Independent effects of diet and exercise training on fat oxidation in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Effect of different exercise modalities on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Physical exercise intervention can significantly improve the liver of patients with Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), but it is unknown which exercise mode has the best effect on liver improvement in NAFLD patients. Therefore, we systematically evaluated the effect of exercise therapy on liver and blood index function of NAFLD patients through network meta-analysis (NMA). Through systematic retrieval of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO, and CNKI (National Knowledge Infrastructure), two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies by means of databases from inception to January 2023. The NMA was performed using the inconsistency model. A total of 43 studies, 2070 NAFLD patients were included: aerobic training (n = 779), resistance training (n = 159), high-intensity interval training (n = 160), aerobic training + resistance training (n = 96). The results indicate that aerobic training + resistance training could significantly improve serum total cholesterol (TC) (Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 71.7), triglyceride (TG) (SUCRA = 96.8), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (SUCRA = 86.1) in patients with NAFLD including triglycerides. Aerobic training is the best mode to improve ALT (SUCRA = 83.9) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (SUCRA = 72.3). Resistance training is the best mode to improve aspartate transaminase (AST) (SUCRA = 81.7). Taking various benefits into account, we believe that the best modality of exercise for NAFLD patients is aerobic training + resistance training. In our current network meta-analysis, these exercise methods have different effects on the six indicators of NAFLD, which provides some reference for further formulating exercise prescription for NAFLD patients.

The Effects of a Short-Term Combined Exercise Program on Liver Steatosis Indices and the Lipidemic and Glycemic Profile in NAFLD Individuals: A Pilot Study

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a very common liver disease associated with obesity, unhealthy diet, and lack of physical exercise. Short-term aerobic or resistance exercise has been shown to result in reduced liver fat in patients with NAFLD; however, the impact of the combination of these types of exercise has received less attention. This study investigated the effect of a short-term (7 days) concurrent exercise training program performed daily on liver steatosis indices, as well as the glycemic and lipidemic profile of overweight/obese sedentary volunteers. Twenty adult patients (age: 47.3 ± 12.3 yrs, body mass index: 32.4 ± 3.4 kg/m2) with NAFLD, detected by ultrasound and hematological indices, participated in the study. Pre- and post-exercise intervention assessment included body weight (BW), waist circumference (WC), hip/waist ratio (H/W), Homeostasis Model Assessment Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), blood lipids, and steatosis indices. Fatty Liver Index, Lipid Accumulation Index, WC, H/W, triglycerides, and total cholesterol were improved (p < 0.05) post-exercise, while no differences (p > 0.05) were observed in BW, HOMA-IR, HDL, LDL, Hepatic Steatosis Index, and Framingham Steatosis Index compared to pre-exercise values. It is concluded that a 7-day combined exercise program can have beneficial effects on hepatic steatosis and central adiposity indices, independently of weight loss, in patients with NAFLD.

Lifestyle modifications for nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease (NAFLD) varies between 19% and 33% in different populations. NAFLD decreases life expectancy and increases the risks of liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and requirement for liver transplantation. There is uncertainty surrounding the relative benefits and harms of various lifestyle interventions for people with NAFLD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different lifestyle interventions in the treatment of NAFLD through a network meta-analysis, and to generate rankings of the different lifestyle interventions according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until February 2021 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with NAFLD.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in people with NAFLD, whatever the method of diagnosis, age, and diabetic status of participants, or presence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to perform a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and to calculate the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and rate ratios (RaRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available-participant analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. However, the data were too sparse for the clinical outcomes. We therefore performed only direct comparisons (head-to-head comparisons) with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 59 randomised clinical trials (3631 participants) in the review. All but two trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 33 different interventions, ranging from advice to supervised exercise and special diets, or a combination of these and no additional intervention were compared in these trials. The reference treatment was no active intervention. Twenty-eight trials (1942 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The follow-up ranged from 1 month to 24 months. The remaining trials did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The follow-up period in the trials that reported clinical outcomes was 2 months to 24 months. During this short follow-up period, clinical events related to NAFLD such as mortality, liver cirrhosis, liver decompensation, liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related mortality were sparse. This is probably because of the very short follow-up periods. It takes a follow-up of 8 years to 28 years to detect differences in mortality between people with NAFLD and the general population. It is therefore unlikely that differences by clinical outcomes will be noted in trials with less than 5 years to 10 years of follow-up. In one trial, one participant developed an adverse event. There were no adverse events in any of the remaining participants in this trial, or in any of the remaining trials, which seemed to be directly related to the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the lifestyle interventions compared with no additional intervention (to general public health advice) on any of the clinical outcomes after a short follow-up period of 2 months to 24 months in people with nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease. Accordingly, high-quality randomised clinical trials with adequate follow-up are needed. We propose registry-based randomised clinical trials or cohort multiple randomised clinical trials (a study design in which multiple interventions are trialed within large longitudinal cohorts of participants to gain efficiencies and align trials more closely to standard clinical practice), comparing aerobic exercise and dietary advice versus standard of care (exercise and dietary advice received as part of national health promotion). The reason for the choice of aerobic exercise and dietary advice is the impact of these interventions on indirect outcomes which may translate to clinical benefit. The outcomes in such trials should be mortality, health-related quality of life, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver transplantation, and resource use measures including costs of intervention and decreased healthcare use after a minimum follow-up of eight years, to find meaningful differences in the clinically important outcomes.