
| Ever smoked | 28 (32.6) | 34 (40.5) | 101 (36.6) | .57 |
| No. | 38 | 39 | 142 | |
| Metabolic syndrome, No. (%) | 21 (55.3) | 29 (76.3) | 109 (77.3) | .03 |
| BMI, mean (SD) | 34.1 (7.1) | 34.5 (5.3) | 35.9 (6.9) | .24 |
| ALT, mean (SD), U/L | 53 (29) | 73 (39) | 87 (61) | .002 |
| AST, mean (SD), U/L | 38 (22) | 45 (25) | 65 (51) | <.001 |
| Alkaline phosphatase, mean (SD), U/L | 84 (23) | 76 (22) | 88 (24) | .02 |
| Cholesterol, mean (SD), mg/dL | ||||
| LDL | 125 (37) | 121 (42) | 123 (34) | .90 |
| HDL | 48 (11) | 41 (10) | 42 (10) | .004 |
| Triglycerides | 161 (78) | 152 (65) | 194 (121) | .04 |
| Glucose, mean (SD), mg/dL | 95 (18) | 102 (24) | 105 (35) | .17 |
| Insulin, mean (SD), μU/mL | 17 (10) | 23 (27) | 28 (33) | .13 |
| HOMA-IR, mean (SD) | 4.3 (3.0) | 5.8 (6.5) | 7.9 (11.3) | .08 |
| Medication use, No. (%) | ||||
| Metformin | 3 (7.9) | 9 (23.1) | 34 (23.9) | .08 |
| Vitamin E | 4 (10.5) | 7 (17.9) | 22 (15.5) | .68 |
| Statins | 7 (18.4) | 10 (25.6) | 33 (23.2) | .75 |
| No. | 86 | 84 | 276 | |
| Hepatic steatosis (numeric score), No. (%) | ||||
| 0 (<5%) | 0 | 3 (3.6) | 2 (0.7) | <.001 |
| 1 (5%-33%) | 52 (60.5) | 28 (33.3) | 87 (31.5) | |
| 2 (34%-66%) | 22 (25.6) | 21 (25.0) | 104 (37.7) | |
| 3 (>66%) | 12 (14.0) | 32 (38.1) | 83 (30.1) | |
| Steatosis score, mean (SD) | 1.5 (0.7) | 2.0 (0.9) | 2.0 (0.8) | <.001 |
| Lobular inflammation score , foci per 20× high power field, No. (%) | ||||
| 0 (None) | 1 (1.2) | 0 | 0 | <.001 |
| 1 (<2) | 70 (81.4) | 48 (57.1) | 96 (34.8) | |
| 2 (2-4) | 13 (15.1) | 31 (36.9) | 133 (48.2) | |
| 3 (>4) | 2 (2.3) | 5 (6.0) | 47 (17.0) | |
| Lobular inflammation score, mean (SD) | 1.2 (0.5) | 1.5 (0.6) | 1.8 (0.7) | <.001 |
| Ballooning, No. (%) | ||||
| 0 (None) | 84 (97.7) | 47 (56.0) | 0 | <.001 |
| 1 (Few) | 2 (2.3) | 34 (40.5) | 86 (31.2) | |
| 2 (Many) | 0 | 3 (3.6) | 190 (68.8) | |
| Ballooning score, mean (SD) | 0.0 (0.2) | 0.5 (0.6) | 1.7 (0.5) | <.001 |
| Mallory-Denk bodies, No. (%) | 0 | 3 (3.6) | 138 (50) | <.001 |
| Portal inflammation score, No. (%) | ||||
| 0 (None) | 31 (36.0) | 13 (15.5) | 24 (8.7) | <.001 |
| 1 (Mild) | 47 (54.7) | 57 (67.9) | 173 (62.7) | |
| 2 (More than mild) | 8 (9.3) | 14 (16.7) | 79 (28.6) | |
| Portal inflammation score, mean (SD) | 0.7 (0.6) | 1.0 (0.6) | 1.2 (0.6) | <.001 |
| Fibrosis stage, No. (%) | ||||
| None | 66 (76.7) | 27 (32.1) | 15 (5.4) | <.001 |
| 1a | 7 (8.1) | 19 (22.6) | 31 (11.2) | |
| 1b | 2 (2.3) | 5 (6.0) | 49 (17.8) | |
| 1c | 7 (8.1) | 7 (8.3) | 1 (0.4) | |
| 2 | 2 (2.3) | 12 (14.3) | 72 (26.1) | |
| 3 | 2 (2.3) | 12 (14.3) | 92 (33.3) | |
| 4 | 0 | 2 (2.4) | 16 (5.8) | |
| Fibrosis stage, mean (SD) | 0.3 (0.6) | 1.2 (1.1) | 2.0 (1.0) | <.001 |
| NAS, mean (SD) | 2.7 (0.9) | 3.9 (1.2) | 5.5 (1.2) | <.001 |
| Interval between biopsies, mean (SD), y | 5.9 (2.8) | 5.0 (2.9) | 4.6 (2.7) | .001 |
| Biopsy length, mean (SD), mm | 17.6 (8.3) | 17.6 (8.1) | 19.2 (9.8) | .21 |
Abbreviations: ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared); HDL, high-density lipoprotein; HOMA-IR, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; NAFL, nonalcoholic fatty liver; NAS, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score.
SI conversion factors: To convert alkaline phosphatase, ALT, and AST to microkatals per liter, multiply by 0.0167; glucose to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555; HDL and LDL to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259; insulin to picomoles per liter, multiply by 6.945; and triglycerides to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0113.
The numbers of patients for clinical and laboratory data are smaller because only data collected within 6 months of the biopsy were included (n = 446 with demographic and histologic data; n = 219 with clinical data collected within 6 months of biopsy).
P values derived from Fisher exact test for categorical variables and analysis of variance for continuous measures.
Twenty-one participants refused to provide their race, 4 participants were missing LDL cholesterol level, and 3 participants were missing insulin and HOMA-IR values.
Data collected within 6 months of biopsy. In the Metabolic syndrome for Borderline category, 2 patients were missing metabolic syndrome (1 in the borderline category and 1 in the definite category).
Determined as glucose (millimoles per liter) × insulin (micro units per mililiter divided by 22.5).
Steatosis score ranges from 0 (<5% hepatic steatosis) to 3 (>66% hepatic steatosis).
Lobular inflammation score ranges from 0 (no foci per ×20 high power) to 3 (>4 foci per ×20 high power).
Ballooning score ranges from 0 (no ballooned cells) to 2 (many ballooned cells).
Portal inflammation score ranges from 0 (no portal inflammation) to 2 (more than mild portal inflammation).
Sum of scores for steatosis, lobular inflammation, and ballooning; range, 0 to 8, with 8 indicating more severe disease.
Figure 2. Examples of Progression and Regression of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD)
Changes in diagnosis and fibrosis from first biopsy to last showing numbers of patients with changes of diagnosis (A) or fibrosis stage (B). Green boxes indicate improved diagnosis or regression of fibrosis; red boxes indicate worsening diagnosis or progression of fibrosis. White boxes indicate either no change in diagnosis or fibrosis stage or, in the case of off-diagonal boxes (B), a change in fibrosis that cannot be clearly defined as progression or regression.[19] SH indicates steatohepatitis.
Figure 3. Histologic Evolution of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD)
A-C, The proportion of patients with fibrosis stage 0, 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3, or 4 at first biopsy and last biopsy is shown in patients whose diagnosis improved, did not change, and worsened. A, For those with improvement in diagnosis, fibrosis stage is shown for those with diagnosis change from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) to nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) (n = 61), borderline to NAFL (n = 24), and NASH to borderline (n = 56). B, For patients with no change in diagnosis, fibrosis stage is shown for NAFL (n = 50) borderline (n = 21), and NASH (n = 159). C, For patients with worsening of diagnosis, fibrosis stage is shown for those with diagnosis change from NAFL to NASH (n = 18), borderline to NASH (n = 39), and NAFL to borderline (n = 18). D, The change in fibrosis stage from the first biopsy to the second is shown as a function of change in the NAFLD activity score (NAS). A reduction in the NAS was associated with a decrease in fibrosis stage, whereas an increase in the NAS was associated with an increase in fibrosis stage. Specifically, a 2-point or greater decrease in NAS was associated with fibrosis regression. One participant with a change in NAS of −7 and 1 participant with a change in NAS of +5 were removed from the figure. Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.38; slope, +0.67; SE, 0.08; P < .001. Error bars indicate 95% CIs.
Multivariable Models for Clinical and Histologic Factors Associated With Fibrosis Regression and Progression
| Variable | cOR (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fibrosis Regression vs No Change | Fibrosis Progression vs No Change | |||
| Baseline clinical and histologic features | ||||
| Age at biopsy (per 10 y) | 0.7 (0.5-1.0) | .05 | 1.3 (0.9-1.8) | .10 |
| Current smoker | 0.1 (0.0-0.5) | .009 | 2.4 (0.8-7.2) | .12 |
| AST (per 10 U/L) | 0.6 (0.4-0.7) | <.001 | 1.3 (1.1-1.5) | .002 |
| HOMA-IR (per 5 U) | 0.5 (0.4-0.8) | .003 | 1.1 (0.9-1.3) | .25 |
| Portal inflammation | 0.4 (0.2-0.9) | .02 | 1.4 (0.7-2.7) | .36 |
| Fibrosis stage | 3.0 (1.8-4.8) | <.001 | 0.6 (0.4-0.8) | .007 |
| Change | ||||
| ΔALT (per 10 U/L) | 0.7 (0.5-0.9) | .002 | 1.0 (0.9-1.2) | .93 |
| ΔAST (per 10 U/L) | 0.9 (0.6-1.2) | .47 | 1.3 (1.0-1.6) | .02 |
| Years between biopsies | 1.1 (0.9-1.3) | .56 | 1.2 (1.0-1.4) | .04 |
| Baseline | ||||
| Ballooning | 0.6 (0.3-0.9) | .02 | 3.7 (2.2-6.0) | <.001 |
| Portal inflammation | 0.4 (0.2-0.8) | .007 | 4.0 (2.1-7.7) | <.001 |
| Fibrosis stage | 2.0 (1.5-2.8) | <.001 | 0.4 (0.3-0.5) | <.001 |
| Change (last biopsy vs first) | ||||
| ΔSteatosis grade | 0.6 (0.4-0.8) | <.001 | 0.8 (0.6-1.1) | .24 |
| ΔBallooning | 0.6 (0.4-0.8) | .002 | 3.0 (2.0-4.4) | <.001 |
| ΔLobular inflammation | 0.8 (0.6-1.2) | .33 | 1.3 (0.9-1.8) | .14 |
| ΔPortal inflammation | 0.5 (0.3-0.9) | 002 | 4.1 (2.3-7.3) | <.001 |
| Years between biopsies | 0.9 (0.9-1.0) | .24 | 1.1 (1.0-1.2) | .07 |
| Baseline | ||||
| NAS | 1.1 (0.9-1.4) | .50 | 1.3 (1.0-1.6) | .04 |
| Mallory-Denk bodies | 0.2 (0.1-0.6) | .002 | 3.8 (1.5-9.7) | .005 |
| Portal inflammation | 0.4 (0.2-0.8) | .006 | 4.0 (2.1-7.7) | <.001 |
| Fibrosis stage | 2.0 (1.5-2.7) | <.001 | 0.4 (0.3-0.5) | <.001 |
| Change (last biopsy vs first) | ||||
| ΔNAS | 0.7 (0.6-0.9) | .001 | 1.3 (1.1-1.5) | .01 |
| ΔMallory-Denk bodies | 0.5 (0.1-1.1) | .07 | 2.5 (1.2-5.0) | .01 |
| ΔPortal inflammation | 0.5 (0.3-0.9) | .02 | 4.3 (2.5-7.5) | <.001 |
| Years between biopsy | 1.0 (0.9-1.1) | .47 | 1.1 (1.0-1.2) | .08 |
Abbreviations: ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; cOR, conditional odds ratio; HOMA-IR, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance; NAS, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (sum of scores for steatosis, lobular inflammation, and ballooning; range, 0-8).
Determined with multivariable multinomial regression.
Factors associated with the first model are explained in the second and third paragraphs of the Statistical Analysis subsection of the Methods section. Total number is 216 owing to 3 participants missing HOMA-IR.
Change (value at last biopsy – first biopsy), where a positive value for change indicates worsening.
Factors associated with the second model are explained in the last paragraph of the Statistical Analysis subsection of the Methods section.
The third model differed from the second model as described in the last paragraph of the Statistical Analysis subsection of the Methods section.