| Literature DB >> 32431115 |
Byung Wan Lee1, Yong Ho Lee1, Cheol Young Park2, Eun Jung Rhee2, Won Young Lee2, Nan Hee Kim3, Kyung Mook Choi3, Keun Gyu Park4, Yeon Kyung Choi4, Bong Soo Cha5, Dae Ho Lee6.
Abstract
This clinical practice position statement, a product of the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association, proposes recommendations for the diagnosis, progression and/or severity assessment, management, and follow-up of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Patients with both T2DM and NAFLD have an increased risk of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and fibrosis and a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetic complications compared to those without NAFLD. With regards to the evaluation of patients with T2DM and NAFLD, ultrasonography-based stepwise approaches using noninvasive biomarker models such as fibrosis-4 or the NAFLD fibrosis score as well as imaging studies such as vibration-controlled transient elastography with controlled attenuation parameter or magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction are recommended. After the diagnosis of NAFLD, the stage of fibrosis needs to be assessed appropriately. For management, weight reduction achieved by lifestyle modification has proven beneficial and is recommended in combination with antidiabetic agent(s). Evidence that some antidiabetic agents improve NAFLD/NASH with fibrosis in patients with T2DM is emerging. However, there are currently no definite pharmacologic treatments for NAFLD in patients with T2DM. For specific cases, bariatric surgery may be an option if indicated.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiovascular disease; Diabetes mellitus, type 2; Life style; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32431115 PMCID: PMC7332334 DOI: 10.4093/dmj.2020.0010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Metab J ISSN: 2233-6079 Impact factor: 5.376
The prevalence of NAFLD and NASH in patients with diabetes
| Study | Study population | Diagnostic methods | Categories | Prevalence, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohan et al. (2009) [ | In 132 Indian adults with diabetes | US | NAFLD | 54.5 |
| Kim et al. (2014) [ | In 4,437 Korean patients with T2DM | US | NAFLD | 72.7 |
| Targher et al. (2007) [ | In 2,839 Italian patients with T2DM | US | NAFLD | 69.5 |
| Portillo-Sanchez et al. (2015) [ | In 103 American patients with diabetes with normal plasma aminotransferases | 1H-MRS | NAFLD | 50 |
| Williams et al. (2011) [ | In 54 biopsied patients with diabetes | Liver biopsy | NASH | 22 |
| Hyysalo et al. (2014) [ | In 115 biopsied participants in in the Finnish population-based D2D-study | Liver biopsy | NASH | 17.6 |
| Kim et al. (2014) [ | In 929 Korean patients with diabetes | US | NAFLD | 63.3 |
US, ultrasonography; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; 1H-MRS, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus; NASH, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.
Summary of the currently used imaging devices for the quantification of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis
| Device | Detection criteria | Accuracy reproducibility quantification | Hepatic volume of assessment | Time accessibility | Cost | Specific comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hepatic steatosis | ||||||
| US | Specific sonographic findings | + | +++ | + (bedside) | + | Cannot detect mild steatosis, observer dependency |
| CT | Liver HU <40 or liver HU-spleen HU <−10 | ++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | Radiation hazard |
| Diverse criteria for definition (liver/spleen ratio of HU, etc.) | ||||||
| Low sensitivity in mild steatosis | ||||||
| MRI-PDFF | ≥5% liver fat | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | Optimal for clinical trials |
| 1H-MRS | ≥5.6% liver fat | +++ | + | +++ | +++ | Gold standard |
| Sampling errors | ||||||
| Requires expertise/device | ||||||
| CAP by VCTE | ≥248–≥288 dB/m (variable cutoffs) | ++ | + | + (bedside) | + | Not linear with a higher liver fat content |
| Results are affected by BMI, diabetes, etiology | ||||||
| XL probe for the obese | ||||||
| Hepatic fibrosis | ||||||
| MRE | Advanced fibrosis (F3) threshold >2.4–5.55 kPa | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | Diverse cut-off points by type of modality (2D, 3D, etc.) |
| Most accurate but expensive | ||||||
| Failure risk in iron overload condition | ||||||
| LSM by VCTE | Diverse cutoffs (7.3–9.9 kPa) for advanced fibrosis (F3) | ++ | + | + (bedside) | + | Affected by BMI (failure risk) |
| XL probe for the obese | ||||||
| VCTE can measure CAP and LSM simultaneously |
US, ultrasonography; CT, computed tomography; MRI-PDFF, magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction; 1H-MRS, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy; CAP, controlled attenuation parameter; VCTE, vibration-controlled transient elastography; BMI, body mass index; MRE, magnetic resonance elastography; LSM, liver stiffness measurement.
Fig. 1Algorithm for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) evaluation. CV, cardiovascular; NFS, NAFLD fibrosis score; BMI, body mass index; IFG, impaired fasting glucose; DM, diabetes mellitus; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; FIB-4, fibrosis-4; PLT, platelet; APRI, AST to platelet ratio index; ULN, upper limit of normal; VCTE, vibration-controlled transient elastography; ELF, enhanced liver fibrosis; MRE, magnetic resonance elastography. aHigher cutoffs for patients aged >65 years, bVariable cutoffs have been suggested. Measured values are affected by body factors, cFurther validation is required.
Fig. 2Suggested algorithm for the management of patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).