Dataset Information

Prevalence and risk factors of moderate to severe hepatic steatosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an ultrasonography cross-sectional case–control study

ABSTRACT:

Background:

The independent association between hepatic steatosis and rheumatoid arthritis is poorly defined.

Methods:

The presence of moderate to severe steatosis was assessed, using liver ultrasonography, in 364 consecutive non-diabetic subjects (223 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and 141 age- and sex-matched healthy controls). Adjusted multiple regression analysis was performed to explore the association between rheumatoid arthritis and moderate to severe steatosis in the overall sample and identify independent risk factors in the rheumatoid arthritis subgroup.

Results:

The prevalence of moderate to severe steatosis in the overall sample was 31.3%, with a significantly higher prevalence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis than healthy controls (38.7% versus 19.7%, p < 0.0001). After adjustment for sex, age, cholesterol, triglycerides, body mass index, waist, hypertension and smoke, rheumatoid arthritis remained significantly associated with moderate to severe steatosis [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 2.24 (1.31, 3.84); p = 0.003]. In the rheumatoid arthritis group, male sex, higher body mass index, higher triglycerides concentrations and higher cumulative dosage of methotrexate [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 1.11 (1.01, 1.23); p = 0.026] were significantly associated with moderate to severe steatosis, while systemic inflammation, disease activity, use of steroids and biologics were not.

Conclusion:

Rheumatoid arthritis is independently associated with moderate to severe steatosis, with male sex, higher body mass index and cumulative dose of methotrexate being predisposing factors. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm our findings and to investigate the effect of steatosis on liver outcomes in the rheumatoid arthritis population.

SUBMITTER: Erre G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8606981 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLimited data are available to explain nonadherence to methotrexate (MTX) therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Better understanding of patterns of MTX use and reasons for nonadherence may help identify patients who would benefit from alternative RA treatments and potentially aid in developing strategies to increase overall adherence. The purpose of this study was to assess patients' self-reported adherence to MTX and to identify reasons for nonadherence.MethodsPatient panel members in the US self-reporting a diagnosis of RA of ?3 months' and current MTX use of ?4 weeks' duration, with or without concomitant use of another RA prescription medication, participated in this cross-sectional, web-based survey.ResultsThe sample population (251 MTX monotherapy, 250 MTX combination therapy) was predominantly female, white, non-Hispanic, and educated; 48% were 18-44 years-old, 47% had medical comorbidities, 66% were first diagnosed with RA ?5 years earlier, 51% reported MTX use of <1 year, and 83% reported oral MTX use. Forty-two percent reported not taking MTX exactly as prescribed. Reasons for nonadherence included forgetting to take it (33%), not needing it when feeling well (24%), and concern about long-term safety (24%). Among nonadherent patients, 53% took smaller doses, 52% skipped doses, and 6% reported other nonprescribed ways of taking MTX. Younger age, male sex, and shorter duration of MTX use were associated with poorer self-reported adherence. Compared with monotherapy patients, combination therapy patients, particularly those taking ?2 other RA prescriptions, were less likely to report high adherence.ConclusionNearly half the sample reported poor MTX adherence because they forgot to take it, thought it was not needed when they felt well, or had long-term safety concerns. Patients taking ?2 other RA prescription medications were less likely to report good adherence. Reducing treatment burden without sacrificing efficacy may be a strategy worth evaluating.