Protective effect of alcohol consumption for fatty liver but not metabolic syndrome

Abstract

Light to moderate alcohol consumption has a favorable effect for fatty liver, but not for MS in Japanese men and women.

Modest alcohol consumption decreases the risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis of 43 175 individuals

“…[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] In conclusion, quantitative evidence showed that MAC is associated with a significant protective effect of about 31% on the risk of having NAFLD. Even more remarkable, MAC was associated with an average protective effect of about 50% on the risk of developing an advanced disease stage.…”

Alcohol consumption and risk of fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis

“…Then, 19 English and four Chinese studies remained for complete evaluation, four Chinese studies were excluded due to design weakness or low quality data, two English studies were excluded due to a lack of data for calculation, and one English study was discarded due to duplication. In the end, 16 observational articles with a total of 76,608 participants including 39,198 nondrinkers, 31,942 light to moderate drinkers (LM drinkers), and 5,468 heavy drinkers met our inclusion criteria (Dunn, Xu & Schwimmer, 2008; Cotrim et al, 2009; Gunji et al, 2009; Yamada et al, 2010; Hiramine et al, 2011; Dunn et al, 2012; Hamaguchi et al, 2012; Wong et al, 2012; Moriya et al, 2013; Sookoian, Castaño & Pirola, 2014; Hashimoto et al, 2015; Kächele et al, 2015; Lau et al, 2015; Moriya et al, 2015; Nishioji et al, 2015; Sogabe et al, 2015). There were 13 cross-sectional studies (Dunn, Xu & Schwimmer, 2008; Cotrim et al, 2009; Gunji et al, 2009; Hiramine et al, 2011; Dunn et al, 2012; Hamaguchi et al, 2012; Wong et al, 2012; Moriya et al, 2013; Sookoian, Castaño & Pirola, 2014; Kächele et al, 2015; Lau et al, 2015; Nishioji et al, 2015; Sogabe et al, 2015), two cross-sectional following longitudinal studies (Yamada et al, 2010; Moriya et al, 2015) and one cohort study (Hashimoto et al, 2015).…”

“…In the end, 16 observational articles with a total of 76,608 participants including 39,198 nondrinkers, 31,942 light to moderate drinkers (LM drinkers), and 5,468 heavy drinkers met our inclusion criteria (Dunn, Xu & Schwimmer, 2008; Cotrim et al, 2009; Gunji et al, 2009; Yamada et al, 2010; Hiramine et al, 2011; Dunn et al, 2012; Hamaguchi et al, 2012; Wong et al, 2012; Moriya et al, 2013; Sookoian, Castaño & Pirola, 2014; Hashimoto et al, 2015; Kächele et al, 2015; Lau et al, 2015; Moriya et al, 2015; Nishioji et al, 2015; Sogabe et al, 2015). There were 13 cross-sectional studies (Dunn, Xu & Schwimmer, 2008; Cotrim et al, 2009; Gunji et al, 2009; Hiramine et al, 2011; Dunn et al, 2012; Hamaguchi et al, 2012; Wong et al, 2012; Moriya et al, 2013; Sookoian, Castaño & Pirola, 2014; Kächele et al, 2015; Lau et al, 2015; Nishioji et al, 2015; Sogabe et al, 2015), two cross-sectional following longitudinal studies (Yamada et al, 2010; Moriya et al, 2015) and one cohort study (Hashimoto et al, 2015). Of the studies, 10 were conducted in Asia (nine in Japan (Gunji et al, 2009; Yamada et al, 2010; Hiramine et al, 2011; Hamaguchi et al, 2012; Moriya et al, 2013; Hashimoto et al, 2015; Moriya et al, 2015; Nishioji et al, 2015; Sogabe et al, 2015) and one in Hong Kong (Wong et al, 2012)) and six in other countries (two in the US (Dunn, Xu & Schwimmer, 2008; Dunn et al, 2012), 1 in Brazil (Cotrim et al, 2009), 1 in Argentina (Sookoian, Castaño & Pirola, 2014) and 2 in Germany (Kächele et al, 2015; Lau et al, 2015)).…”

“…There were 13 cross-sectional studies (Dunn, Xu & Schwimmer, 2008; Cotrim et al, 2009; Gunji et al, 2009; Hiramine et al, 2011; Dunn et al, 2012; Hamaguchi et al, 2012; Wong et al, 2012; Moriya et al, 2013; Sookoian, Castaño & Pirola, 2014; Kächele et al, 2015; Lau et al, 2015; Nishioji et al, 2015; Sogabe et al, 2015), two cross-sectional following longitudinal studies (Yamada et al, 2010; Moriya et al, 2015) and one cohort study (Hashimoto et al, 2015). Of the studies, 10 were conducted in Asia (nine in Japan (Gunji et al, 2009; Yamada et al, 2010; Hiramine et al, 2011; Hamaguchi et al, 2012; Moriya et al, 2013; Hashimoto et al, 2015; Moriya et al, 2015; Nishioji et al, 2015; Sogabe et al, 2015) and one in Hong Kong (Wong et al, 2012)) and six in other countries (two in the US (Dunn, Xu & Schwimmer, 2008; Dunn et al, 2012), 1 in Brazil (Cotrim et al, 2009), 1 in Argentina (Sookoian, Castaño & Pirola, 2014) and 2 in Germany (Kächele et al, 2015; Lau et al, 2015)). A total of 12 studies provided adjusted risk estimate, and four studies reported only crude data.…”

“…But only a few studies obtained a follow-up (Yamada et al, 2010; Moriya et al, 2015) and explained how missing data were handled (Dunn, Xu & Schwimmer, 2008; Moriya et al, 2013; Kächele et al, 2015; Lau et al, 2015; Moriya et al, 2015; Nishioji et al, 2015; Sogabe et al, 2015). Most of the studies (Dunn, Xu & Schwimmer, 2008; Gunji et al, 2009; Hiramine et al, 2011; Hamaguchi et al, 2012; Wong et al, 2012; Moriya et al, 2013; Kächele et al, 2015; Lau et al, 2015; Nishioji et al, 2015; Sogabe et al, 2015; Yamada et al, 2010; Moriya et al, 2015) were evaluated as low risk of bias, 2 studies (Cotrim et al, 2009; Dunn et al, 2012) had moderate risk of bias, and 1 study (Sookoian, Castaño & Pirola, 2014) had high risk of bias (Table 3). The quality of cohort study (Hashimoto et al, 2015) was full score of 9, and a score ≥6 stars is considered to be high quality.…”