4.3 Article

Increased Plasma Levels of Asymmetric Dimethylarginine in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Relation With Insulin Resistance, Inflammation, and Liver Histology

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE MEDICINE
卷 63, 期 7, 页码 871-877

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/JIM.0000000000000230

关键词

asymmetric dimethylarginine; NAFLD; HOMA-IR; hs-CRP; IL-6

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most frequent cause of death in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Insulin resistance, hepatic dysfunction, and chronic inflammation are factors interacting in explaining the increased CVD incidence in NAFLD. We aimed to evaluate the effects of insulin resistance and inflammatory biomarkers on asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA) levels, a predictor of CVD. We also investigated relationship between these markers and histological findings in patients with NAFLD. Patients and Methods Plasma ADMA, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were measured in 70 patients with histologically verified NAFLD (53 with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis [NASH], 17 with non-NASH) and 12 controls. Results The HOMA-IR (5.3 [3.9] vs 1.9 [1], P < 0.001), hs-CRP (5.6 [4.2] vs 2.2 [2.3] mg/L, P < 0.001), ADMA (0.81 [0.25] vs 0.48 [0.24] mol/L, P = 0.005), and IL-6 (4.1 [1.2] vs 1.0 [0.4] pg/mL, P < 0.001) levels were all found higher in the NAFLD group than the control group. The ADMA levels were significantly higher in patients with NAFLD independent from HOMA-IR and body composition (P = 0.02). The IL-6 and HOMA-IR levels of the NASH group were found significantly higher than those of the non-NASH group. The only determinant significantly correlated to ADMA was HOMA-IR. Conclusions Our data suggested that although ADMA levels are independently higher in NAFLD, the only determinant correlated to ADMA is HOMA-IR and not inflammatory biomarkers (hs-CRP, IL-6) or presence/absence of NASH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据