{"title":"The systemic immune inflammation index is a reliable and novel risk factor for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease.","authors":"Mehmet Ali Kosekli, Gulali Aktas","doi":"10.1080/03007995.2025.2463952","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) can trigger inflammation, hepatocellular damage, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. There is a need for non-invasive, cost-effective diagnostic markers for MAFLD, as current methods like liver biopsy are invasive. This study investigates the potential of the systemic immune inflammation index (SII) as a useful tool in diagnosis of MAFLD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cohort of 806 individuals, including 426 with MAFLD and 380 controls, was analyzed. SII values, along with various biochemical and inflammatory markers, were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The MAFLD group exhibited significantly higher SII values, which correlated with key markers of liver inflammation and function. Median SII levels of the MAFLD patients (581 (45-4553)) were significantly higher than that of the control group (423 (112-2595)) (<i>p</i> <0.001). SII showed moderate sensitivity (72%) and specificity (56%) in detecting MAFLD. Logistic regression analysis identified SII as an independent risk factor for MAFLD, with a unit increase in SII increasing the risk by 1.21 times.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that SII could serve as a useful, noninvasive marker for diagnosing and monitoring MAFLD, warranting further longitudinal studies to explore its role in disease progression and treatment response.</p>","PeriodicalId":10814,"journal":{"name":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","volume":" ","pages":"247-251"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2025.2463952","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) can trigger inflammation, hepatocellular damage, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. There is a need for non-invasive, cost-effective diagnostic markers for MAFLD, as current methods like liver biopsy are invasive. This study investigates the potential of the systemic immune inflammation index (SII) as a useful tool in diagnosis of MAFLD.
Methods: A cohort of 806 individuals, including 426 with MAFLD and 380 controls, was analyzed. SII values, along with various biochemical and inflammatory markers, were compared between groups.
Results: The MAFLD group exhibited significantly higher SII values, which correlated with key markers of liver inflammation and function. Median SII levels of the MAFLD patients (581 (45-4553)) were significantly higher than that of the control group (423 (112-2595)) (p <0.001). SII showed moderate sensitivity (72%) and specificity (56%) in detecting MAFLD. Logistic regression analysis identified SII as an independent risk factor for MAFLD, with a unit increase in SII increasing the risk by 1.21 times.
Conclusions: These findings suggest that SII could serve as a useful, noninvasive marker for diagnosing and monitoring MAFLD, warranting further longitudinal studies to explore its role in disease progression and treatment response.
期刊介绍:
Current Medical Research and Opinion is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal for the rapid publication of original research on new and existing drugs and therapies, Phase II-IV studies, and post-marketing investigations. Equivalence, safety and efficacy/effectiveness studies are especially encouraged. Preclinical, Phase I, pharmacoeconomic, outcomes and quality of life studies may also be considered if there is clear clinical relevance