| Literature DB >> 32823621 |
Karolina Jakubczyk1, Karolina Skonieczna-Żydecka1, Justyna Kałduńska1, Ewa Stachowska1, Izabela Gutowska2, Katarzyna Janda1.
Abstract
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is regarded as one of the most common liver pathologies in many societies. Resveratrol, as a phenolic compound with powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties exerting positive effects on the lipid profile and lipid accumulation and also on insulin resistance, appears to be an effective, natural, and safe complementary treatment option in NAFLD therapy. This meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the effects of resveratrol supplementation in NAFLD patients. To this end, scientific databases PubMed/Medline/Embase were searched up to 19 March 2020. We included seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with a total of 302 patients with NAFLD. In all the trials included in the analysis, resveratrol was administered daily over periods between 56 and 180 days in doses ranging from 500 mg to 3000 mg a day. The results of this meta-analysis reveal that resveratrol supplementation, irrespective of the dose or duration, did not affect the analyzed parameters (p < 0.05). The sole exception was an increase in alanine aminotransferase following the administration of resveratrol (p = 0.041). Currently available evidence is insufficient to confirm the efficacy of resveratrol in the management of NAFLD. Due to the inconsistencies between the existing scientific reports, a number of which found a positive effect on NAFLD-related parameters; further research in this area is needed.Entities:
Keywords: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); meta-analysis; resveratrol
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32823621 PMCID: PMC7469003 DOI: 10.3390/nu12082435
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Flowchart.
Study characteristics.
| No. | Study Description | Intervention | Sample Characteristics | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference/Year/Country/Sponsorship | Blinding/ | Focus on | ROB | Form/RSVtype | RSV Dose | Duration of RSV Administration (days)/ | Age Years (mean ± SD) | Males ( | BMI Baseline (kg/m2): RSV Group (Mean ± SD) | BMI Baseline (kg/m2): Control Group (mean ± SD) | ||
| 1 | Asghari et al./ | SB/N | Liver enzymes, lipid and insulin levels, insulin resistance | 5 | Capsules, pure trans-RSV | 600 | 84/placebo | 60/60 | 39.53 ± 6.72 | 35/58.33 | 30.78 (±3.1) | 30.41 (±3.39) |
| 2 | Asghari et al./ | DB/N | Liver enzymes, levels | 5 | Capsules, pure trans-RSV | 600 | 84/placebo | 60/60 | 39.25 ± 26.53 | 40/66.66 | ND | ND |
| 3 | Chachay et al./ | DB/N | Liver enzymes, lipid insulin, bilirubin, IL-6, CRP, TNF-α levels, DBP, SBP, insulin resistance | 5 | Capsules | 3000 | 56/placebo | 20/20 | 48.15 ± 11.73 | 20/100 | 31.8 (30.2–37) | 31.2 (27.4–39.3) |
| 4 | Chen et al./ | DB/N | Insulin resistance, glucose and lipid metabolism | 5 | Capsules (from natural products) | 600 | 90/placebo | 60/60 | 44.30 ± 10.5 | 42/70 | 25.3 (±2.11) | 26.2 (±3.08) |
| 5 | Faghihzadeh et al./ | DB/N | Liver enzymes, lipid insulin, glucose, bilirubin, levels, DBP, SBP, insulin resistance | 3 | Capsules | 500 | 84/placebo | 50/48 | 41.16 ± 9.81 | 35/70 | 28.35 (±3.49) | 28.75 (±3.5) |
| 6 | Faghihzadeh et al./ | DB/N | Liver enzymes, lipid, bilirubin, IL-6, CRP, TNF-α levels | 3 | Capsules, pure trans-RSV | 500 | 84/placebo | 50/48 | 41.16 ± 9.81 | 35/70 | 28.35 (±3.49) | 28.75 (±33.5 |
| 7 | Heebøll et al./ | DB/N | Liver enzymes, lipid insulin, glucose, bilirubin, TNF-α levels, DBP, SBP, insulin resistance | 3 | Capsules, pure trans-RSV | 1500 | 180/placebo | 28/26 | 43.2 (22–67) PBO 43,5 (21–69) ^^ | 17/65.38 | 32,1 (±3.1) | 32 (±5.4) |
DB, double blind; SB, single blind; N, no; Y, yes; ROB, risk of bias; SD, standard deviation; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; SBP, systolic blood pressure; RSV, resveratrol; BMI, body mass index; IL-6, Interleukin 6; CRP, C-reactive protein; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor α; PBO, placebo; ND, No data; ^^, quadriles.
Risk of bias.
| No. | Reference/Year/Country/Sponsorship | Random Sequence Generation (Selection Bias) | Allocation Concealment (Selection Bias) | Blinding of Participants and Personnel (Performance Bias) | Blinding of Outcome Assessment (Detection Bias) | Incomplete Outcome Data Addressed (Attrition Bias) | Selective Reporting (Reporting Bias) | Other Bias | No. Of Low Assessments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Asghari et al./2018a/Iran/ Non-industry | L | L | L | ? | L | L | ? | 5 |
| 2 | Asghari et al./2018b/Iran/ Non-industry | L | L | L | ? | L | L | ? | 5 |
| 3 | Chachay et al./2014/China/Non-industry | L | L | L | ? | L | L | ? | 5 |
| 4 | Chen et al./2015/Australia/Non-industry | L | L | L | ? | L | L | ? | 5 |
| 5 | Faghihzadeh et al./2015/Iran/Non-industry | ? | ? | L | ? | L | L | ? | 3 |
| 6 | Faghihzadeh et al./2014/Iran/Non-industry | ? | ? | L | ? | L | L | ? | 3 |
| 7 | Heebøll et al./2016/Denmark/Non-industry | H | H | L | ? | L | L | ? | 3 |
L, low risk of bias; H, high risk of bias; ?, unclear risk of bias.
The effects sizes, SMD, for co-primary outcomes analyzed in present meta-analysis.
| Outcome | SMD | 95%CI | Z |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AST | 0.052 | −0.202, 0.307 | 0.404 | 0.686 |
| Body weight | −0.061 | −0.334, 0.212 | −0.438 | 0.661 |
| BMI | −0.076 | −0.364, 0.212 | −0.518 | 0.604 |
| WC | −0.075 | −0.385. 0.236 | −0.471 | 0.638 |
| Glucose | −0.184 | −0.585, 0.218 | −0.897 | 0.370 |
| Insulin | −0.178 | −0.948, 0.593 | −0.452 | 0.651 |
| TC | −0.053 | −0.401, 0.296 | −0.297 | 0.767 |
| TAG | −0.095 | −0.470, 0.280 | −0.496 | 0.620 |
| LDL | 0.225 | −0.122, 0.571 | 1.270 | 0.204 |
| HDL | −0.184 | −0.559, 0.191 | −0.959 | 0.337 |
| SBP | −0.035 | −0.379, 0.310 | −0.197 | 0.844 |
| DBP | 0.118 | −0.345, 0.580 | 0.498 | 0.618 |
Figure 2Effect size, standardized mean difference, for ALT in persons taking RSV vs. controls (endpoint data). Q = 1.427, df(Q) = 3, p = 0.699, I-squared = 0.0.