metricas
covid
Annals of Hepatology HDL-C and BMI levels as parameters for MASLD detection
Journal Information
Vol. 30. Issue S1.
Abstracts Asociación Mexicana de Hepatología (AMH) 2024
(April 2025)
Vol. 30. Issue S1.
Abstracts Asociación Mexicana de Hepatología (AMH) 2024
(April 2025)
Full text access
HDL-C and BMI levels as parameters for MASLD detection
Visits
362
Stefanny Cornejo-Hernández1, Esly Esquivel-Alarcón1, Reyna Hernández-Espinoza1, J. Salvador García-Hernández1, Trinidad Baldovinos-Hernández2, Javier Bastida-Alquicira2, Eira Cerda-Reyes1, Adriana Martinez-Cuazitl1,3
1 Department of Research Hospital Central Militar, Mexico
2 Department of Ultrasound, Hospital Central Militar, Mexico
3 Military School of Medicine, Mexico
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (2)
Tables
Tables
Show moreShow less
Special issue
This article is part of special issue:
Vol. 30. Issue S1

Abstracts Asociación Mexicana de Hepatología (AMH) 2024

More info
Introduction and Objectives

Hepatic Steatosis Associated with Metabolic Dysfunction (MASLD) has a prevalence of 30% worldwide and 80% of these patients do not present alterations in liver biochemistry, therefore it is important to know if there is any biochemical parameter that helps us identify this population. To correlate clinical and biochemical values ​​with the degree of fibrosis and CAP determined by Transient Elastography to obtain a parameter that determines the affected population.

Materials and Patients

Patients with MASLD criteria were included, who underwent transient hepatic elastograft (Fibroscan® 630 Expert v10720), APRI, FIB4, NAFLD score, blood count, liver biochemistry, lipid profile, glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, clotting times. (TP, INR). It was compared with a control of healthy people. The statistical analysis was used SPSS V24 program for continuous quantitative variables expressed in mean and percentage, the ordinary quantitative variables were expressed in frequencies and percentages, Spearman correlation tests and a linear regression analysis were performed, from which A ROC curve and the Youden index were performed and their sensitivity and specificity were determined, with a statistically significant p <0.05.

Results

81 patients were included, mean age 43 years (38, 50.5), with the following comorbidities: 2 (2.5%) HTS, 8 (10%) T2D. The control group (healthy) was 17. By BMI, 29 (35.8%) were overweight, 33 (40.7%) were grade I obese, and 7 (8.6%) were grade II obese.

By CAP, 31 (38.35) had S3, 26 (32.1%) S2, 7 (8.6%) S1 and 17 (21%) S0. Patients with obesity I or II have grade 2 or 3 steatosis, with a moderate correlation Spearman's rho 0.581 p <0.001.

Both groups were compared, reporting that the age, BMI, CAP and KPa of patients with steatosis are higher compared to healthy participants, as well as leukocytes, glucose, triglycerides, HDL, GGT and Na with statistical significance. The linear regression analysis showed the following formula m = -0.617 + 0.062 (BMI) + -0.009 (HDL), with an R of 0.737. An ROC curve was made with the formula obtained with an area under the curve of 0.979 and a p of <0.0001, having a Youden index with a cut-off point of 0.60, obtaining a sensitivity of 95.2% and a specificity of 87.5%. Regarding fibrosis, 9 patients with fibrosis were detected, whose age is 47.4 ± 14.2 years. The most common grade in patients with fibrosis was F2, as shown in the table.

Conclusions

HDL levels and BMI could be markers to suspect MASLD. A larger population is required to validate it.

Full Text

Ethical statement: Approved by the research committee of the Central Military Hospital, review of files confidentially following the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Declaration of interests: None.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

  S0  S1  S2  S3 
  n (%)  n (%)  n (%)  n (%) 
Normal weigth  11 (91.7)  0 (0)  1 (8.3)  0 (0) 
Overweight  5 (17.2)  5 (17.2)  11 (37.9)  8 (27.6) 
Grade I Obesity  1 (3)  1 (3)  12 (36.4)  19 (57.6) 
Grade II Obesity  0 (0)  1 (14.3)  2 (28.6)  4 (57.1) 
X2= 52.230 p <0.001         
  Total 
  n (%) 
F0 – F1  72 (88.9) 
F2  6 (7.4) 
F3  2 (2.5) 
F4  1 (1.2) 

Download PDF
Article options
Tools