Severe hepatic steatosis promotes increased liver stiffness in the early stages of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease
- PMID: 38558221
- DOI: 10.1111/liv.15920
Severe hepatic steatosis promotes increased liver stiffness in the early stages of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease
Abstract
Background & aims: The predictors of progression from steatosis to more advanced stages of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) remain unclear. We evaluated the association between the quantity of hepatic steatosis and longitudinal changes in liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) using magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in patients with MASLD.
Methods: We retrospectively analysed patients with MASLD who underwent at least two serial MRE and magnetic resonance imaging-based proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) examinations at least 1 year apart. Fine-Gray competitive proportional hazard regression was used to identify LSM progression and regression factors.
Results: A total of 471 patients were enrolled. Factors linked to LSM progression were steatosis grade 3 (MRI-PDFF ≥17.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.597; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.483-4.547) and albumin-bilirubin grade 2 or 3 (aHR 2.790; 95% CI 1.284-6.091), while the only factor linked to LSM regression was % decrease rate of MRI-PDFF ≥5% (aHR 2.781; 95% CI 1.584-4.883). Steatosis grade 3 correlated with a higher incidence rate of LSM progression than steatosis grade 1 (MRI-PDFF <11.3%) in patients with LSM stage 0 (<2.5 kilopascal [kPa]), and a % annual decrease rate of MRI-PDFF ≥5% correlated with a higher incidence rate of LSM regression than that of MRI-PDFF >-5% and <5% in patients with LSM stage 1 or 2-4 (≥2.5 kPa).
Conclusions: Severe hepatic steatosis was linked to significant LSM progression in patients with MASLD and low LSM (<2.5 kPa).
Keywords: LSM (liver stiffness measurement); MASLD (metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease); MRE (magnetic resonance elastography); MRI‐PDFF (magnetic resonance imaging–based proton density fat fraction).
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Younossi Z, Anstee QM, Marietti M, et al. Global burden of NAFLD and NASH: trends, predictions, risk factors and prevention. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;15:11‐20.
-
- Loomba R, Sanyal AJ. The global NAFLD epidemic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;10:686‐690.
-
- Rinella ME, Lazarus JV, Ratziu V, et al. A multi‐society Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature. Hepatology. 2023;78(6):1966‐1986.
-
- Ratziu V, Boursier J, AFEF Group for the Study of Liver Fibrosis. Confirmatory biomarker diagnostic studies are not needed when transitioning from NAFLD to MASLD. J Hepatol. 2023;80(2):e51‐e52.
-
- Hagström H, Vessby J, Ekstedt M, Shang Y. 99% of patients with NAFLD meet MASLD criteria and natural history is therefore identical. J Hepatol. 2023;80(23):e76‐e77.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical