Lean Indian patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) have less metabolic risk factors but similar liver disease severity as non-lean patients with NAFLD

Abstract

Introduction
Although most patients with NAFLD are obese or overweight, some are lean with normal BMI. Our aim was to assess differences in clinicopathological profile and liver disease severity among lean and non-lean NAFLD.
Methods
Data of 1040 NAFLD patients over last 10 years was analysed. BMI <23kg/m² categorised lean patients. Non-invasive assessment of steatosis was done by ultrasound and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) while fibrosis was assessed with FIB-4 and liver stiffness measurement (LSM). FibroScan-AST (FAST) score was used for non-invasive prediction of NASH with significant fibrosis. Histology was reported using NASH-CRN system.
Results
149 (14.3%) patients were lean while 891 (85.7%) patients were non-lean. Diabetes mellitus [25 (16.7%) vs 152 (17.05%), p>0.99], elevated triglycerides [81 (54.3%) vs 525 (58.9%), p=0.33] and low HDL [71(47.6%) vs 479(53.7%),p=0.18] were observed in a similar proportion. Lean patients were less likely to have central obesity [72 (48.3%) vs 788 (88.4%),p<0.001], hypertension [16 (10.7%) vs 239(26.8%),p<0.001] and metabolic syndrome [21 (14.09%) vs 290 (32.5%),p<0.001]. No difference in steatosis assessment was noted using ultrasound (p=0.55) or CAP (0.11). FAST [0.38 (0.18-0.66) vs 0.39 (0.27-0.73),p=0.53],FIB-4 [1.08 (0.65-1.91) vs 1.09 (0.66-1.94),p=0.94] and LSM [6.1 (4.8-7.9) vs 6.2 (4.7-8.6),p=0.19) were similar.
Liver biopsy was available in 149 patients [lean: 19 (12.7%), non-lean: 130 (87.3%)]. There was no difference in the number of patients with NASH [4 (21.05%) vs 20 (15.3%),p=0.51], significant fibrosis [2 (10.5%) vs 32 (24.6%),p=0.25] or advanced fibrosis [1 (5.26%) vs 18 (13.84%),p=0.47].
Conclusion
Although metabolic co-morbidities are less common, there is no difference in liver disease severity among both groups.

Introduction

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has emerged as a major cause of chronic liver disease worldwide. In India, the burden of NAFLD is alarmingly high with an estimated pooled prevalence of 38.6% compared to a global prevalence of approximately 25.2% (1, 2). The histological spectrum of NAFLD broadly comprises of non-alcoholic fatty liver, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), NASH with fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma(3). Traditionally, NASH has been considered to be the progressive form of NAFLD. Current knowledge of the natural history of NAFLD overwhelmingly suggests that underlying fibrosis is the principal determinant of clinical outcomes (4).

Although obesity is one of the main risk factors for NAFLD, some patients with NAFLD have normal body mass index (BMI), a phenotype commonly referred to as lean NAFLD. Studies suggest that these patients have less metabolic risk factors compared to overweight or obese patients with NAFLD (5–7). However, the severity of underlying liver disease and prognosis of lean NAFLD viz-a-viz NAFLD of the classical phenotype remains a grey area with conflicting evidence. Data from the Indian subcontinent exploring this aspect is extremely scanty (8, 9). Granular understanding of the severity of NAFLD in lean patients is crucial for determining their linkage to care and optimising overall management. This is particularly relevant now that NAFLD has been incorporated into the National Program on Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular disease and Stroke (NPCDCS) under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of India (10). In this study, we evaluated the prevalence of normal BMI in a well characterised cohort of Indian patients with NAFLD and explored the differences in clinicopathological profiles and severity of underlying liver disease in lean patients compared to their non-lean counterparts.

Methods

In this cross-sectional observational study, data of all adult patients with NAFLD managed prospectively in a real-life fashion over the last 10 years (January 2011 till December 2021) at a tertiary academic centre in north India was collected. NAFLD was diagnosed in the presence of hepatic steatosis inferred on ultrasound, FibroScan [controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) > 248 dB/m] or liver biopsy]in the absence of significant alcohol consumption (less than 20g/day irrespective of gender) and other etiologies of liver disease including but not limited to chronic viral hepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis, celiac disease, Wilson’s disease and haemochromatosis. Patients were included if they had data required for calculating FIB-4 [including age, serum levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and platelet count] Patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma were excluded from the study. The study was approved by the institutional ethical committee and has been reported in accordance with the STROBE guidelines (11).

Demographic and clinical details were noted including the presence of metabolic co-morbidities like type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hypertension (HTN) and dyslipidemia. Anthropometric details including body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference measured with a non-stretchable tape at the midpoint between the top of the iliac crest and the last palpable rib were noted. Data of blood investigations including complete blood counts, liver function test, lipid and glycemic profile at the time of diagnosis were collected. Results of ultrasonography and Fibroscan [Echosens (Paris)] including CAP and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) were also recorded. Histological details were recorded in patients who underwent liver biopsy.

Results

One thousand and forty patients with NAFLD met the eligibility criteria and were included in this study. The average age of the patients was 40.9 ± 11.34 years and majority were males (58%). One hundred and forty-nine (14.3%) patients were lean while 891 (85.7%) patients were non-lean [overweight: 194 (18.6%), obese: 697 (67%) as shown in Figure 1. Age of lean and non-lean patients were similar [38.5± 12 years vs 41.46 ± 11.1 years, p=0.10]. There was no difference in gender distribution among lean and non-lean patients as shown in Table 1.

Metabolic risk factors in lean and non-lean NAFLD (Table 1)

Patients with lean NAFLD were less likely to have central obesity [72 (48.3%) vs 788 (88.4%), p<0.001] and hypertension [16 (10.7%) vs 239(26.8%), p<0.001]. Further, metabolic syndrome was observed in fewer lean patients compared to non-lean patients [21 (14.09%) vs 290 (32.5%), p<0.001]. However, there was no difference in the proportion of patients with T2DM [25 (16.7%) vs 152 (17.05%), p>0.99], elevated triglycerides [81 (54.3%) vs 525 (58.9%), p=0.33] or low HDL [71(47.6%) vs 479 (53.7%), p=0.18] among lean and non-lean patients with NAFLD. 

Liver disease severity in lean and non-lean NAFLD on non-invasive assessment (Table 2)

Hepatobiliary ultrasound parameters and data for calculation of FIB-4 was available in all patients. FibroScan parameters of CAP and LSM were available in 197 (54 lean and 143 non-lean) and 333 (82 lean and 251 non-lean) patients, respectively. 

There was no difference in the grade of hepatic steatosis as assessed by ultrasound (p=0.55) or CAP (p=0.11) among lean and non-lean patients with NAFLD. Median AST [50.1 (35.75-73.6) vs50 (33.6-74), p=0.64]and ALT [69 (47-96.1) vs 71 (44.2-102), p=0.89] levels were also comparable among lean and non-lean patients. Further, there was no difference in the proportion of patients with significant elevations of AST [29 (19.4%) vs 170 (19.04%), p=0.91] or ALT [57 (38.2%) vs 350 (39.2%), p=0.85] between these two groups. FAST score for the non-invasive prediction of patients with NASH and significant fibrosis was calculated in 197 patients including 54 lean and 143 non-lean patients. There was no difference in median FAST [0.38 (0.18-0.66) vs 0.39 (0.27-0.73), p=0.53] scores between lean and non-lean patients. Using the original FAST cut-offs derived by Newsome et al, there was no difference in the proportion of patients in whom NASH with significant fibrosis was ruled out [27 (50%) vs 64 (44.8%), p=0.53] or ruled in [9 (16.7%) vs 23 (16.1%), p=0.99] among lean and non-lean patients (16). The proportion of patients in whom NASH with significant fibrosis was ruled out [35 (64.8%) vs 96 (67.1%), p=0.86] or ruled in [2 (3.7%) vs 6 (4.2%), p= 0.99] using cut-offs previously derived in Indian patients was also similar among lean and non-lean patients (17). 

FIB-4 [1.08 (0.65-1.91) vs1.09 (0.66-1.94), p=0.94] and LSM [6.1 (4.8-7.9) vs6.2 (4.7-8.6), p=0.19) were also similar among lean and non-lean patients. Using FIB-4, the proportion of patients in whom advanced fibrosis was ruled out [87 (58.3%) vs 516 (57.9%), p=0.92) or ruled in [21 (14.1%) vs 131 (14.7%), p=0.90] were also similar in lean and non-lean patients. Similar observations were made using LSM and there was no difference in the proportion of patients with advanced fibrosis being ruled out [69 (84.1%) vs 187 (74.5%), p=0.10] or ruled in [5 (6.1%) vs 14 (5.6%), p=0.79] among lean and non-lean patients using LSM.

Liver histology in lean and non-lean NAFLD (Table 3)

Liver biopsy parameters were available in 149 patients including 19 lean patients and 130 non-lean patients. The grade of steatosis (p=0.61), lobular inflammation (p=0.30) and hepatocyte ballooning (p=0.44) were comparable among lean and non-lean patients (Table 3).  NAS scores were also similar in lean (3.3 ± 1.2) and non-lean (3.5 ± 1.5, p=0.5) patients. Borderline NASH was observed in 11 (57.8%) lean and 76 (58.5%) non-lean patients, while definite NASH was seen in 4(21%) lean and 20 (15.4%) non-lean patients, respectively. Overall, there was no difference in the proportion of patients with borderline or definite NASH among lean and non-lean patients (p=0.49). Compared to lean patients, significant [2 (10.6%) vs32 (24.7%), p=0.25]and advanced fibrosis [1 (5.3%) vs18 (13.9%), p=0.47) was more common in non-lean patients although the differences were not statistically significant.

Risk factors for advanced fibrosis

As LSM and liver histology were not available in all patients, FIB-4 was used for assessment of risk factors for advanced fibrosis. BMI was not a significant predictor for ruling out (FIB-4 <1.3) or ruling in (FIB-4 >2.67) advanced fibrosis as shown in Tables 4 and 5. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, age [adjusted OR: 1.06 (1.04-1.09), p<0.001] and metabolic syndrome [adjusted OR: 1.27 (1.03-2.59), p=0.03] were independent risk factors for FIB-4 >2.67 (advanced fibrosis ruled in). Age [adjusted OR: 0.91 (0.89-0.94), p<0.001] and central obesity [adjusted OR: 0.71 (0.5-0.99), p=0.05] were independently associated with FIB-4 <1.3 (advanced fibrosis ruled out).

Discussion

Prevalence of patients with normal BMI in our cohort of Indian patients with NAFLD was 14.3%. Globally, the prevalence of lean NAFLD among patients with NAFLD has been estimated to be around 20% (5, 6). In Indians, the pooled proportion of lean individuals among patients with NAFLD is 16.97% while the pooled prevalence of lean NAFLD in the general community is 6.5%. The reported proportion of lean patients in previous Indian studies on NAFLD ranges from 6.8–31.7% (22–24). Apart from regional variations, the wide range in the reported proportion of lean patients in Indian studies is also partially attributable to differences in the modalities for the diagnosis of NAFLD and BMI cut-off used for defining lean patients. None the less, the available evidence suggests that although uncommon, the actual burden of lean NAFLD in India is still likely to be substantial given the extremely high prevalence of NAFLD in India. Larger, multicentric studies are required to better estimate the true burden of lean NAFLD. Further, community-based studies are the need of the hour to assess the prevalence of lean NAFLD among the general population.

Recent western studies have suggested that lean patients with NAFLD are younger than their obese counterparts (25, 26). However, we did not observe any difference in age between our lean and non-lean patients. Similar findings have been reported in two other studies from north and south India (8, 27). This suggests that Indian lean patients are detected with NAFLD at an older age than western patients. It could also be indicative of a referral bias due to the common perception among clinicians that NAFLD in individuals with normal body weight is mild.

Bulk of the available evidence suggests that metabolic co-morbidities like central obesity, hypertension, T2DM, and metabolic syndrome are less common in lean patients with NAFLD compared to obese patients (5, 6, 7). Similarly, our patients with lean NAFLD were less likely to have central obesity, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome compared to non-lean patients. In our cohort, elevated triglycerides and low HDL were observed in a similar proportion of lean and non-lean patients with Novelties is line with the findings of a meta-analysis that reported no difference in elevated triglycerides or dyslipidemia among lean and obese patients (5). This is an intriguing observation. Similar risk of dyslipidemia among lean and non-lean patients may be indicative of increased adipose tissue insulin resistance with consequential increase in peripheral lipolysis and serum lipid profile derangements despite the quantitatively lower total body fat mass in lean patients (8). Contrary to the available evidence, we did not observe any difference in T2DM among lean and non-lean patients. This is difficult to explain and may be related to the low prevalence of T2DM in our cohort.

We used multiple non-invasive techniques for assessing the various histologic facets of NAFLD to amplify the robustness of our inferences. Biochemical liver function perturbations as assessed by AST and ALT were similar between the lean and non-lean patients in our cohort. We did not observe any difference in the severity of steatosis on non-invasive assessment by ultrasound and CAP. Non-invasive detection of NASH, the diagnosis of which has both prognostic and therapeutic implications, has long been an unmet met. The FAST score encompasses measures of steatosis (CAP), inflammation (AST) and fibrosis (LSM) and may be considered a non-invasive analogue of the histological steatosis, activity and fibrosis (SAF) score (16). It was recently shown by Newsome et al to have a high discriminatory ability for the detection of patients with NASH and significant fibrosis and has been validated in multiple geographic regions including India (16, 17, 28). There was no difference in FAST scores among the lean and non-lean patients in our cohort. With respect to fibrosis, FIB-4 and LSM were similar among lean and non-lean patients and there was no difference in the proportion of patients in whom advanced fibrosis was ruled out or ruled in using both these modalities. Our observations strongly suggest that liver disease in lean patients with NAFLD is not milder than that in their non-lean counterparts.

Our observations on non-invasive assessment were further corroborated on histology although it was available in only 149 patients. We observed no difference in steatosis, lobular inflammation, ballooning, NAS or fibrosis stages among lean and non-lean patients. Further, there was no difference in the number of patients with NASH, significant or advanced fibrosis between these two groups. Although some studies have suggested that lean or non-obese patients NAFLD have relatively mild disease on histology, there are several reports to the contrary (5, 8, 9, 25, 29–35). Two other studies from the Indian subcontinent have assessed liver histology in lean or non-obese patients with NAFLD and both reported that these patients do not have a lower risk of NASH or advanced fibrosis (8, 9).

There are few important caveats in interpreting the available evidence on the severity of liver disease in lean patients with NAFLD. There is a variation in the BMI cut-off used for defining lean among the various studies (5, 8, 9, 25, 29–35). Many studies have clubbed overweight with lean patients into non-obese NAFLD adding further heterogeneity to the evidence. As such this BMI based categorisation into lean, overweight and NAFLD is partly arbitrary. Hence, we assessed the risk of advanced fibrosis, the main determinant of clinical outcomes, with BMI as a continuous measure. We did not find BMI to be a significant predictor for ruling out or ruling in advanced fibrosis as assessed by FIB-4 scores thereby suggesting that BMI does not impact the risk of advanced fibrosis. Age is another confounding factor in assessing liver disease severity in lean patients. On the one hand there is a correlation between age and BMI while on the other age is a known risk factor for fibrosis and poor clinical outcomes (36). Indeed, age was an independent predictor for advanced fibrosis on multivariate analysis in our cohort with an aOR of 0.91 (0.89–0.94) and 1.06 (1.04–1.09) for ruling out (FIB-4 < 1.3) and ruling in (FIB-4 > 2.67) advanced fibrosis, respectively. This confounding effect of age was elegantly demonstrated in a recent longitudinal study of Caucasian patients with NAFLD, where an apparent link between BMI and clinical events like T2DM, hepatocellular carcinoma and cardiovascular events disappeared after adjustment for age (26). Previous longitudinal studies have also demonstrated that NAFLD in lean patients can progress to severe liver disease and clinical events may occur without substantial increase in BMI on follow-up (26, 35). Taken together, the evidence suggests that a BMI-guided approach to risk stratification in patients with NAFLD may not be prudent. Further long-term follow-up studies are needed to get a better understanding of the natural history and prognosis in lean patients with NAFLD.

We acknowledge the limitations of our study including the unavailability of CAP, LSM and histological data in all patients. This reflects the constraints of real-world clinical practice as it is not feasible to perform liver biopsy or FibroScan in all patients due to logistic and ethical concerns. In our institute, CAP function in FibroScan was incorporated in 2015. Hence, CAP parameter was not available in patients who presented prior 2015. Assessment of insulin resistance and measurement of other markers of metabolic dysfunction like serum uric acid and hs-CRP were not done as these are not a part of the routine evaluation and management of patients of NAFLD at our institute. Lastly, the inclusion of a control group of patients without NAFLD would have added further granularity to our observations and inferences.

In conclusion, lean patients with NAFLD are less likely to have abdominal obesity, hypertension and metabolic syndrome compared to their non-lean counterparts. However, there is no difference in biochemical parameters, non-invasive assessment of liver disease severity, and the histologic presence of NASH and significant or advanced fibrosis among lean and non-lean Indian patients with NAFLD.

Declarations

Declaration of interest: All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and have no financial disclosures.

Funding: None

Authors contributions:

ArD: conceptualization, patient recruitment, data analysis and manuscript writing; MM: data collection and analysis; PS: data collection; NB: manuscript writing; SM: data collection; AsD: histopathology assessment; AD: conceptualization, patient recruitment, data curation and critical revision

Acknowledgement: Part of the manuscript was presented as poster at the annual conference of the Indian National Association for Study of the Liver (INASL) 2022

References

1. Shalimar, Anshuman Elhence A, Bhavik Bansal B, Hardik Gupta H, Abhinav Anand A, Singh T, et al. Prevalence of Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2021. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jceh.2021.11.010.
2. Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, Fazel Y, Henry L, Wymer M. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology. 2016;64(1):73-84. doi: 10.1002/hep.28431.
3. De A, Duseja A. Natural History of Simple Steatosis or Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2020;10(3):255-262. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2019.09.005.
4. Ekstedt M, Nasr P, Kechagias S. Natural History of NAFLD/NASH. Curr Hepatol Rep. 2017;16(4):391-397. doi: 10.1007/s11901-017-0378-2.
5. Young S, Tariq R, Provenza J, Satapathy SK, Faisal K, Choudhry A, et al. Prevalence and Profile of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Lean Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Hepatol Commun. 2020 May 21;4(7):953-972. doi: 10.1002/hep4.1519.
6. Ye Q, Zou B, Yeo YH, Li J, Huang DQ, Wu Y, et al. Global prevalence, incidence, and outcomes of non-obese or lean non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Aug;5(8):739-752. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30077-7.
7. Alam S, Eslam M, Skm Hasan N, Anam K, Chowdhury MAB, Khan MAS, et al. Risk factors of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in lean body mass population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JGH Open. 2021 Oct 4;5(11):1236-1249. doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12658.
8. Kumar R, Rastogi A, Sharma MK, Bhatia V, Garg H, Bihari C, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics and metabolic profiles of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in Indian patients with normal body mass index: Do they differ from obese or overweight non-alcoholic fatty liver disease? Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2013;17(4):665-71. doi: 10.4103/2230-8210.113758.
9. Alam S, Gupta UD, Alam M, Kabir J, Chowdhury ZR, Alam AK. Clinical, anthropometric, biochemical, and histological characteristics of nonobese nonalcoholic fatty liver disease patients of Bangladesh. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2014 Sep;33(5):452-7. doi: 10.1007/s12664-014-0488-5.
10. Directorate General of Health Services, MOHFW, Government of India. Operational Guidelines for integration of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) with NPCDCS. Available at: https://main. mohfw.gov.in/newshighli ghts-42. Published 2021.
11. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7.
12. National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation. 2002;106(25):3143-421.
13. Misra A, Misra R, Wijesuriya M, Banerjee D. The metabolic syndrome in South Asians: continuing escalation & possible solutions. Indian J Med Res. 2007;125(3):345-54.
14. Duseja A, Singh SP, Saraswat VA, Acharya SK, Chawla YK, Chowdhury S, et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome-position paper of the Indian National Association for the study of the liver, endocrine society of India, Indian college of cardiology and Indian society of gastroenterology. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2015;5:51–68.
15. Karlas T, Petroff D, Sasso M, Fan JG, Mi YQ, de Lédinghen V, et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) technology for assessing steatosis. J Hepatol. 2017;66(5):1022–30.
16. Newsome PN, Sasso M, Deeks JJ, Paredes A, Boursier J, Chan WK, et al. FibroScan-AST (FAST) score for the non-invasive identification of patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis with significant activity and fibrosis: a prospective derivation and global validation study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(4):362–73.
17. De A, Keisham A, Mishra S, Mehta M, Verma N, Premkumar M, Taneja S, et al. FibroScan-AST (FAST) Score for Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis - Validation in an Indian Cohort. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2022 Mar-Apr;12(2):440-447. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2021.06.008.
18. European Association for the Study of the Liver. Electronic address: [email protected]; Clinical Practice Guideline Panel; Chair:; EASL Governing Board representative:; Panel members:. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on non-invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis - 2021 update. J Hepatol. 2021;75(3):659-689. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.05.025.
19. Papatheodoridi M, Hiriart JB, Lupsor-Platon M, Bronte F, Boursier J, Elshaarawy O, et al. Refining the Baveno VI elastography criteria for the definition of compensated advanced chronic liver disease. J Hepatol. 2021 May;74(5):1109-1116. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.11.050.
20. Kleiner DE, Brunt EM, Van Natta M, Behling C, Contos MJ, Cummings OW, et al. Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2005;41(6):1313–21.
21. Bedossa P, Poitou C, Veyrie N, Bouillot J-L, Basdevant A, Paradis V, et al. Histopathological algorithm and scoring system for evaluation of liver lesions in morbidly obese patients. Hepatology. 2012;56(5):1751–9.
22. Duseja A, Singh SP, Mehta M, Shalimar, Venkataraman J, Mehta V, et al. Clinicopathological Profile and Outcome of a Large Cohort of Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease from South Asia: Interim Results of the Indian Consortium on Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2022 Apr;20(3):166-173. doi: 10.1089/met.2021.0104.
23. De A, Duseja A. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Indian Perspective. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken). 2021 Sep 13;18(3):158-163. doi: 10.1002/cld.1141.
24. Duseja A, Singh SP, De A, Madan K, Rao PN, Shukla A, et al. Indian National Association for Study of the Liver (INASL) Guidance Paper on Nomenclature, Diagnosis and Treatment of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2022. Ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCEH.2022.11.014.
25. Ahmed OT, Gidener T, Mara KC, Larson JJ, Therneau TM, Allen AM. Natural History of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease With Normal Body Mass Index: A Population-Based Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Jun;20(6):1374-1381.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.07.016.
26. Younes R, Govaere O, Petta S, Miele L, Tiniakos D, Burt A, et al. Caucasian lean subjects with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease share long-term prognosis of non-lean: time for reappraisal of BMI-driven approach? Gut. 2022 Feb;71(2):382-390. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322564.
27. Vendhan R, Amutha A, Anjana RM, Unnikrishnan R, Deepa M, Mohan V. Comparison of characteristics between nonobese and overweight/obese subjects with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a South Indian population. Diabetes TechnolTher. 2014 Jan;16(1):48-55. doi: 10.1089/dia.2013.0165.
28. Anand A, Elhence A, Vaishnav M, Singh AA, Rajput MS, Banyal V, et al. FibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase score in an Asian cohort of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its utility in predicting histological resolution with bariatric surgery. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 May;36(5):1309-1316. doi: 10.1111/jgh.15358.
29. Sookoian S, Pirola CJ. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the significance of histological disease severity in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Aliment PharmacolTher. 2018 Jan;47(1):16-25. doi: 10.1111/apt.14401.
30. Akyuz U, Yesil A, Yilmaz Y. Characterization of lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: potential role of high hemoglobin levels. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2015 Mar;50(3):341-6. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2014.983160.
31. Fracanzani AL, Petta S, Lombardi R, Pisano G, Russello M, Consonni D, et al. Liver and Cardiovascular Damage in Patients With Lean Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, and Association With Visceral Obesity. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Oct;15(10):1604-1611.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.04.045.
32. Honda Y, Yoneda M, Kessoku T, Ogawa Y, Tomeno W, Imajo K, et al. Characteristics of non-obese non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Effect of genetic and environmental factors. Hepatol Res. 2016 Sep;46(10):1011-8. doi: 10.1111/hepr.12648.
33. Leung JC, Loong TC, Wei JL, Wong GL, Chan AW, Choi PC, et al. Histological severity and clinical outcomes of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in nonobese patients. Hepatology. 2017 Jan;65(1):54-64. doi: 10.1002/hep.28697.
34. Margariti A, Deutsch M, Manolakopoulos S, Tiniakos D, Papatheodoridis GV. The severity of histologic liver lesions is independent of body mass index in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013 Mar;47(3):280-6. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31826be328.
35. Hagström H, Nasr P, Ekstedt M, Hammar U, Stål P, Hultcrantz R, et al. Risk for development of severe liver disease in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A long-term follow-up study. Hepatol Commun. 2017 Nov 30;2(1):48-57. doi: 10.1002/hep4.1124.
36. Meeuwsen S, Horgan GW, Elia M. The relationship between BMI and percent body fat, measured by bioelectrical impedance, in a large adult sample is curvilinear and influenced by age and sex. Clin Nutr. 2010 Oct;29(5):560-6. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2009.12.011.

Tables

Table 1: Demographic and metabolic profile of lean and non-lean patients with NAFLD (n=1040)