| Literature DB >> 35277756 |
Monika Bischoff1, Sebastian Zimny2, Sebastian Feiner1, Johannes Sauter2, Svenja Sydor3, Gerald Denk2, Jutta M Nagel1, Gert Bischoff1, Christian Rust1, Simon Hohenester4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the hepatic manifestation of the metabolic syndrome. Particularly morbidly obese patients are at risk of developing progressive liver disease. Nutritional and lifestyle intervention is recommended as the standard of care in NAFLD. However, there is a striking lack of evidence to support the efficacy of lifestyle intervention to treat NAFLD in morbidly obese patients. Here, we aimed to assess the impact of lifestyle intervention on NAFLD in the morbidly obese in a real-world setting.Entities:
Keywords: Lifestyle intervention; Liver fibrosis; Morbid obesity; NAFLD
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35277756 PMCID: PMC9279260 DOI: 10.1007/s00394-022-02846-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nutr ISSN: 1436-6207 Impact factor: 4.865
Participants’ characteristics
| Total | Male | Female | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, | 114 (100%) | 31 (27.2%) | 83 (72.8%) | n.a |
| Age (years) | 45.4 ± 13.3 | 48.7 ± 11.7 | 44.2 ± 13.6 | n.s |
| Weight (kg) | 128.3 ± 26.4 | 146.6 ± 25.8 | 121.5 ± 23.3 | < 0.001 § |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 43.6 ± 7.7 | 45.4 ± 6.7 | 43.0 ± 8.0 | n.s |
Obesity class I (BMI ≥ 30), | 13 (11.4%) | 1 (3.2%) | 12 (14.5%) | n.s |
Obesity class II (BMI ≥ 35), | 26 (22.8%) | 7 (22.6%) | 19 (22.9%) | |
Obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40), | 75 (65.8%) | 23 (74.2%) | 52 (62.7%) | |
| Treatment response, | 107 (93.9%) | 29 (93.5%) | 78 (94.0%) | n.s |
| Relative weight loss (%) | 21.0 ± 8.6 | 22.9 ± .9.7 | 20.3 ± 8.0 | n.s |
| Weight loss < 10%, | 8 (7.0%) | 2 (6.5%) | 6 (7.2%) | 0.09$ |
| Weight loss 10–20%, | 44 (38.6%) | 7 (22.6%) | 37 (44.6%) | |
| Weight loss 20–30%, | 45 (39.5%) | 14 (45.2%) | 31 (37.3%) | |
| Weight loss > 30%, | 17 (14.9%) | 8 (25.8%) | 9 (10.8%) |
A total of 136 obese patients were included in the lifestyle intervention program. Baseline characteristics are given for the cohort in the per protocol analysis (n = 114). The majority of patients was female. Treatment response was defined as weight loss of > 5% and > 10% of body weight depending on a baseline BMI of < 35 and ≥ 35 kg/m2, respectively. p values were calculated for the comparison of male and female participants applying § unpaired t test and $ Chi-squared test, respectively
Fig. 1Body weight and glycemic status improve with lifestyle intervention. A total of 136 obese subjects were included in the lifestyle intervention program. 114 (84%) participants could be included in the per protocol analysis. A BMI is given over time for males (blue) and females (red) showing marked and sustained weight loss. ***p < 0.001 vs. W0, $p < 0.001 vs. W15, ANOVA, Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc analysis. B Glycemic status was followed over time. Subjects on antidiabetic medication or fasting plasma glucose levels ≥ 126 mg/dL were considered diabetic (red), while subjects with fasting plasma glucose levels 100–125 mg/dL were defined as subjects with impaired fasting glucose (IFG). As a result of lifestyle intervention, glycemic status of patients markedly improved. **p < 0.01, McNemar test
Change in fatty acid composition during lifestyle intervention
| W0 | W48 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total FA | 18.6 g/l ± 9.5 g/l | 20.0 g/l ± 14.0 g/l | 0.317 |
| Saturated FA | 8.3 g/l ± 3.7 g/l | 8.3 g/l ± 3.9 g/l | 0.903 |
| Unsaturated FA | 10.3 g/l ± 6.7 g/l | 11.7 g/l ± 11.3 g/l | 0.271 |
| MUFA | 6.0 g/l ± 5.5 g/l | 7.4 g/l ± 10.7 g/l | 0.256 |
| DUFA | 3.1 g/l ± 1.5 g/l | 3.1 g/l ± 1.7 g/l | 0.886 |
| PUFA | 1.3 g/l ± 0.8 g/l | 1.2 g/l ± 0.8 g/l | 0.364 |
| Saturated to unsaturated | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 0.707 |
| C16:1n7 to C16:0 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | |
| C18:0 to C16:0 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.434 |
Lipidomics were determined by gas chromatography. Total, saturated and unsaturated fatty acids (FA) are shown, as well as mono-unsaturated (MUFA), di-unsaturated (DUFA) and poly-unsaturated (PUFA) fatty acids and relevant fatty acid ratios. Weight loss was associated with changes in the C16:1n7 to C16:0 ratio. p values are given for paired t tests
Fig. 2Liver damage and risk of fatty liver improve with lifestyle intervention A total of 136 obese subjects were included in the lifestyle intervention program. 114 (84%) subjects could be included in the per protocol analysis. A Serum ALT values over time are given for female (red) and male (blue) participants, respectively. Dotted lines mark the gender-specific upper limits of normal (ULN) at 19U/L (females) and 30U/L (males). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 vs. W0, ANOVA, Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc analysis. B The percentage of subjects with elevated (red) or normal ALT values (green) before and after lifestyle intervention is given, accounting for gender-specific ULN. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, McNemar test. C γGT values are given over time. *p < 0.05 vs. W0, ANOVA, Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc analysis. D Fatty liver was assessed by calculation of FLI. Subjects in which fatty liver was excluded are depicted in green, subjects with indeterminate values are shown in yellow and those with definite fatty liver are shown in red. Weight loss during lifestyle intervention was associated with a marked decrease in the proportion of patients with fatty liver. ***p < 0.001, Chi-squared test
Fig. 3Serum M30 values and risk of liver fibrosis improve with weight loss during lifestyle intervention. A As a surrogate for NASH, patients were classified per M30 values with a cut-off set at 200U/L. Weight loss led to a decrease in participants with M30 values > 200U/L. ##p < 0.01, McNemar. B NFS was calculated and participants in whom liver fibrosis could be excluded are depicted in green, participants with indeterminate values are shown in yellow and those with definite fibrosis are shown in red. Weight loss during lifestyle intervention was associated with a marked decrease in the proportion of subjects at risk for liver fibrosis. **p < 0.01, Chi-squared test
Summary of key antoprometric, metabolic and hepatic variables
| Parameter | W0 | W48 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (kg) | 128.3 ± 26.4 | 101.0 ± 21.8 | < 0.01 |
| Waist (cm) | 126.5 ± 16.9 | 102.3 ± 14.8 | < 0.01 |
| GOT (U/L) | 28.4 ± 21.2 | 22.6 ± 7.0 | < 0.01 |
| GPT (U/L) | 35.9 ± 32.4 | 21.4 ± 8.8 | < 0.01 |
| gGT (U/L) | 35.1 ± 31.2 | 25.2 ± 16.4 | < 0.01 |
| Cholesterol (mg/dL) | 200.2 ± 45.2 | 186.5 ± 38.2 | < 0.01 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 138.9 ± 55.8 | 105.3 ± 53.3 | < 0.01 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 94.3 ± 29.9 | 81.7 ± 12.9 | < 0.01 |
| M30 (U/L) | 206.4 ± 168.0 | 167.3 ± 147.7 | < 0.01 |
| FLI | 93.8 ± 12.3 | 62.6 ± 29.3 | < 0.01 |
| NFS | − 0.8 ± 1.6 | − 1.6 ± 1.3 | < 0.01 |
A summary of key antoprometric, metabolic and hepatic variables is given for the per protocol cohort (n = 114) and changes over time are given. p values were calculated in paired analysis (t tests)