| Literature DB >> 34847883 |
Yong Xie1, Huan Tian2, Bin Xiang3, Ding Li3, Jian Liu3, Zhuoyan Cai3, Yuzhou Liu3, Hua Xiang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have revealed obesity, nutrition, lifestyle, genetic and epigenetic factors may be risk factors for the occurrence and development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, the effect of total polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) consumption on the risk of NAFLD is uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether the total PUFA intake is independently associated with the risk of NAFLD and explore the threshold of PUFA intake better illustrate the correlation between them in Chinese Han adults.Entities:
Keywords: Case–control study; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; Polyunsaturated fatty acid; Risk; Secondary analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34847883 PMCID: PMC8638208 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-021-02039-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Gastroenterol ISSN: 1471-230X Impact factor: 3.067
Fig. 1Patient selection flowchart
Baseline Characteristics of participants (n = 1068)
| Group | Non-NAFLD | NAFLD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 534 | 534 | |
| MUFA intake (g/day)‡ | 31.16 (8.59) | 34.12 (9.10) | < 0.001 |
| Total PUFA intake (g/day)‡ | 23.30 (4.58) | 25.93 (4.86) | < 0.001 |
| Nut intake (g/day)† | 2.86 (1.22–8.98) | 3.15 (1.50–8.80) | 0.743 |
| Energy intake (kcal/day)‡ | 2167.63 (598.59) | 2263.95 (617.49) | 0.010 |
| Sex (n, %) | 1.000 | ||
| Men | 364 (68.16%) | 364 (68.16%) | |
| Women | 170 (31.84%) | 170 (31.84%) | |
| Age (n, %) | 0.734 | ||
| < 40 year | 138 (25.84%) | 140 (26.22%) | |
| 40–60 | 334 (62.55%) | 340 (63.67%) | |
| ≥ 60 | 62 (11.61%) | 54 (10.11%) | |
| Education level (n, %) | 0.332 | ||
| Primary school and less than | 49 (9.18%) | 40 (7.49%) | |
| Junior middle and high school | 202 (37.83%) | 223 (41.76%) | |
| Junior college or above | 283 (53.00%) | 271 (50.75%) | |
| Marital status (n,%) | 0.192 | ||
| Single | 62 (11.61%) | 49 (9.18%) | |
| Married or other | 472 (88.39%) | 485 (90.82%) | |
| BMI (n, %) | < 0.001 | ||
| < 18.5 kg/m2 | 20 (3.75%) | 3 (0.56%) | |
| 18.5–24.0 | 382 (71.54%) | 179 (33.52%) | |
| ≥ 24.0 | 132 (24.72%) | 352 (65.92%) | |
| Income (n, %) | 0.448 | ||
| < 2000 yuan/month | 35 (6.55%) | 32 (5.99%) | |
| 2000–3000 | 174 (32.58%) | 157 (29.40%) | |
| ≥ 3000 | 325 (60.86%) | 345 (64.61%) | |
| Smoking status (n, %) | 0.284 | ||
| Never smoker | 383 (71.72%) | 367 (68.73%) | |
| Smoker | 151 (28.28%) | 167 (31.27%) | |
| Tea-drinking status (n, %) | 0.029 | ||
| No drinking | 234 (43.82%) | 199 (37.27%) | |
| Drinking | 300 (56.18%) | 335 (62.73%) | |
| Occupation (n, %) | 0.187 | ||
| Mental labour | 152 (28.46%) | 158 (29.59%) | |
| Physical labour | 136 (25.47%) | 111 (20.79%) | |
| Other | 246 (46.07%) | 265 (49.63%) | |
| Physical exercise (n, %) | 0.046 | ||
| Light | 156 (29.21%) | 194 (36.33%) | |
| Moderate | 164 (30.71%) | 147 (27.53%) | |
| Severe | 214 (40.07%) | 193 (36.14%) | |
| History of hyperlipidemia (n, %) | 0.661 | ||
| No | 508 (95.13%) | 511 (95.69%) | |
| Yes | 26 (4.87%) | 23 (4.31%) | |
| History of diabetes (n, %) | 0.241 | ||
| No | 519 (97.19%) | 512 (95.88%) | |
| Yes | 15 (2.81%) | 22 (4.12%) | |
| History of hypertension (n, %) | < 0.001 | ||
| No | 436 (81.65%) | 375 (70.22%) | |
| Yes | 98 (18.35%) | 159 (29.78%) |
NAFLD non-alcoholic fatty liver, BMI body mass index, MUFA monounsaturated fatty acid, PUFA polyunsaturated fatty acid
†Medians (IQRs)
‡Mean (SD)
The results of univariate analysis
| Statistics | OR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||
| Men | 728 (68.16%) | Ref | |
| Women | 340 (31.84%) | 1.00 (0.77, 1.29) | 1.000 |
| Age | |||
| < 40 year | 278 (26.03%) | Ref | |
| 40–60 | 674 (63.11%) | 1.00 (0.76, 1.33) | 0.9809 |
| ≥ 60 | 116 (10.86%) | 0.86 (0.56, 1.33) | 0.4909 |
| Education level | |||
| Primary school and less than | 89 (8.33%) | Ref | |
| Junior middle and high school | 425 (39.79%) | 1.35 (0.85, 2.14) | 0.1974 |
| Junior college or above | 554 (51.87%) | 1.17 (0.75, 1.84) | 0.4866 |
| Marital status | |||
| Single | 111 (10.39%) | Ref | |
| Married or other | 957 (89.61%) | 1.30 (0.88, 1.93) | 0.1933 |
| BMI | |||
| < 18.5 kg/m2 | 23 (2.15%) | Ref | |
| 18.5–24.0 | 561 (52.53%) | 3.12 (0.92, 10.65) | 0.0687 |
| ≥ 24.0 | 484 (45.32%) | 17.78 (5.20, 60.82) | < 0.0001 |
| Income | |||
| < 2000 yuan/month | 67 (6.27%) | Ref | |
| 2000–3000 | 331 (30.99%) | 0.99 (0.58, 1.67) | 0.9608 |
| ≥ 3000 | 670 (62.73%) | 1.16 (0.70, 1.92) | 0.5605 |
| Smoking status | |||
| Never smoker | 750 (70.22%) | Ref | |
| Smoker | 318 (29.78%) | 1.15 (0.89, 1.50) | 0.2845 |
| Tea-drinking status | |||
| No drinking | 433 (40.54%) | Ref | |
| Drinking | 635 (59.46%) | 1.31 (1.03, 1.68) | 0.0293 |
| Occupation | |||
| Mental labour | 310 (29.03%) | Ref | |
| Physical labour | 247 (23.13%) | 0.79 (0.56, 1.10) | 0.1575 |
| Other | 511 (47.85%) | 1.04 (0.78, 1.37) | 0.8043 |
| Physical exercise | |||
| Light | 350 (32.77%) | Ref | |
| Moderate | 311 (29.12%) | 0.72 (0.53, 0.98) | 0.0363 |
| Severe | 407 (38.11%) | 0.73 (0.54, 0.97) | 0.0281 |
| History of hyperlipidemia | |||
| No | 1019 (95.41%) | Ref | |
| Yes | 49 (4.59%) | 0.88 (0.50, 1.56) | 0.6610 |
| History of diabetes | |||
| No | 1031 (96.54%) | Ref | |
| Yes | 37 (3.46%) | 1.49 (0.76, 2.90) | 0.2442 |
| History of hypertension | |||
| No | 811 (75.94%) | Ref | |
| Yes | 257 (24.06%) | 1.89 (1.42, 2.51) | < 0.0001 |
| MUFA intake | 32.64 ± 8.97 | 1.04 (1.02, 1.05) | < 0.0001 |
| Total PUFA intake | 24.62 ± 4.90 | 1.13 (1.10, 1.17) | < 0.0001 |
| Nut intake | 8.01 ± 12.97 | 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) | 0.7431 |
| Energy intake | 2215.79 ± 609.74 | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | 0.01 |
BMI body mass index, MUFA monounsaturated fatty acid, PUFA polyunsaturated fatty acid, OR odds ratio, Ref reference
Relationship between total PUFA intake and the risk of NAFLD in different models
| Variable | Non-adjusted (OR, 95% CI, | Adjust I (OR, 95% CI, | Adjust II (OR, 95% CI, |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total PUFA intake (g/day) | 1.13 (1.10, 1.17) < 0.0001 | 1.14 (1.11, 1.18) < 0.0001 | 1.18 (1.13, 1.23) < 0.0001 |
| Total PUFA intake (g/day) (Quartile) | |||
| Q1 | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Q2 | 2.04 (1.42, 2.92) 0.0001 | 2.21 (1.52, 3.20) < 0.0001 | 2.57 (1.69, 3.90) < 0.0001 |
| Q3 | 3.09 (2.17, 4.41) < 0.0001 | 3.45 (2.39, 4.98) < 0.0001 | 3.84 (2.49, 5.93) < 0.0001 |
| Q4 | 5.28 (3.65, 7.64) < 0.0001 | 6.07 (4.12, 8.93) < 0.0001 | 8.30 (4.87, 14.13) < 0.0001 |
| < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | |
Non-adjusted model adjust for: None
Adjust I model adjust for: age, sex
Adjust II model adjust for: age, sex, nut intake, energy intake, BMI, tea-drinking status, history of hypertension, MUFA intake, physical exercise, education, marital status
Abbreviations as in Tables 1 and 2
Fig. 2The relationship between total PUFA intake and the risk of NAFLD. A nonlinear relationship between them was detected after adjusting for age, sex, nut intake, energy intake, BMI, tea-drinking status, history of hypertension, MUFA intake, physical exercise, education, marital status. The total PUFA intake is not connected with the risk of NAFLD when inflection point is < 18.8 g/day or > 29.3 g/day. Conversely, the total PUFA intake ranged between 18.8 and 29.3 g/day and showed a significant correlation with the risk of NAFLD. The risk of NAFLD increases as the total PUFA intake increases
The results of two-piecewise linear regression model
| Inflection point of total PUFA intake (g/day) | Effect size (OR) | 95%CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| < 18.8 | 0.91 | 0.81 to 1.02 | 0.1045 |
| 18.8–29.3 | 1.32 | 1.23 to 1.41 | < 0.0001 |
| > 29.3 | 1.13 | 0.99 to 1.30 | 0.0756 |
Effect: NAFLD risk, Cause: Total PUFA intake
Adjusted: age, sex, nut intake, energy intake, BMI, tea-drinking status, history of hypertension, MUFA intake, physical exercise, education, marital status
Abbreviations as in Table 2
Relationship between total PUFA intake to energy intake ratio and the risk of NAFLD in different models
| Variable | Non-adjusted (OR, 95%CI, | Adjust I (OR, 95%CI, | Adjust II (OR, 95%CI, |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total PUFA intake to energy intake ratio (g/1000 kcal) | 1.08 (1.04, 1.12) 0.0001 | 1.10 (1.15, 1.15) < 0.0001 | 1.14 (1.08, 1.20) < 0.0001 |
Non-adjusted model adjust for: None
Adjust I model adjust for: age, sex
Adjust II model adjust for: age, sex, nut intake, BMI, tea-drinking status, history of hypertension, MUFA intake, physical exercise, education, marital status
Abbreviations as in Table 2