It’s easy to become discouraged that sensible actions may not be effective due to general pessimism and sometimes conflicting medical reports. On the positive side of the ledger, a recent study (AV Khera et al. NEJM 2016; 375: 2349-58) provides compelling data that a combination of healthy lifestyle changes make a BIG difference.
The study focused on 4 healthy lifestyle factors: no smoking, no obesity, regular physical activity, and a healthy diet. The study examined three large prospective cohorts with a total of more than 55,000 patients.
- Among participants with high genetic risk, a favorable lifestyle was associated with a 46% lower relative risk of coronary events compared to those with an unfavorable lifestyle over the 10-year study period.
In the same issue, a review of the human intestinal microbiome (pages 2369-79) notes that “dietary intake appears to be a major short-term and long-term regulator of the structure and function of gut microbiota. Still, only a relatively small number of randomized, clinically controlled dietary interventions targeting the gut microbiota have been reported in humans and these show that energy restriction and diets rich in fiber and vegetables are associated with gut microbial changes that, in turn, are associated with a health benefit.”
My take: To enhance your odds of good health, avoid smoking, stay fit, and eat your fruits/veggies.
J Bousier et al. Hepatology 2016; 63: 764-75. This study showed an association between the severity of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and gut dysbiosis/shift in gut microbiome in 57 patients. Specifically, Bacteroides was independently associated with NASH and Ruminococcus with significant fibrosis.
V WS Wong et al. Hepatology 2016; 63: 754-63. This study showed that NAFLD (identified by ultrasonography screening) was frequent (58.2%) among 612 consecutive patients who were undergoing coronary angiogram. During a followup (3679 patient-years), NAFLD patients had a lower adjusted HR of death (0.36). Older age and diabetes were indepenently associated with cardiovascular events. In addition, during f/u NAFLD patients in their cohort rarely developed liver cancer or cirrhotic complications. Thus, NAFLD is common among patients with coronary artery disease but did not predict a worsened outcome.
F Piscaglia et al. Hepatology 2016; 63: 827-38. This report was a study of 756 patients with liver cancer (HCC) due to either NAFLD (145) or HCV (611). HCC in NAFLD patients had a larger volume, was more infiltrative, and was detected outside surveillance. NAFLD-HCC was associated with a lower survival (25.5 months compared with 33.7 months for HCV-HCC). The authors note that after patient matching for tumor stage, the survival rate was similar. The difference in survival does not account for lead-time bias (What’s More Important: Improving Mortality Rate or Survival …). Overall, the study indicates that without surveillance, HCC is detected later. Due to the frequency of NAFLD, it is unclear which patients would benefit from surveillance and what type of surveillance should be recommended.
Related blog posts:
Farjado, Puerto Rico