Publications > Journals > Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology > Article Full Text

  • OPEN ACCESS

Evaluation of Biomarkers in Egyptian Patients with Different Grades of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

  • Ibrahim H. Borai1,
  • Yehia Shaker*,2,
  • Maha Moustafa Kamal1,
  • Wafaa M. Ezzat3,
  • Esmat Ashour2,
  • Mie Afify2,
  • Weaam Gouda2 and
  • Maha M. Elbrashy2
Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology 2017;():-

DOI: 10.14218/JCTH.2017.00004

Received:

Accepted:

Published online:

 Author information

Abstract

Background and Aims: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a silent disease; its spectrum includes simple steatosis, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and fibrosis. Pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines play roles in the pathogenesis of NAFLD and insulin resistance (IR). Moreover, plasma cell antigen-1 (PC-1) is related to IR and associated with NAFLD progression. Therefore, we aimed to detect biomarkers, ultrasonographic and anthropometric findings capable of differentiating NAFLD grades, since most previous investigators were concerned more with NAFLD patients without classifying them into grades.

Methods: A total of 87 NAFLD patients (31 with grade 1 (mild NAFLD), 26 with grade 2 (moderate NAFLD) and 30 with grade 3 (severe NAFLD) were included in the study, in addition to 47 controls (grade 0). All subjects underwent ultrasonographic examination for NAFLD diagnosis. Serum interleukin-10 (IL-10), plasma interleukin-18 (IL-18) and plasma PC-1 levels were determined using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Results: Homoeostasis model assessment (HOMA)-IR was higher in different NAFLD grades than in controls. Ultrasonographic and anthropometric findings and lipid profile indices (except for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which was decreased) were increased with NAFLD progression. Grade 3 patients showed significant increase in levels of IL-18 and significant decrease in IL-10 and PC-1 levels when compared to grade 1 patients.

Conclusion: Anthropometric and ultrasonographic findings were valuable in differentiating NAFLD grades. IR is very important in NAFLD pathogenesis. IL-18, HOMA-index and PC-1 levels could be used to differentiate between NAFLD grades, together with other measurements.

Keywords

NAFLD, Interleukin-18(IL-18), Interleukin-10(IL-10), Plasma cell antigen-1(PC-1)

Introduction

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is characterized by the presence of extra fat in the liver, exceeding 5–10% of liver weight. Most patients with NAFLD have increased liver fat only (simple steatosis). Some of the patients develop hepatic inflammation, a condition known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and up to 20% of patients experience progressive hepatic fibrosis and may eventually progress to liver cirrhosis or failure and even hepatocellular carcinoma.1 Precautionary procedures for NAFLD screening and diagnosis should be taken due to the disturbing increase in the NAFLD worldwide frequency and the moderate development in finding successful medicinal treatment. Primary assessment of early stages of fatty liver requires abdominal ultrasonographic examination, measurement of lipid profile and liver functions, exclusion of hepatitis B and C and alcohol toxicity, and screening for insulin resistance (IR).2

The gold standard for NASH diagnosis is liver biopsy. This procedure, however, is invasive, overpriced, and associated with rare but potentially risky complications and sampling errors; hence, it is not appropriate as a screening tool.3 One of the imaging techniques which is used as noninvasive diagnostic test for NAFLD is ultrasonography, by which the incidence and severity of fatty liver are measured by grading of fatty liver (Grade 1, 2 and 3) according to the hyperechogenicity of the liver tissue, the divergence between liver and diaphragm and the visibility of vascular structures.1,4,5

NAFLD pathogenesis involves a multi-hit process. Steatosis which is believed to be initiated by IR is considered as the first hit, while changes in cytokines and oxidative stress are considered as the second hit, resulting in disease progression.6 Cytokines are produced by T helper cells, which are categorized as T helper 1 cells, secreting pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-18,7 and T helper 2 cells, secreting anti-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-10.8 Several lines of evidence support a role for IL-18 in the pathogenesis of IR and NAFLD,6 while only a few studies have examined the role of IL-10 in NAFLD pathogenesis.3 Beside the insulin-sensitizing effects of IL-10,9 an imbalance between pro- and anti- inflammatory cytokines has been found in the context of NASH in the liver.10

The plasma cell membrane glycoprotein, plasma cell antigen-1 (PC-1), is a type II transmembrane glycoprotein associated with the insulin receptor on the cell surface and inhibits insulin signaling.11 It has been reported that PC-1 is significantly associated with progression of NAFLD.12

Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the significance of some biomarkers as well as ultrasonographic and anthropometric findings in differentiating between NAFLD grades, since most previous studies1317 have been more concerned with studying NAFLD patients without classifying them ultrasonographically into grades.

Methods

Subjects

From January 2015 to October 2015, a total of 87 non-diabetic (blood sugar < 126 mg/dL) obese patients with NAFLD, who have never taken any medication for diabetes, and 47 control subjects were recruited from the Liver Clinic, Medical Service Unit at the National Research Center. All patients and controls were examined ultrasonographically. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects and this study was approved by the Human Ethics Committee of the National Research Center (Code No. 14075).

Exclusion criteria

Patients with hepatitis B or hepatitis C infection, diabetes, splenectomy, cholestasis, coronary artery disease or pregnancy were excluded. Patients with alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking and use of amiodarone, corticosteroids, tamoxifen or methotrexate were also excluded.

Ultrasound (US) examination

US examinations were performed by the same physician using SonoAce R5 (6 MHz; Samsung). Examination of all the patients was done for diagnosing and classifying grades of NAFLD according to Kakrani et al.4 as follows:

  • Grade-0 (control group): This group included 20 females and 27 males with normal findings on US; their ages ranged from 25 to 57 years, and they were age- and sex-matched with patients (Fig. 1a).

  • Grade-I (mild NAFLD): This group included 16 females and 15 males, in which the US showed fine diffuse increase in echogenicity of liver texture; their ages ranged from 25 to 58 years (Fig. 1b).

  • Grade-II (moderate NAFLD): This group included 20 females and 6 males with diffuse increased coarse echogenicity of liver texture and with mild attenuation of US sound beams; their ages ranged from 25 to 60 years (Fig. 1c).

  • Grade-III (severe NAFLD): This group included 22 females and 8 males with diffuse increased coarse echogenicity of liver texture, resulting in poor visibility of portal vein radicle walls and right hemi diaphragm; their ages ranged from 25 to 60 years (Fig. 1d).

Grades of fatty liver on visual analysis.
Fig. 1.  Grades of fatty liver on visual analysis.

Ultrasound image shows (a) normal liver echogenicity, (b) grade 1 fatty liver with increased liver echogenicity, (c) grade 2 fatty liver with the echogenic liver obscuring the echogenic walls of the portal venous branches, and (d) grade 3 fatty liver in which the diaphragmatic outline is obscured.

Liver size was demonstrated by measuring distance between upper and lower borders in the mid-clavicular line. Liver parenchyma was examined with sagittal as well as longitudinal guidance of the probe and completed by lateral and intercostal views.18 Transverse scanning was performed to assess the maximum subcutaneous fat thickness (SFT), which was defined as the distance between the external face of the recto-abdominal muscle and the internal layer of the skin, and visceral fat thickness (VFT), which was defined as the distance between the anterior wall of the aorta and the internal layer of the recto-abdominal muscle perpendicular to the aorta.19

Anthropometric measurements

Body mass index (BMI) was determined by dividing weight by squared height (kg/m2). Waist circumference (WC) was obtained from each subject by measuring at the midpoint between the lower rib margin and the iliac crest using a conventional tape graduated in centimeters (cm). Hip was measured as the greatest abdominal circumference at the level of greater trochanters. Waist-to-hip ratio was calculated by dividing the waist by the hip circumference.

Samples collection

Blood samples (4 mL) were drawn in the morning after 12 hours fasting then divided into three portions. The first portion (2 mL) was left to clot for 30 min at room temperature and then centrifuged at 3000 rpm for serum separation to determine the levels of insulin, IL-10, AST, ALT, albumin, total protein and lipid profile parameters. The second portion (1 mL) was collected in EDTA-containing tubes and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for plasma separation to determine the levels of IL-18 and PC-1. The third portion (1 mL) was collected in a mixture of EDTA and fluoride and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for plasma separation to determine fasting plasma glucose.

Biochemical analyses

Fasting plasma glucose test was performed according to Heinz and Beushausen20 using the kit supplied by Stanbio Laboratory (USA). Plasma IL-18 levels were assayed by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit purchased from Wuhan EIAab Science Company (China). Plasma PC-1 level was determined quantitatively by an ELISA kit purchased from Glory Science Company (USA). Serum insulin concentration was determined by an ELISA kit purchased from Monobind Company (USA). Serum interleukin-10 concentration was determined quantitatively by an ELISA kit obtained from R&D Systems Company (USA). Serum AST and ALT activities were determined according to Bermeyer and Horder21 using a kit obtained from Human Company (Germany). Serum albumin concentration was determined colorimetrically by the BCG-method22 using a kit obtained from Human Company. Serum total protein concentration was determined colorimetrically by the Biuret method23 using a kit obtained from Human Company. Lipid profile (total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol) kits were obtained from Stanbio Laboratory. Serum total cholesterol was determined by an enzymatic colorimetric method,24 while serum triglycerides were determined by an enzymatic colorimetric method according to Fredrickson et al.25 HDL-cholesterol was determined according to Finley et al.,26 while low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol was calculated according to the Friedewald et al.27 equation:

LDL-cholesterol (mg/dL)  = total cholesterol-HDL-triglycerides/5

The IR index was assessed by the homoeostasis model assessment (HOMA)-IR, calculated by the following equation by Matthews et al.28

HOMA-IR=glucose(mg/dL)× insulin(mIU/mL)/22.5

Statistical analyses

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software [version 17.0; SPSS, USA] was used. Normally distributed continuous variables were expressed as mean (± SE); qualitative variables were presented as proportions. Quantitative variables were compared using one-way ANOVA; the least significant difference test was used for multiple post-hoc comparisons. On the other hand, qualitative variables were compared using the chi-square [X2] test or Fischer′s exact test. Variables which were significant on univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis and independent variables with p > 0.1 were excluded sequentially from the models. The odds ratios and associated p-values of the remaining variables are reported. Two-sided p-values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

There were significant differences in sex distribution (males) among grade 2 and grade 3 when compared to grade 0 (Table 1). There were significant differences in age, BMI, waist and hip circumference, diastolic and systolic blood pressure, size of liver and spleen, subcutaneous fat (SCF) and visceral fat (VF) in different NAFLD grades when compared to controls (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of NAFLD patients and control subjects

Variable
Groups
Grade 0 (n = 47)Grade 1 (n = 31)Grade 2 (n = 26)Grade 3 (n = 30)
Age (years)35.80 ± 1.4544.51 ± 1.81a***51.12 ± 2a***,b**59.4 ± 1.86abc:***
SexMale27 (57.4%)15 (48.4%)6 (23.1%)a**9 (30.0%)a*
Female20 (42.6%)16 (51.6%)20 (76.9%)21 (70.0%)
BMI (kg/dL)22.70 ± 0.2432.49 ± 0.7a***39.05 ± 1.13ab:***43.90 ± 1.15abc:***
DBP (mmHg)111.49 ± 1.79126.77 ± 2.71a***125.96 ± 2.80a***126.4 ± 2.35a***
SBP (mmHg)72.98 ± 1.6584.03 ± 2.34a***85.38 ± 1.61 a***81.1 ± 1.84a**
WC (cm)81.55 ± 0.81102.58 ± 1.57a***108.88 ± 2.06a***,b*112.13 ± 2.46ab:***
HC (cm)100.74 ± 1.02114.22 ± 0.96a***123.76 ± 2.36ab:***124.53 ± 1.63ab:***
W/H ratio0.81 ± .0060.89 ± .013a***0.88 ± .013a***0.89 ± .012a***
Liver size (cm)13.52 ± 0.20314.79 ± 0.179a***16.27 ± 0.175ab:***18.04 ± 0.178abc:***
Spleen size (cm)9.14 ± 0.20110.51 ± 0.388a***11.05 ± 0.194a***10.99 ± 0.223a***
SCF (cm)1.20 ± 0.051.72 ± 0.105a**2.29 ± 0.167a***,b**2.69 ± 0.203ab:***,c*
VF (cm)3.09 ± 0.2035.71 ± 0.342a***6.04 ± 0.355a***8.22 ± 0.260abc:***

Age and BMI were significantly higher in grade 2 and grade 3 than in grade 1. It is worth noting that age and BMI were significantly higher in grade 3 than in grade 2. Concerning systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, there were no significant differences among the NAFLD grades. WC and hip circumference were significantly higher among grade 2 and grade 3 compared to grade 1. Liver size and SCF were significantly higher among grade 2 and grade 3 patients compared to grade 1 patients, while grade 3 patients showing more highly significant differences than grade 2 (Table 1).

Insulin, HOMA-IR and fasting plasma glucose were significantly higher in NAFLD grades than in grade 0. In addition, insulin and HOMA-IR were significantly higher in grade 3 than grade 1. On the other hand, no significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in AST, ALT albumin or total protein levels between the NAFLD grades (p > 0.05) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Biochemical data among NAFLD grades and controls

Variable
Groups
Grade 0 (n = 47)Grade 1 (n = 31)Grade 2 (n = 26)Grade 3 (n = 30)
FBG (mg/dL)83.90 ± 1.1395.14 ± 2.37a**98.13 ± 5.38a**103.66 ± 4.33a***
Insulin (mIU/mL)6.56 ± 0.248.74 ± 0.67a*10.55 ± 0.94a***11.16 ± 1.01a***,b*
HOMA-IR index1.33 ± 0.051.99 ± 0.14a**2.5 ± 0.24a***2.82 ± 0.28a***,b**
Albumin (g/dL)4.24 ± 0.114.3 ± 0.114.38 ± 0.184.41 ± 0.12
Total protein (g/dL)7.69 ± 0.148.01 ± 0.177.80 ± 0.247.87 ± 0.23
AST (IU/L)14.11 ± 1.1615.3 ± 0.7015.9 ± 1.8117.4 ± 1.07
ALT (IU/L)13.36 ± 1.6014.1 ± 0.8615.3 ± 1.3416.04 ± 0.68
Total cholesterol (mg/dL)179.37 ± 4.11250.01 ± 10.41a***261.97 ± 9.25a***289.14 ± 10.36a***,b**,c*
Triacylglycerol (mg/dL)106.81 ± 3.05186.93 ± 12.63a***213.23 ± 11.71a***255.43 ± 10.99ab:***,c**
HDL-cholesterol (mg/dL)72.10 ± 3.2553.81 ± 2.37a***50.15 ± 4.61a***40.66 ± 1.37a***,b**,c*
LDL-cholesterol (mg/dL)85.90 ± 5.40158.81 ± 9.97a***169.16 ± 9.67a***197.40 ± 10.48a***,b**,c*
VLDL (mg/dL)21.36 ± 0.6137.38 ± 2.52a***42.65 ± 2.34a***51.07 ± 2.19ab:***,c**
IL-18 (pg/mL)10.54 ± 0.5511.47 ± 0.6110.55 ± 0.9414.81 ± 1.62a**,b*,c**
IL-10 (pg/mL)4.87 ± 0.2057 ± 0.688a***5.38 ± 0.412b*5.19 ± 0.411b**
PC-1 (pg/mL)5 ± 0.278.45 ± 1.51a**6.52 ± 1.185.45 ± 0.77b*

In different NAFLD grades, lipid profile parameters (total cholesterol, triacylglycerol, LDL-cholesterol and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL)-cholesterol) were significantly higher when compared to grade 0, while there was significant decrement in HDL between NAFLD grades and grade 0. However, comparing the different NAFLD grades to each other, there was significant differences in the lipid profile parameters (Table 2).

IL-18 was significantly higher in grade 3 compared to the other grades. On the other hand, IL-10 was significantly higher in grade 1 compared to grades 0, 2 and 3. PC-1 level was significantly higher in grade 1 compared to both grade 0 and grade 3 (Table 2)

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to determine the threshold value for optimal sensitivity (≥80%) and best values for area under the curve (AUC ≥0.5) in order to be able to differentiate between the different NAFLD grades. Different studied parameters, like the anthropometric (WC, hip circumference and BMI) and ultrasonographic parameters, lipid profile, IL-18, PC-1 and HOMA-IR have both optimal sensitivity (≥80%) and best values for AUC ≥0.5, and could differentiate between the different NAFLD grades as shown in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Table 3.

ROC results for WC, hip circumference and BMI

Grade 0 & Grade 1Grade 0 & Grade 2Grade 0 & Grade 3Grade 1 & Grade 2Grade 1 & Grade 3
WCHCBMIWCHCBMIWCHCBMIWCHCBMIW/H ratioBMI
AUC0.980.940.990.990.960.990.980.9910.680.810.830.510.94
Cut-off value9310624.99410924.99110926.210011635.20.8438.5
Sensitivity90.396.810092.396.210093.310010088.580.880.883.383.3
Specificity97.982.997.910091.597.993.691.510045.274.277.429.0393.6
PLR42.55.74711.34714.611.81.63.133.61.1712.9
NLR0.0990.0390.000.0770.0420.000.0710.000.000.260.260.250.570.18
PPV96.678.996.910086.296.390.388.210057.572.47553.292.6
NPV93.997.510095.997.710095.710010082.482.182.864.385.3
Accuracy94.988.598.797.393.198.693.594.810064.977.278.955.788.5
p-value<0.00010.012<0.00010.88<0.0001
95% confidence interval0.92–0.990.86–0.980.95–10.93–10.88–0.990.95–10.92–0.990.93–10.95–10.544–0.7890.683–0.9010.712–0.9190.380–0.6420.851–0.986
Table 4.

ROC results for IL-18, PC-1 and HOMA-IR index

Grade 0 & Grade 1Grade 0 & Grade 2Grade 0 & Grade 3Grade 1 & Grade 2Grade 1 & Grade 3Grade 2 & Grade 3
IL-18PC-1PC-1HOMA-indexPC-1PC-1PC-1IL-18
AUC0.590.580.530.890.510.560.570.69
Cut-off value7.53.83.81.77769.2
Sensitivity10092.39083.392.396.79080
Specificity23.427.727.791.529.0329.0323.0861.5
PLR1.31.281.249.81.31.41.172.08
NLR0.0000.280.360.180.260.110.430.33
PPV46.341.444.386.252.256.957.470.6
NPV10086.781.289.681.89066.772.7
Accuracy53.850.751.988.357.962.358.971.4
p-value0.1450.2010.637<0.00010.8960.3860.3540.009
95% confidence interval0.476–0.7040.463–0.6990.413–0.6450.8–0.9510.374–0.6450.430–0.6900.430–0.7010.553–0.807
Table 5.

ROC results for ultrasonography findings

Grade 0 & Grade 1Grade 0 & Grade 2Grade 0 & Grade 3Grade 1 & Grade 2Grade 1 & Grade 3Grade 2 & Grade 3
SSLSSSSCFVFLSSSSCFVFLSSSVFLSSCFVFLSVFSCF
AUC0.720.970.870.90.910.840.980.990.870.720.530.990.820.860.920.830.59
Cut-off value9.315.29.71.53.415.79.31.5515.710316.31.66.716.56.71.6
Sensitivity80.788.592.380.896.21009010010080.892.31001001009010090100
Specificity63.895.772.385.172.310063.885.195.783.958.112.996.858.170.9769.273.126.9
PLR2.2320.83.35.43.52.56.723.55.012.21.15312.43.13.33.31.4
NLR0.30.120.110.230.050.000.160.000.000.230.130.000.000.000.140.000.140.00
PPV59.59264.97565.810061.481.193.880.864.949.196.869.87578.979.461.2
NPV83.393.794.488.997.110090.910010083.990`1001001008810086.4100
Accuracy70.593.179.483.680.810074.0490.997.482.573.752.698.478.780.385.782.166.1
p-value<0.001<0.00010.0020.68<0.00010.27
95% confidence interval0.61–0.810.89–0.990.76–0.930.81–0.960.81–0.960.95–10.73–0.910.92–0.990.94–10.76–0.960.58–0.830.39–0.670.93–10.70–0.910.75–0.940.82–0.980.70–0.920.45–0.72
Table 6.

ROC results for lipid profile

Grade 0 & Grade 1Grade 0 & Grade 2Grade 0 & Grade 3Grade 1 & Grade 2Grade 1 & Grade 3Grade 2 & Grade 3
TCHDLLDLTCTGHDLLDLTGHDLTCTGTGHDLTGHDL
AUC0.890.740.870.940.960.770.9210.890.580.620.790.820.680.60
Cut-off value200.661.891.4223.513659.03116.3157.855219.8171.3189.647.2188.851.7
Sensitivity83.987.190.380.888.580.888.510096.784.680.89086.79093.3
Specificity82.970.270.295.795.770.278.710076.635.548.454.867.742.342.3
PLR4.92.93.0318.920.82.74.24.131.31.61.992.71.61.6
NLR0.190.180.140.20.120.270.150.000.0440.430.40.180.20.240.16
PPV76.565.966.791.3926069.710072.552.456.865.972.264.365.1
NPV88.689.291.79093.786.892.510097.373.375858478.684.6
Accuracy83.376.978.290.493.173.982.210084.457.963.272.1477.0567.969.7
p-value<0.00010.2950.102<0.00010.010.212
95% confidence interval0.79–0.950.63–0.840.77–0.930.86–0.980.89–0.990.66–0.860.83–0.970.95–10.79–0.950.44–0.710.49–0.750.67–0.880.69–0.900.55–0.800.46–0.73

Table 7 presents the results of logistic regression, by which WC, hip circumference, waist to hip ratio, IL-10, PC-1, HOMA-IR, ultrasonographic findings and lipid profile were associated with grade 1 due to their significant p-values (≤0.05). Moreover, WC, hip circumference, waist to hip ratio, HOMA-IR, ultrasonographic findings and lipid profile were found to be associated with grade 2 due to their significant p-values (<0.01). WC, hip circumference, waist to hip ratio, IL-18,HOMA-IR, ultrasonographic findings (except for liver size) and lipid profile (except for triglycerides) were found to be associated with grade 3 due to their significant p-values (<0.01). Furthermore, by multivariate analysis, HOMA-IR showed a significant p-value (<0.01) when combined with IL-10, IL-18 or PC-1, or combined all together. Thus, there were associations between these parameters in the different NAFLD grades (grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3).

Table 7.

Variables associated with different NAFLD grades (multivariate analysis)

ParameterGrade 1Grade 2Grade 3
p-valueOR95%CIp-valueOR95%CIp-valueOR95%CI
LowerUpperLowerUpperLowerUpper
WC0.0011.4941.2171.8340.0021.5131.1681.9600.0011.3841.1411.679
HC0.0011.4071.2131.6330.0011.3151.1561.4970.0011.5921.2132.088
W/H ratio0.0013.19E+139.81E+061.04E+200.0011.70E+112.60E+051.11E+170.0017.38E+131.69E+073.22E+20
BMI0.06818.5140.805425.5300.15012.2490.404371.4500.993181.5970.001.
Liver size0.0012.4861.5024.1160.00114.2043.73853.9740.9901.46E+140.00E+00.
Spleen size0.0031.8651.2332.8200.0014.4652.1609.2300.0012.9781.7934.949
SCF0.00112.8533.28350.3220.00144.4946.368310.8990.0051.43E+053.89E+015.25E+08
VF0.0012.4101.6473.5280.0013.0341.8434.9950.0019.2332.53533.634
Cholesterol0.0011.0511.0271.0750.0011.0731.0371.1100.0011.0561.0271.086
Triglycerides0.0011.0501.0261.0750.0011.0811.0371.1280.9571.32E+040.00E+001.7E+153
HDL0.0010.9510.9240.9780.0010.9570.9330.9820.0010.8890.8410.940
LDL0.0011.0351.0201.0510.0011.0471.0251.0690.0011.0391.0231.056
VLDL0.0011.2781.1371.4360.0011.4761.1971.8210.9521.48E+240.00E+00.
IL-100.0051.4781.1251.9420.2181.1950.9001.5880.4341.1090.8561.435
IL-180.2681.0730.9471.2170.9921.0010.8911.1240.0161.1391.0241.267
PC-10.0461.1641.0031.3500.1831.1170.9491.3140.5401.0490.8991.225
HOMA-IR index0.0018.7512.79227.4280.00120.8943.667119.0680.00125.4855.264123.376
IL-10, IL-180.0071.0191.0051.0330.4521.0050.9921.0190.0201.0171.0031.031
IL-10, PC-10.0021.0451.0161.0750.1061.0230.9951.0510.5791.0090.9791.039
IL-18, PC-10.0151.0171.0031.0320.3521.0050.9951.0150.0591.0150.9991.030
IL-10, HOMA-IR index0.0011.4191.1931.6870.0011.3211.1251.5520.0011.3341.1371.565
IL-18, HOMA-IR index0.0011.1071.0411.1770.0031.0891.0291.1530.0011.1501.0791.226
PC-1, HOMA-IR index0.0041.2251.0661.4070.0011.3081.1311.5130.0011.3591.1591.593
IL-10, IL-18, PC-10.0011.0041.0011.0060.2571.0010.9991.0030.0551.0021.0001.005
IL-10, IL-18, PC-1, HOMA-IR index0.0021.0031.0011.0040.0131.0021.0001.0030.0011.0031.0011.005

Discussion

NAFLD is a silent disease influencing the Egyptian population. Numerous risk factors have been suggested in NAFLD pathogenesis, including advanced age, obesity, IR and hyperlipidemia, beside the roles of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines.3,10

The results from the current study revealed that the risk of NAFLD development rises with increasing age. These results confirm the finding of Mahmoud et al.,1 who reported that age is an independent risk factor for developing more severe NAFLD. This finding may be attributed to increased fat accumulation that occurs in liver with advancing age.

In a previous study, Ezzat and colleagues18 found that abdominal adipose tissue comprises SCF and VF, which are considered as distinct anatomic depots. SCF varies from VF in that venous drainage from SCF is directed into the systemic circulation, while venous drainage from VF is directed into the portal vein directly to the liver; thus, the metabolic products reach the liver directly and exercise a first-pass influence on liver metabolism. Multivariate analysis in the current study showed that SCF and VF were significantly associated (p <0.01) with grades 1, 2 and 3 (Table 7), this is due to the significant increase in SCF and VF in parallel with NAFLD grades; besides, SCF and VF showed high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between grade 3, grade 2 and grade 0 (controls) and in differentiating between grade 2, grade 1 and grade 3. Moreover, VF showed high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between grade 2 and grade 1.

In agreement with previous findings, it has been suggested that visceral fat releases adipokines and free fatty acids, leading to fat accumulation inside liver.18 Our results showed that size of the liver was significantly increased in parallel with NAFLD grades, also spleen size was significantly higher in all NAFLD grades than in grade 0, but stayed within the average (11 cm).29 So, our NAFLD patients did not have splenomegaly or non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. Furthermore, our study showed that liver size and spleen size have high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between grade 3, grade 2 and grade 0 and in differentiating between grade 2 and grade 1, but only liver size could differentiate between grade 2, grade 1 and grade 3. To differentiate between grade 1 and grade 0, only spleen size could be used due to its having the highest sensitivity and specificity. This is in agreement with the report by Mahmoud et al.,1 which stated that the sizes of liver and spleen were significantly higher in patients with steatosis than in non-steatosis patients.

Lipid profile parameters were significantly increased (except for HDL-cholesterol, which was decreased) in parallel with NAFLD grades. Moreover, cholesterol and LDL have high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between grade 2, grade 1 and grade 0, but only cholesterol has high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between grade 2 and grade 1. Triglycerides have high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between all studied NAFLD grades except between grade 1 and grade 0. Furthermore, HDL has high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between all studied NAFLD grades, except between grade 2 and grade 1. Multivariate analysis showed that cholesterol, HDL and LDL were significantly associated (p =0.001) with grades 1, 2 and 3, but triglycerides were significantly associated (p=0.001) with only grades 1 and 2. This is in agreement with the report by Mahmoud et al.,1 which stated that hyperlipidemia was an independent predictor of NAFLD development. In contrast, Paredes-Turrubiarte et al.30 reported no significant differences in the values of lipid profile when comparing all different NAFLD grades.

NAFLD is related to central obesity indices, one of which is WC. Central obesity contributes in causing IR, and increased visceral adiposity might be significant in NAFLD pathogenesis.31 In our study, hip circumference showed gradual increase with increase of NAFLD grades. In addition, BMI and WC were significantly increased in parallel with NAFLD grades. This is in agreement with the report by Tominaga et al.,5 which stated that BMI and WC were independent risk factors for NAFLD. Kim et al.32 have also reported a significant association between the occurrence of fatty liver and its severity with an increase in BMI and WC. Multivariate analysis in our study showed that WC, hip circumference and waist to hip ratio were significantly associated with grades 1, 2 and 3, but surprisingly BMI was not associated (p > 0.05) with all NAFLD grades (Table 7). Furthermore, WC, hip circumference and BMI showed high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between NAFLD grades and grade 0 and in differentiating between grade 2 and grade 1. Only the waist to hip ratio and BMI showed high sensitivity and specificity for differentiating between grade 3 and grade 1.

The HOMA-IR index has been approved as an indicator of the insulin-resistant condition.5 An upper boundary of normal HOMA-IR index is 1.5.33 HOMA-IR index and insulin showed significant differences between NAFLD grades and controls in our study. All NAFLD patients in different grades showed HOMA-IR index value >1.5, indicating that they are in an IR state, and this was confirmed by the multivariate analysis that showed the HOMA-IR index as being significantly associated (p= 0.001) with all NAFLD grades. However, the highest sensitivity and specificity of HOMA-IR index was found in differentiating between grade 3 and grade 0. This is in agreement with a report by Hegazy et al.,31 which showed a direct association between insulin and HOMA-IR with NAFLD grades.

Obesity, defined as a condition of chronic low-grade inflammation caused by over-nutrition, is a main cause of NAFLD. Obesity causes lipid accumulation in adipocytes, which activates signaling pathways, thereby increasing the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines,34 such as IL-18.35 Meanwhile, anti-inflammatory protein expression (e.g. IL-10) decreases during weight gain and therefore causes fat mass expansion.36 IL-18 was associated only with grade 3 in our study (OR = 1.1, 95%CI: 1.02-1.26, p < 0.05). Furthermore, IL-18 has high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between grade 1 and grade 0 and in differentiating between grade 3 and grade 2. The results of the IL-18 mean value in grade 3 showed significant increase in comparison with other grades due to the fact that grade 3 patients had more IR than the other NAFLD grades. This is in accordance with a report by Wang et al.,37 which stated that IL-18 may contribute to the development of NAFLD by causing IR. In an insulin-resistant state, the incapability of insulin to inhibit lipolysis leads to raised fluctuation of free fatty acids to the liver from adipose tissue. Enlarged de novo lipogenesis and augmented consumption of dietary fat contribute to the development of NAFLD.38 Li et al.15 found that IL-18 was significantly higher in NAFLD patients than in controls, while Vecchiet et al.14 reported that IL-18 plasma levels were not significantly increased in NAFLD patients compared to controls. However, Tapan et al.16 did not find any significant differences regarding the IL-18 plasma concentrations between patients with NASH and simple steatosis.

In our study, IL-10 was associated only with grade 1 (OR = 1.5, 95%CI: 1.1-1.9, p < 0.01);this is due to the fact that IL-10 mean value in grade 1 showed significant increase when compared to grade 0. The increase itself may be due to an IL-10 compensatory reaction for pro-inflammatory activation as found in healthy subjects.39 Since HOMA-IR values in grade 2 and grade 3 were significantly higher than in grade 1, IL-10 was decreased in grade 2 and grade 3 compared to grade 1; this finding confirmed the insulin-sensitizing effects of IL-10.9 The current results are in agreement with those reported by Paredes-Turrubiarte et al.,30 namely the pronounced reduction in IL-10 that was demonstrated in severe NAFLD when compared to mild NAFLD, supporting a role for inflammatory mediators in promoting steatosis progression. Unfortunately, IL-10 failed in differentiating between NAFLD grades due to its low sensitivity (≤80%).

In our study, PC-1 levels were significantly higher in grade 1 patients; with low IR (HOMA-IR index =1.99) compared to grade 3 patients, who showed high IR (HOMA-IR index=2.82). This finding is in agreement with those reported by Frittitta et al.,40 namely the decreased PC-1 levels demonstrated in insulin-resistant subjects compared to insulin-sensitive non-diabetic subjects. The reason for PC-1 decrease in grade 3 is that in insulin-resistant subjects, circulating PC-1 is cleared at a higher rate from plasma (either bound or degraded).40 PC-1 levels were also higher in grade 1 patients than grade 0 patients, who were in an insulin-sensitive state, this may be due to the HOMA-IR index value not being significantly higher in grade 1 (1.99) compared to grade 0 (1.3). Furthermore, PC-1 has high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating between all studied NAFLD grades, except between grade 1 and grade 0.

Multivariate analysis showed that IL-10, IL-18 and PC-1 when combined with HOMA-IR index were associated with different NAFLD grades (grade 1, grade 2, grade 3) (Table 7). This is attributed to their important effects on the insulin signaling pathway.9,11,37

Conclusions

Limitations of the study

Abbreviations

ALT: 

alanine aminotransferase

AST: 

aspartate aminotransferase

AUC: 

area under the curve

BMI: 

body mass index

ELISA: 

enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

HDL: 

high-density lipoprotein

HOMA-IR: 

homoeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance

IL: 

interleukin

IR: 

insulin resistance

LDL: 

low-density lipoprotein

NAFLD: 

nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

NASH: 

nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

PC-1: 

plasma cell antigen-1

ROC: 

receiver operating characteristic

SCF: 

subcutaneous fat

SFT: 

subcutaneous fat thickness

US: 

ultrasound

VF: 

visceral fat

VFT: 

visceral fat thickness

VLDL: 

very low-density lipoprotein

WC: 

waist circumference

Declarations

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the National Research Center for funding and providing the facilities to accomplish this work. Also, the authors are grateful to the Liver Clinic, Medical Service Unit at the National Research Center, Giza, Egypt for diagnosing patients and provided the blood samples. Funding for this research was provided by the Egyptian National Research Center (Project Number 10010205).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests related to this publication.

Authors’ contributions

Contributed equally to the work and have approved the final version submitted for publication (IHB, YS, MMK, WME, EA, MA, WG, MME).

References

  1. Mahmoud HS, Helal MM, Hassan MH, Sherif MF. Correlation between anthropometric measures, lipid profile and serum adiponectin and steatosis in nondiabetic nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research 2015;7:771-778 View Article
  2. Cheng HY, Wang HY, Chang WH, Lin SC, Chu CH, Wang TE. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: prevalence, influence on age and sex, and relationship with metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance. International Journal of Gerontology 2013;7:194-198 View Article
  3. Mohamed AA, Gohary KKE, Mashad GME, Hammoda GE, Abdallah AM, Khattab RA. Interleukin 10, thyroid status and ferritin are non-invasive prognostic biomarkers for diagnosis of fatty liver disease in children. Journal of International Research in Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences 2016;8:85-93
  4. Kakrani AL, Sharma ZD, Thind SS, Gokhale VS. Correlation of NAFLD fibrosis score and BARD score with ultrasonographic evidence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in overweight patients: A prospective study. Int J Med Public Health 2013;3:111-114 View Article
  5. Tominaga K, Fujimoto E, Suzuki K, Hayashi M, Ichikawa M, Inaba Y. Prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in children and relationship to metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and waist circumference. Environ Health Prev Med 2009;14:142-149 View Article
  6. Kumar R, Prakash S, Chhabra S, Singla V, Madan K, Gupta SD. Association of pro-inflammatory cytokines, adipokines & oxidative stress with insulin resistance & non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Indian J Med Res 2012;136:229-236
  7. Wawrocki S, Druszczynska M, Kowalewicz-Kulbat M, Rudnicka W. Interleukin 18 (IL-18) as a target for immune intervention. Acta Biochim Pol 2016;63:59-63 View Article
  8. Wang S, Gao X, Shen G, Wang W, Li J, Zhao J. Interleukin-10 deficiency impairs regulatory T cell-derived neuropilin-1 functions and promotes Th1 and Th17 immunity. Sci Rep 2016;6:24249 View Article
  9. de Luca C, Olefsky JM. Inflammation and insulin resistance. FEBS Lett 2008;582:97-105 View Article
  10. Maher JJ, Leon P, Ryan JC. Beyond insulin resistance: Innate immunity in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology 2008;48:670-678 View Article
  11. Tasic I, Milojkovic M, Sunder-Plassmann R, Lazarevic G, Tasic NM, Stefanovic V. The association of PC-1 (ENPP1) K121Q polymorphism with metabolic syndrome in patients with coronary heart disease. Clin Chim Acta 2007;377:237-242 View Article
  12. Kouis P, Pampaka D, Panayiotou AG. Adipose tissue, metabolic syndrome, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease - a short review. EMJ Hepatol 2014;1:62-70
  13. Carulli L, Canedi I, Rondinella S, Lombardini S, Ganazzi D, Fargion S. Genetic polymorphisms in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: interleukin-6-174G/C polymorphism is associated with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Dig Liver Dis 2009;41:823-828 View Article
  14. Vecchiet J, Falasca K, Cacciatore P, Zingariello P, Dalessandro M, Marinopiccoli M. Association between plasma interleukin-18 levels and liver injury in chronic hepatitis C virus infection and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Ann Clin Lab Sci 2005;35:415-422
  15. Li Y, Li-Li Z, Qin L, Ying W. Plasma interleukin-18/interleukin-18 binding protein ratio in Chinese with NAFLD. Hepatogastroenterology 2010;57:103-106
  16. Tapan S, Dogru T, Kara M, Ercin CN, Kilciler G, Genc H. Circulating levels of interleukin-18 in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2010;70:399-403 View Article
  17. Marchesini G, Brizi M, Bianchi G, Tomassetti S, Bugianesi E, Lenzi M. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a feature of the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes 2001;50:1844-1850
  18. Ezzat WM, Ragab S, Ismail NA, Elhosary YA, Nour AM, ElBaky EA. Frequency of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in overweight/obese children and adults: Clinical, sonographic picture and biochemical assessment. Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology 2012;10:221-227 View Article
  19. Ribeiro-Filho FF, Faria AN, Azjen S, Zanella MT, Ferreira SR. Methods of estimation of visceral fat: advantages of ultrasonography. Obes Res 2003;11:1488-1494 View Article
  20. Heinz F, Beushausen TW. A new enzymatic method for the determination of glucose. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1981;19:977-978
  21. Bergmeyer HU, Hørder M. International federation of clinical chemistry. Scientific committee. Expert panel on enzymes. IFCC document stage 2, draft 1; 1979-11-19 with a view to an IFCC recommendation. IFCC methods for the measurement of catalytic concentration of enzymes. Part 3. IFCC method for alanine aminotransferase. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1980;18:521-534
  22. Rodkey FL. Tris (hydroxymethyl) aminomethane as a standard for kjeldahl nitrogen analysis. Clin Chem 1964;10:606-610
  23. Weichselbaum TE. Estimation of serum total protein by Biruet method. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 1946;16:40-48
  24. Allain CC, Poon LS, Chan CS, Richmond W, Fu PC. Enzymatic determination of total serum cholesterol. Clin Chem 1974;20:470-475
  25. Fredrickson DS, Levy RI, Lees RS. Fat transport in lipoproteins–an integrated approach to mechanisms and disorders. N Engl J Med 1967;276:273-281 View Article
  26. Finley PR, Schifman RB, Williams RJ, Lichti DA. Cholesterol in high-density lipoprotein: use of Mg2+/dextran sulfate in its enzymic measurement. Clin Chem 1978;24:931-933
  27. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem 1972;18:499-502
  28. Matthews DR, Hosker JP, Rudenski AS, Naylor BA, Treacher DF, Turner RC. Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia 1985;28:412-419
  29. Badran DH, Kalbouneh HM, Al-Hadidi MT, Shatarat AT, Tarawneh ES, Hadidy AM. Ultrasonographic assessment of splenic volume and its correlation with body parameters in a Jordanian population. Saudi Med J 2015;36:967-972 View Article
  30. Paredes-Turrubiarte G, González-Chávez A, Pérez-Tamayo R, Salazar-Vázquez BY, Hernández VS, Garibay-Nieto N. Severity of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with high systemic levels of tumor necrosis factor alpha and low serum interleukin 10 in morbidly obese patients. Clin Exp Med 2016;16:193-202 View Article
  31. Hegazy MA, Abdel-Rahman HM, El-Gayar DF, Amin YH. Liver ultrasound is more sensitive in assessing the severity of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance. Egyptian Liver Journal 2012;2:41-46 View Article
  32. Kim HC, Choi SH, Shin HW, Cheong JY, Lee KW, Lee HC. Severity of ultrasonographic liver steatosis and metabolic syndrome in Korean men and women. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:5314-5321
  33. Ahmed AM, Hassan MS, Abd-Elsayed A, Hassan H, Hasanain AF, Helmy A. Insulin resistance, steatosis, and fibrosis in Egyptian patients with chronic Hepatitis C virus infection. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2011;17:245-251 View Article
  34. Chen L, Chen R, Wang H, Liang F. Mechanisms linking inflammation to insulin resistance. Int J Endocrinol 2015;2015:508409 View Article
  35. Trøseid M, Seljeflot I, Arnesen H. The role of interleukin-18 in the metabolic syndrome. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2010;9:11 View Article
  36. Asrih M, Jornayvaz FR. Inflammation as a potential link between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and insulin resistance. J Endocrinol 2013;218:R25-R36 View Article
  37. Wang HN, Wang YR, Liu GQ, Liu Z, Wu PX, Wei XL. Inhibition of hepatic interleukin-18 production by rosiglitazone in a rat model of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:7240-7246
  38. Önnerhag K, Nilsson PM, Lindgren S. Insulin resistance with impaired fasting glucose increases the risk of NAFLD. Open Journal of Gastroenterology 2013;3:170-176 View Article
  39. Zediak VP, Hunter CA. IL-10 fails to inhibit the production of IL-18 in response to inflammatory stimuli. Cytokine 2003;21:84-90
  40. Frittitta L, Camastra S, Baratta R, Costanzo BV, D’Adamo M, Graci S. A soluble PC-1 circulates in human plasma: relationship with insulin resistance and associated abnormalities. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:3620-3625 View Article
  • Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology
  • pISSN 2225-0719
  • eISSN 2310-8819