Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jul 18;18(7):e0288820. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288820

Regression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with reduced risk of incident diabetes: A longitudinal cohort study

Dong Hyun Sinn 1,2,#, Danbee Kang 2,3,#, Eliseo Guallar 3,4, Sung Chul Choi 5, Yun Soo Hong 4, Yewan Park 6, Juhee Cho 2,3,4,*, Geum-Youn Gwak 1,*
Editor: Ahmed Mustafa Rashid7
PMCID: PMC10353790  PMID: 37463179

Abstract

Objective

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is potentially reversible. However, whether improvement of NAFLD leads to clinical benefits remains uncertain. We investigated the association between regression of NAFLD and the risk of incident diabetes in a longitudinal way.

Methods

A cohort of 11,260 adults who had NAFLD at in an initial exam, had the second evaluation for NAFLD status at 1~2 years from an initial exam were followed up for incident diabetes from 2001 and 2016. NAFLD was diagnosed with abdominal ultrasound.

Results

At baseline, NAFLD was regressed in 2,559 participants (22.7%). During 51,388 person-years of follow-up (median 4 years), 1,768 participants developed diabetes. The fully adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for incident diabetes in participants with regressed NAFLD compared to those with persistent NAFLD was 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72–0.92]. When assessed by NAFLD severity, among participants with a low NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) (< -1.455), participants with regressed NAFLD had a lower risk of incident diabetes than those with persistent NAFLD (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68–0.88). However, in participants with an intermediate to high NFS (≥ -1.455), the risk of incident diabetes was not different between NAFLD regression and persistence groups (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82–1.51).

Conclusions

Regression of NAFLD was associated with decreased risk of incident diabetes compared to persistent NAFLD. However, the benefit was evident only for NAFLD patients with low NFS. This suggests that early intervention for NAFLD, before advanced fibrosis is present, may maximize the metabolic benefit from NAFLD regression.

Introduction

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a condition in which the liver accumulates fat without significant alcohol intake, viral hepatitis, medications that would cause fatty liver, or other obvious causes [1]. NAFLD is the most common chronic liver disease, with a worldwide prevalence of 25% [2]. NAFLD patients are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including overall mortality, and liver-specific morbidity and mortality [3], and are projected to continue to increase, which has an important impact on public health [4]. The clinical burden of NAFLD is not only confined to liver-related outcomes [5]. Hepatic fat accumulation is accompanied by abnormal hepatic energy metabolism [6], and impaired insulin-mediated suppression of hepatic glucose and very low-density lipoprotein production [7], leading to hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia and hyperinsulinemia. Individuals with NAFLD are at a 2.2-fold higher risk of incident diabetes [8].

NAFLD has been associated with persistence or worsening of metabolic abnormalities [9,10]. NAFLD is potentially reversible condition [11]. Reversal of hepatic fat accumulation may lead to metabolic benefit. However, to date, whether regression of NAFLD is associated with a decreased risk of incident diabetes is largely unexplored. Therefore, in this study, we investigated the association between regression of NAFLD and the risk of incident diabetes in a longitudinal way using a large cohort.

Methods

Study population

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of men and women of 20 years of age or older who underwent at least 2 health check examinations with abdominal ultrasound (US) between 2001 and 2016 at the Samsung Medical Center (SMC). Since the objective of the study was to evaluate NAFLD regression on incident diabetes, we included subjects with fatty liver on abdominal US at the first exam (N = 25,962). To evaluate change of NAFLD status, we used the results of the second abdominal US exam which took within 1 to 2 years interval after the first abdominal US exam. The time of the second abdominal US exam was considered as baseline visit. Then, the third and any subsequent exams were used to determine the status of diabetes. To control immortal time bias [12], participants who had diabetes in the first or the second exam were excluded (N = 4,679). In addition, we excluded patients who had any of the following conditions in the first or the second exam: alcohol intake ≥ 30 g/day in men or ≥ 20 g/day in women (N = 2,332), positive hepatitis B surface antigen or anti-hepatitis C virus antibodies (N = 1,107), liver cirrhosis (N = 458), or a history of cancer (N = 1,204). Finally, we then further excluded participants without any additional follow-up after baseline visit (N = 3,291), and with missing data on alcohol intake (N = 3,406). Since study participants could have more than one exclusion criteria, the final sample was 11,260 (Fig 1). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Samsung Medical Center. Informed consent was waived because the study was based on de-identified existing administrative and clinical data routinely collected for screening purposes.

Fig 1. Flowchart of study participants.

Fig 1

Data collection

Abdominal US for NAFLD

After optimizing technical parameters such as gain adjustment, placement of focal zone, and the optimum location of the transducer for each patient, abdominal US imaging was performed using LogiQ E9 (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA), iU22 xMatrix (Philips Medical Systems, Cleveland, OH, USA) or ACUSON Sequoia 512 devices (Siemens, Issaquah, WA, USA) by experienced radiologists unaware of the study aims [13]. The US was performed in a standard manner. The echogenicity of hepatic parenchyma was assessed and compared to the renal cortex at the mid-axillary line. Increased hepatorenal index, blurring of the portal vein wall, and marked attenuation of US beam that resulted in poor visualization of the diaphragm deep to the liver was considered hepatic steatosis [14,15]. Since we had already excluded participants with excessive alcohol use (≥ 30 g/d in men and ≥ 20 g/d in women), as well as other identifiable causes of fatty liver between first and second exam as described in the exclusion criteria, fatty liver was considered NAFLD. NAFLD regression was defined as disappearance of fatty liver on abdominal US imaging at baseline (in the second exam).

Among participants with NAFLD, we calculated the NFS as -1.675 + 0.037 × age (years) + 0.094 × body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2) + 1.13 × impaired fasting glucose/diabetes (yes = 1, no = 0) + 0.99 × AST/ALT ratio– 0.013 × platelet count (×109/l)– 0.66 × albumin (g/dl) [1]. NFS was used to assess the severity of fibrosis and to classify participants with NAFLD in two groups: high-intermediate (NFS ≥ -1.455) and low (NFS < -1.455) probability of advanced fibrosis [16].

Diabetes

Diabetes mellitus was defined as a fasting serum glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL, HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, a self-reported history of diabetes, or self-reported use of insulin or antidiabetic medications [17]. Blood specimens were sampled after at least a 12-hour fast. Glucose was measured as part of the health check-up exam at SMC’s Department of Laboratory Medicine, which participates in several proficiency testing programs operated by the Korean Association of Quality Assurance for Clinical Laboratory, the Asian Network of Clinical Laboratory Standardization and Harmonization, and the College of American Pathologists.

Other variables

Age at the health screening visit and sex were obtained from the electronic health record. Smoking status was categorized into never or ever smoker. Alcohol intake was categorized into none, light (< 20 g/day in men and < 10 g/day in women), and moderate (20 to < 30 g/day in men and 10 to < 20 g/day in women). Physical activity was categorized into < 3 times per week or ≥ 3 times per week.

Height, weight, waist circumference and sitting blood pressure were measured by trained nurses. BMI was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared and then classified according to Asian-specific criteria (underweight, BMI <18.5 kg/m2; normal weight, BMI 18.5 to 22.9 kg/m2; overweight, BMI 23 to 24.9 kg/m2; and obese, BMI ≥25 kg/m2) [18]. Blood pressure was measured using a mercury sphygmomanometer after the subject had been seated for at least 10 minutes. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, or the use of antihypertensive medication [17].

Serum levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides (TG) were also measured as part of the health check-up exam at SMC’s Department of Laboratory Medicine. Hyperlipidemia was defined as HDL-C < 40 mg/dl in men or < 50 mg/dl in women, TG ≥ 150 mg/dl, or the use of lipid-lowering medication [17].

Statistical analyses

In this study, we conducted a descriptive analysis to compare the characteristics of study participants at the first and second exams by regressed and persistent NAFLD. To compare the characteristics, we calculated the standard mean difference (SMD).

The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of diabetes. We followed the participants from the date of their second health screening visit (baseline) until the date of diagnosis of diabetes, the date of death, or the date of their last available follow-up visit, whichever came first. To analyze the incidence of diabetes, we calculated the cumulative incidence using Kaplan Meier methods. We calculated the incidence rate using the number of events divided by person-years. We used a proportional hazards regression model to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the development of diabetes. To control for potential confounding factors, we used a multivariable cox regression model. The adjusted model was controlled using age, sex, alcohol intake, smoking status, physical activity, BMI, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia at baseline. In the adjusted model, missing values in covariate were treated as a separate category by itself. We created another category for the missing values and use them as a different level.

In addition, we examined the association between regression of NAFLD and incident diabetes separately in pre-defined subgroups defined by age (< 50 and ≥ 50 years), sex (men and women), BMI (under-normal weight, overweight, and obese), smoking (never, and ever), alcohol drinking (none, light, and moderate), physical activity (< 3 times per week or ≥ 3 times per week), hypertension (no and yes), and hyperlipidemia (no and yes). Furthermore, we conducted a subgroup analysis based on the severity of fibrosis, dividing participants into two groups: those with low NFS (< -1.455) in the first exam and those with moderate and high NFS. Statistical analyses were performed with Stata version 16.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas) and R 3.2.1 (Vienna, Austria; http://www.R-project.org/). All reported p values are 2-tailed, and comparisons with p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

The mean (SD) age of study participants was 51.1 (7.8) years and 69.9% were men. Among the 11,260 NAFLD patients, 2,559 participants (22.7%) experienced regression of NAFLD (Table 1). Compared to participants with persistent NAFLD, those with regressed NAFLD were older, more likely to be women, never smokers, drinking none or light amount of alcohol, more physically active, and metabolically healthy both in the first and the second exams (baseline visit) (Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of study participants by change of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease status (N = 12,264).

Characteristics In the first exam SMD In the second exam (baseline) SMD
Regressed
(N = 2,559)
Persistent
(N = 8,701)
Regressed
(N = 2,559)
Persistent
(N = 8,701)
Age (years) 50.6 (7.9) 49.8 (7.8) -0.10 51.8 (7.9) 51.0 (7.8) -0.10
Sex -0.09 -0.09
    Men 1,613 (63.0) 6,260 (72.0) 1,613 (63.0) 6,260 (72.0)
    Women 946 (37.0) 2,441 (28.1) 946 (37.0) 2,441 (28.1)
BMI (kg/m2) 24.2 (3.0) 25.3 (2.9) 0.37 23.9 (2.5) 25.4 (2.7) 0.54
Smoking
    Never 1,238 (48.4) 3,601 (41.4) -0.07 1,241 (48.5) 3,661 (42.1) -0.06
    Ever 1,285 (50.2) 4,978 (57.2) 0.07 1,276 (49.9) 4,922 (56.6) 0.07
    Missing 36 (1.4) 122 (1.4) -0.00 42 (1.6) 118 (1.4) -0.00
Alcohol intake
    None 793 (31.0) 2,336 (26.9) -0.04 785 (30.7) 2,293 (26.4) -0.04
    Light 1,444 (56.4) 5,105 (58.7) 0.02 1,468 (57.4) 5,191 (59.7) 0.02
    Moderate 322 (12.6) 1,260 (14.5) 0.02 306 (12.0) 1,217 (14.0) 0.02
Physical activity (per week)
    Less than 3 times 1,047 (40.9) 4,022 (46.2) 0.05 997 (39.0) 3,995 (45.9) 0.07
    3 times or more 1,234 (48.2) 3,640 (41.8) -0.06 1,377 (53.8) 3,971 (45.6) -0.08
    Missing 278 (10.9) 1,039 (11.9) 0.01 185 (7.2) 735 (8.5) 0.01
Hypertension 661 (25.8) 2,21 (32.4) 0.07 672 (26.3) 2,981 (34.3) 0.08
Hyperlipidemia 1,227 (48.0) 5,163 (59.3) 0.11 1,192 (46.6) 5,260 (60.5) 0.14

Abbreviation: NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; BMI, body mass index; SMD, standard mean difference. Values are mean (SD), or number (%).

During 51,388 person-years of follow-up (median 4 years), 1,768 participants developed diabetes (341 and 1,427 in regressed and persistent group, respectively). The median length of time between the second abdominal US exam (baseline) and the diagnosis of diabetes among patients who incident diabetes was 3.6 years. The cumulative incidence of diabetes was consistently lower in participants with regressed NAFLD compared to those with persistent NAFLD over the entire follow-up (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Cumulative incidence of diabetes by non-alcoholic fatty liver disease regression status.

Fig 2

After adjusting for age, sex, alcohol intake, smoking status, physical activity, BMI, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia at baseline, the HRs for incident diabetes in participants with regressed NAFLD compared to those with persistent NAFLD were 0.81 (95% CI 0.72–0.92) (Table 2).

Table 2. Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for incident diabetes associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease regression (N = 11,260).

Person- years No. of cases Incidence rate of diabetes
(per 10000 person-years)
HR (95% CI)
Crude Adjusted
NAFLD status
    Regressed 12,583 341 271 0.72 (0.64–0.81) 0.81 (0.72–0.92)
    Persistent 38,805 1,427 368 Reference Reference

Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Adjusted for age, sex, alcohol intake, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia at baseline visit.

When assessed by severity of fibrosis, among participants with low NFS (< -1.455) in the first exam, participants with regressed NAFLD had a lower risk of incident diabetes than those with persistent NAFLD (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.68–0.88). However, in participants with intermediate to high NFS (≥ -1.455) in the first exam, the risk of incident diabetes was not different between NAFLD regression and persistence group (HR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.82–1.51) (Table 3). In other pre-specified subgroups, the negative association between NAFLD regression and incident diabetes was consistent in all subgroups analyzed (all p-values for interaction > 0.10; Fig 3).

Table 3. Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for incident diabetes associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease regression by nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score in the first exam (N = 11,254)*.

Person- years No. of cases Incidence rate of diabetes
(per 10000 person-years)
HR (95% CI)
Crude Adjusted
NFS < -1.455 (N = 10,157)
    Regressed 11,217 283 252 0.69 (0.60–0.78) 0.77 (0.68–0.88)
    Persistent 35,239 1,266 359 Reference Reference
NFS ≥ -1.455 (N = 1,097)
    Regressed 1,349 58 430 0.95 (0.70–1.28) 1.12 (0.82–1.51)
    Persistent 3,546 160 451 Reference Reference
P for interaction 0.05 0.03

Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; NFS, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score.

Adjusted for age, sex, alcohol intake, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia at baseline visit.

*6 patients were excluded due to missing on the NFS.

Fig 3. Hazard ratios for incident diabetes comparing participants with regressed non-alcoholic fatty liver disease to those with persistent non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in predefined subgroups in the first exam.

Fig 3

Adjusted for age, sex, alcohol intake, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia at baseline visit.

Discussion

In this study, we demonstrated that regression of NAFLD was associated with reduced risk of incident diabetes in individuals with NAFLD. This finding indicates that regression of NAFLD may normalize metabolic abnormality associated with NAFLD, leading to decreased risk of incident diabetes. Notably, the association between regression of NAFLD and reduced risk of incident diabetes was evident for individuals with low probability of liver fibrosis, defined by low NFS (< -1.455), but not for individuals with intermediate to high probability of liver fibrosis, defined by intermediate to high NFS (≥ -1.455). This finding suggests that metabolic benefit of NAFLD regression might be attenuated when NAFLD patients has liver fibrosis. Thus, to maximize metabolic benefit from NAFLD regression, early intervention for NAFLD regression should be pursued before NAFLD patients has advanced fibrosis.

In terms of risk of incident diabetes, previous studies had conflicting findings. In a retrospective cohort study of 13,218 people without diabetes from a Korean occupational cohort, resolution of fatty liver by US, observed in 828 subjects, was not associated with a risk of incident diabetes [adjusted odds ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.46,1.96)] [19]. In contrast, in a study of 2,726 subjects who had health check-up, NAFLD regression, observed in 155 subjects, showed similar risk of incident diabetes (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16, 1.20) compared to no NAFLD, while risk of incident diabetes was higher for subjects with incident NAFLD (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.22, 4.36) or persistent NAFLD (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.30, 4.12) [20]. In a study of 1940 men who had multiple health checkups, transient remission of NAFLD, observed in 139 men, showed lower HR of incident diabetes (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.22, 3.57) than NAFLD persistent group (HR 3.44, 95% CI 2.29,5.21) when compared to subjects without NAFLD [21]. In the present study, we had a relatively large number of patients with NAFLD regression (n = 2,559) with a median 4 years of follow-up. We found that NAFLD regression was associated with decreased risk of incident diabetes.

The liver constitutes a key organ in systemic metabolism, contributing substantially to the development of insulin resistance [22]. NAFLD patients are commonly insulin-resistant [22,23]. Insulin resistance is a predictor of future development of type 2 diabetes [24]. Previously, only a few studies reported the metabolic effect of reversal of NAFLD [25,26]. In a study of 37 NASH (non-alcoholic steatohepatitis) patients who underwent metabolic surgery, remission of NASH was linked to reversal of insulin resistance [25]. Five years after the operation, NASH had reversed in 56.5% of the patients. The Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) decreased from 3.31 ± 1.72 at baseline to 1.73 ± 1.08 (P < .001) after surgery. No significant differences in BMI or clinical parameters changes explained the effect of surgery on NASH, apart from the measure of insulin sensitivity post-surgery. A study of 164 NAFLD patients with impaired glucose tolerance showed that the disappearance of fatty liver after five years was associated with the normalization of glucose regulation [26]. Taken together with our observation, these findings suggest that the regression of NAFLD may improve insulin resistance and glucose dysregulation.

In subgroup analysis, the risk of incident diabetes decreased regardless of age, sex, BMI, smoking status, alcohol intake, physical activity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. However, the decreased risk of incident diabetes was observed only for NAFLD with low NFS (< -1.455), but not with intermediate to high NFS (≥ -1.455). NAFLD includes two pathologically distinct conditions with different prognoses: non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) and NASH. NASH differs from NAFL by necro-inflammatory response and fibrosis [27]. NASH patients have more severe adipose tissue insulin resistance and progressive reduction in whole-body insulin clearance compared to those with simple steatosis [28]. Although exact mechanism must be studied further, our finding suggest metabolic benefit by regression of NAFLD might be attenuated in NASH with fibrosis. Further studies are required to see whether metabolic benefit is limited for individuals with NAFL or not.

This study has some limitations. Fatty liver was defined by US, which might have measurement errors [29]. During the study period, many radiologists were involved in performing abdominal US, which might have led to inter- and intra-observer variability. In addition, US is a sensitive but imperfect tool to diagnose hepatic steatosis [30]. The gold standard for diagnosing hepatic steatosis is liver biopsy. Hence, our data needs validation using histology to diagnose the presence of hepatic steatosis. We used landmark period (1 or 2 years from the first US exam) to assess the change of NAFLD status. However, NAFLD status might also have changed after baseline visit. This study was performed in Asian population and might not be applied to other ethnicities. The strength of this study includes the longitudinal design and the large sample size.

In conclusion, we demonstrated that regression of NAFLD was associated with decreased risk of incident diabetes compared to persistent NAFLD. This finding suggests that interventions focused on promoting NAFLD regression would be an effective strategy to decrease the burden of diabetes. The benefit was evident when NAFLD patients had low NFS, which suggests that early intervention for NAFLD is required before progression to NASH, to maximize metabolic benefit from NAFLD regression. In clinical practice, NAFLD with low NFS may be overlooked due to the perception of the condition as relatively benign. However, this may be the optimal time for NAFLD intervention, as NAFLD regression at this point can have a more significant impact on reducing the risk of diabetes. Prospective interventional trials are warranted to investigate whether and when NAFLD patients can benefit from NAFLD management, e.g. lifestyle modification or pharmacological treatment, in preventing diabetes or other metabolic complications.

Abbreviations

BMI

body mass index

CIs

confidence intervals

HDL-C

high-density lipoprotein cholesterol

HOMA-IR

Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance

HRs

hazard ratios

LDL-C

low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

NAFLD

nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

TG

triglycerides

US

ultrasound

Data Availability

The data contain potentially sensitive information that can be used to identify individuals. Also, the data policy at the authors' institution regulates sharing a de-identified data set. Data are available upon request to the Samsung Medical Center Institutional Data Access / Ethics Committee (dm.cha@samsung.com) after approval. Researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data may contact the Samsung Medical Center Institutional Data/Ethics Committee or email the corresponding author.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Kang SH, Lee HW, Yoo JJ, Cho Y, Kim SU, Lee TH, et al. KASL clinical practice guidelines: Management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2021; 27:363–401. doi: 10.3350/cmh.2021.0178 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhang S, Mak LY, Yuen MF, Seto WK. Screening strategy for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2023; 29:S103–s22. doi: 10.3350/cmh.2022.0336 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lindenmeyer CC, McCullough AJ. The Natural History of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease-An Evolving View. Clin Liver Dis. 2018; 22:11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.cld.2017.08.003 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cotter TG, Rinella M. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease 2020: The State of the Disease. Gastroenterology. 2020; 158:1851–64. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.052 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wijarnpreecha K, Aby ES, Ahmed A, Kim D. Evaluation and management of extrahepatic manifestations of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2021; 27:221–35. doi: 10.3350/cmh.2020.0239 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Koliaki C, Szendroedi J, Kaul K, Jelenik T, Nowotny P, Jankowiak F, et al. Adaptation of hepatic mitochondrial function in humans with non-alcoholic fatty liver is lost in steatohepatitis. Cell Metab. 2015; 21:739–46. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.04.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yki-Järvinen H. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease as a cause and a consequence of metabolic syndrome. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014; 2:901–10. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70032-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mantovani A, Petracca G, Beatrice G, Tilg H, Byrne CD, Targher G. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and risk of incident diabetes mellitus: an updated meta-analysis of 501 022 adult individuals. Gut. 2021; 70:962–9. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322572 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.McPherson S, Hardy T, Henderson E, Burt AD, Day CP, Anstee QM. Evidence of NAFLD progression from steatosis to fibrosing-steatohepatitis using paired biopsies: implications for prognosis and clinical management. J Hepatol. 2015; 62:1148–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.11.034 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pais R, Charlotte F, Fedchuk L, Bedossa P, Lebray P, Poynard T, et al. A systematic review of follow-up biopsies reveals disease progression in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver. J Hepatol. 2013; 59:550–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2013.04.027 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.EASL-EASD-EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016; 64:1388–402. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.11.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Parast L, Tian L, Cai T. Landmark Estimation of Survival and Treatment Effect in a Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2014; 109:384–94. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2013.842488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sinn DH, Kang D, Cho SJ, Paik SW, Guallar E, Cho J, et al. Lean non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and development of diabetes: a cohort study. Eur J Endocrinol. 2019; 181:185–92. doi: 10.1530/EJE-19-0143 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Saverymuttu SH, Joseph AE, Maxwell JD. Ultrasound scanning in the detection of hepatic fibrosis and steatosis. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986; 292:13–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.292.6512.13 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mathiesen UL, Franzen LE, Aselius H, Resjo M, Jacobsson L, Foberg U, et al. Increased liver echogenicity at ultrasound examination reflects degree of steatosis but not of fibrosis in asymptomatic patients with mild/moderate abnormalities of liver transaminases. Dig Liver Dis. 2002; 34:516–22. doi: 10.1016/s1590-8658(02)80111-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shiha G, Ibrahim A, Helmy A, Sarin SK, Omata M, Kumar A, et al. Asian-Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) consensus guidelines on invasive and non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis: a 2016 update. Hepatol Int. 2017; 11:1–30. doi: 10.1007/s12072-016-9760-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tsimihodimos V, Gonzalez-Villalpando C, Meigs JB, Ferrannini E. Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus: Coprediction and Time Trajectories. Hypertension. 2018; 71:422–8. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10546 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kim MK, Lee WY, Kang JH, Kang JH, Kim BT, Kim SM, et al. 2014 clinical practice guidelines for overweight and obesity in Korea. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul). 2014; 29:405–9. doi: 10.3803/EnM.2014.29.4.405 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sung KC, Wild SH, Byrne CD. Resolution of fatty liver and risk of incident diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013; 98:3637–43. doi: 10.1210/jc.2013-1519 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cho HJ, Hwang S, Park JI, Yang MJ, Hwang JC, Yoo BM, et al. Improvement of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Reduces the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Gut Liver. 2019; 13:440–9. doi: 10.5009/gnl18382 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fukuda T, Hamaguchi M, Kojima T, Mitsuhashi K, Hashimoto Y, Ohbora A, et al. Transient remission of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease decreases the risk of incident type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japanese men. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 28:1443–9. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000736 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tilg H, Moschen AR, Roden M. NAFLD and diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; 14:32–42. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2016.147 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sinn DH, Gwak GY, Park HN, Kim JE, Min YW, Kim KM, et al. Ultrasonographically detected non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is an independent predictor for identifying patients with insulin resistance in non-obese, non-diabetic middle-aged Asian adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107:561–7. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.400 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Abdul-Ghani MA, Williams K, DeFronzo RA, Stern M. What is the best predictor of future type 2 diabetes? Diabetes Care. 2007; 30:1544–8. doi: 10.2337/dc06-1331 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Russo MF, Lembo E, Mari A, Angelini G, Verrastro O, Nanni G, et al. Insulin Resistance Is Central to Long-Term Reversal of Histologic Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis After Metabolic Surgery. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021; 106:750–61. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa892 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ogata C, Ohmoto-Sekine Y, Tanabe M, Iwao A, Hsieh SD, Amakawa K, et al. Prognostic factors for regression from impaired glucose tolerance to normal glucose regulation in Japanese patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Intern Med. 2014; 53:1401–6. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.53.1585 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Machado MV, Diehl AM. Pathogenesis of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2016; 150:1769–77. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.066 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bril F, Lomonaco R, Orsak B, Ortiz-Lopez C, Webb A, Tio F, et al. Relationship between disease severity, hyperinsulinemia, and impaired insulin clearance in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology. 2014; 59:2178–87. doi: 10.1002/hep.26988 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lee DH. Imaging evaluation of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: focused on quantification. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2017; 23:290–301. doi: 10.3350/cmh.2017.0042 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ahn JS, Sinn DH, Gwak GY, Kim JM, Kwon CH, Joh JW, et al. Steatosis among living liver donors without evidence of fatty liver on ultrasonography: potential implications for preoperative liver biopsy. Transplantation. 2013; 95:1404–9. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31828d1588 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

2 May 2023

PONE-D-23-02839Regression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with reduced risk of incident diabetes: A longitudinal cohort studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gwak,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/443344?

- https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/3/750/6009066?login=false

- https://eje.bioscientifica.com/configurable/content/journals$002feje$002f181$002f2$002fEJE-19-0143.xml? :ac=journals%24002feje%24002f181%24002f2%24002fEJE-19-0143.xml

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The data in the manuscript support the conclusion, and the methodology appears to be correct. Although the statistical analysis has been performed accurately, there should be a more detailed discussion of the statistical methods used. Furthermore, the authors have not fully made all the data underlying their findings available, with some restrictions mentioned. The manuscript is in standard English language, but it will benefit from a few grammatical corrections.

Reviewer #2: Sinn D.H et al conducted a retrospective longitudinal cohort study titled “Regression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with reduced risk of incident diabetes: A longitudinal cohort study.” In this study the authors evaluated whether or not regression of NAFLD is associated with a reduction in development of diabetes. In my opinion the study can be improved by incorporating the following changes:

1. In the title of the manuscript all important terminologies such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and diabetes should start with capital letters (Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Diabetes etc.)

2. Methods section, data collection portion, lines 141-143: while the authors have mentioned that the cut off value for NFS was -1.455, it would add value to the quality of the manuscript if the authors could cite a relevant reference for this. Similarly, relevant references for the definitions of diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia should also be cited.

3. Discussion section, line 259: the full form of NASH should be mentioned as this is the first time this term has been used in the manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Sinn et al.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Jul 18;18(7):e0288820. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288820.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Jun 2023

Response to the editor

General comments

Sinn et al. conducted a study on “Regression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with reduced risk of incident diabetes: A longitudinal cohort study”, in which they investigated the association between regression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and the risk of incident diabetes using a large cohort. The retrospective cohort study included 11,260 participants who underwent at least two health check examinations with abdominal ultrasound between 2001 and 2016 at the Samsung Medical Center. NAFLD regression was defined as disappearance of fatty liver on abdominal US imaging at baseline. Diabetes was defined as a fasting serum glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL, HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, a self-reported history of diabetes, or self-reported use of insulin or antidiabetic medications. The study found that NAFLD regression was associated with a lower risk of incident diabetes.

Specific comment:

From my perspective, the inclusion of the following revisions could enhance this study:

Thank you

Abstract:

1. Include the duration of the study in the abstract, which is important for readers to understand the scope of the study.

As the reviewer recommended, we now included the duration of the study in the Abstract (page 4, lines 72-74).

“A cohort of 11,260 adults who had NAFLD at an initial exam and had the second evaluation for NAFLD status at 1~2 years from the initial exam were followed up for incident diabetes from 2001 to 2016.”

2. In the first sentence of the abstract, "whether improvement of NAFLD leads to clinical benefit remains uncertain" should be corrected to "whether improvement of NAFLD leads to clinical benefits remains uncertain." (Page 4, Line 60)

Done

3. Also in methods section, "A cohort of 11,260 adults who had NAFLD in an initial exam" should be corrected to "A cohort of 11,260 adults who had NAFLD at an initial exam." (Page 4, Line 64)

Done

4. In the results section, "The fully adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for incident diabetes in participants with regressed NAFLD compared to those with persistent NAFLD were 0.81" should be corrected to "The fully adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for incident diabetes in participants with regressed NAFLD compared to those with persistent NAFLD was 0.81." (Page 4, Line 72)

Done

5. In the results section, "When assessed by NAFLD severity, among participants with low NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) (< -1.455), participants with regressed NAFLD had a lower risk of incident diabetes than those with persistent NAFLD" should be corrected to "When assessed by NAFLD severity, among participants with a low NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) (< -1.455), participants with regressed NAFLD had a lower risk of incident diabetes than those with persistent NAFLD." (Page 4, Line 73)

Done

6. In the results section, "However, in participants with intermediate to high NFS (≥ -1.455), the risk of incident diabetes was not different between NAFLD regression and persistence group" should be corrected to "However, in participants with an intermediate to high NFS (≥ -1.455), the risk of incident diabetes was not different between the NAFLD regression and persistence groups." (Page 4, Line 76,77)

Done

7. In the conclusions section, "This suggests that early intervention for NAFLD, before advanced fibrosis is present, may maximize metabolic benefit from NAFLD regression" should be corrected to "This suggests that early intervention for NAFLD, before advanced fibrosis is present, may maximize the metabolic benefit from NAFLD regression." (Page 5, Line 82)

Done

Introduction:

8. The first sentence in the introduction should be revised to make it clearer. For example, "Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a condition in which the liver accumulates fat without significant alcohol intake, viral hepatitis, medications that would cause fatty liver, or other obvious causes." (Page 6, Line 84)

With respect to the editor’s comment, we now revised the sentence as follow (page 5, line 92-94)

“Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a condition in which the liver accumulates fat without significant alcohol intake, viral hepatitis, medications that would cause fatty liver, or other obvious causes.”

9. In the introduction section, the authors should provide more information on the prevalence of NAFLD and its impact on public health.

As the editor requested, we included more information on the prevalence of NAFLD and its impact on public health (page 5, line 95)

“NAFLD is the most common chronic liver disease, with a worldwide prevalence of 25% [2]. NAFLD patients are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including overall mortality, and liver-specific morbidity and mortality, [3] and are projected to continue to increase, which has an important impact on public health [4].”

10. The research question is not clear, and it is not stated explicitly in the introduction section. The authors should state the research question clearly, for example: “Is regression of NAFLD associated with a decreased risk of incident diabetes?”

In response to the editor’s comment, we revised the sentence in the Introduction to make the research question clearer (page 5, lines 105-106)

“However, to date, whether regression of NAFLD is associated with a decreased risk of incident diabetes is largely unexplored.”

Methods:

11. The number of excluded participants in both the text and Figure 1 does not add up to 11,260. (Page 7, Line 117)

Since study participants could have more than one exclusion criterion, the final sample was 11,260. We have revised the sentence to clarify this point.

Methods (page 6, lines 126-127)

“Since study participants could have more than one exclusion criteria, the final sample was 11,260 (Fig 1).”

12. The statistical methods used for the analysis should be described in more detail. The authors should provide more information on how they conducted the analysis, including the statistical tests used and how they controlled for potential confounding factors.

In response to the editor’s comments, we added more information on statistical analysis parts in the Methods section as follows:

Methods (page 8-9, lines 187-212)

“In this study, we conducted a descriptive analysis to compare the characteristics of study participants at the first and second exams by regressed and persistent NAFLD. To compare the characteristics, we calculated the standard mean difference (SMD).

The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of diabetes. We followed the participants from the date of their second health screening visit (baseline) until the date of diagnosis of diabetes, the date of death, or the date of their last available follow-up visit, whichever came first. To analyze the incidence of diabetes, we calculated the cumulative incidence using Kaplan Meier methods. We calculated the incidence rate using the number of events divided by person-years. We used a proportional hazards regression model to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the development of diabetes. To control for potential confounding factors, we used a multivariable cox regression model. The adjusted model was controlled using age, sex, alcohol intake, smoking status, physical activity, BMI, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia at baseline. In the adjusted model, missing values in the covariate were treated as a separate category by itself. We created another category for the missing values and use them as a different level.

In addition, we examined the association between regression of NAFLD and incident diabetes separately in pre-defined subgroups defined by age (< 50 and ≥ 50 years), sex (men and women), BMI (under-normal weight, overweight, and obese), smoking (never, and ever), alcohol drinking (none, light, and moderate), physical activity (< 3 times per week or ≥ 3 times per week), hypertension (no and yes), and hyperlipidemia (no and yes). Furthermore, we conducted a subgroup analysis based on the severity of fibrosis, dividing participants into two groups: those with low NFS (< -1.455) in the first exam and those with moderate and high NFS.

Statistical analyses were performed with Stata version 16.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas) and R 3.2.1 (Vienna, Austria; http://www.R-project.org/). All reported p values are 2-tailed, and comparisons with P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.”

13. In the methods section, the authors should describe the characteristics of the study population in more detail, including their age, sex, and other relevant demographic information.

Age at the health screening visit and sex were obtained from the electronic medical record, while other relevant information was collected through self-reported questionnaires or examinations. The detailed characteristics of the study population, including age, sex, and other relevant demographic information, are described in the Results section (page 8, line 167) and Table 1.

14. In the methods section, the authors should provide more information on the follow-up period and the time between the second abdominal US exam and the diagnosis of diabetes.

The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of diabetes. We followed the participants from the date of their second health screening visit (baseline) until the date of diagnosis of diabetes, the date of death, or the date of their last available follow-up visit, whichever came first. During 51,388 person-years of follow-up (median 4 years), 1,768 participants developed diabetes. Among the participants who developed diabetes, the median time interval between the second abdominal US exam (baseline) and the diagnosis of diabetes was 3.6 years. With respect to the editor’s comment, we included more information on the follow-up period and the length of time between the second abdominal US exam and the diagnosis of diabetes (page 9, lines 191-193).

“We followed the participants from the date of their second health screening visit (baseline) until the date of their initial diagnosis of diabetes, the date of death, or the date of their last available follow-up visit, whichever came first.”

In the Results section, we have added the following sentence (page 11, lines 227-230):

“During 51,388 person-years of follow-up (median 4 years), 1,768 participants developed diabetes. The median length of time between the second abdominal US exam (baseline) and the diagnosis of diabetes among participants who had incident diabetes was 3.6 years.”

15. In the methods section, the authors should describe how missing data were handled, particularly for variables such as alcohol intake.

In the adjusted model, missing values in covariate were treated as a separate category by itself. We created another category for the missing values and use them as a different level. However, alcohol intake is important to define NAFLD, thus, we excluded 3,406 participants who had missing on the alcohol intake variable on either the first or second exam. We had described how we handled missing variable in the Methods section (page 6, lines 125-126, page 9, lines 199-201).

“Finally, we then further excluded participants without any additional follow-up after baseline visit (N =3,291), and with missing data on alcohol intake (N = 3,406).”

“In the adjusted model, missing values in covariate were treated as a separate category by itself. We created another category for the missing values and use them as a different level.”

16. The description of how the abdominal ultrasound imaging was performed could be clearer. The type of equipment used for imaging is listed, but the imaging protocols and criteria used to diagnose NAFLD should also be explained.

With respect to the editor’s comment, we revised the Methods section to make this point clearer (page 8, lines 136-149)

“After optimizing technical parameters such as gain adjustment, placement of focal zone, and the optimum location of the transducer for each participant, abdominal US imaging was performed using LogiQ E9 (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI, USA), iU22 xMatrix (Philips Medical Systems, Cleveland, OH, USA) or ACUSON Sequoia 512 devices (Siemens, Issaquah, WA, USA) by experienced radiologists unaware of the study aims [13]. The US was performed in a standard manner. The echogenicity of hepatic parenchyma was assessed and compared to the renal cortex at the mid-axillary line. Increased hepatorenal index, blurring of the portal vein wall, and marked attenuation of US beam that resulted in poor visualization of the diaphragm deep to the liver was considered hepatic steatosis [14,15].

Results:

17. In the results section, the authors should present the results in a more organized and clear manner. It is not clear how many participants had regression of NAFLD, and how many developed incident diabetes.

Among the 11,260 NAFLD patients, 2,559 (22.7%) experienced regression of NAFLD between the first and second (baseline) health screening visit. When we followed them up (median 4 years), 1,768 participants developed diabetes (341 and 1,427 in the regressed and persistent group, respectively). In response to the editor’s comment, we revised the sentences in the Results sections as follows.

Result (page 10, lines 215-216)

“Among the 11,260 NAFLD patients, 2,559 participants (22.7%) experienced regression of NAFLD (Table 1).”

Result (page 11, lines 227-228)

“During 51,388 person-years of follow-up (median 4 years), 1,768 participants developed diabetes (341 and 1,427 in regressed and persistent group, respectively).”

Discussion:

18. The authors could provide more context for their findings by discussing how their results relate to previous studies on the association between NAFLD regression and incident diabetes. Additionally, the authors should discuss the potential limitations of the study, such as the use of abdominal ultrasound to diagnose NAFLD, which may not be as accurate as liver biopsy.

With respect to this comment, we have revised the Discussion section as follows.

Discussion (page 14, lines 284-297)

“In terms of risk of incident diabetes, previous studies had conflicting findings. In a retrospective cohort study of 13,218 people without diabetes from a Korean occupational cohort, resolution of fatty liver by US, observed in 828 subjects, was not associated with a risk of incident diabetes [adjusted odds ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.46,1.96)]. In contrast, in a study of 2,726 subjects who had health check-up, NAFLD regression, observed in 155 subjects, showed similar risk of incident diabetes (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16, 1.20) compared to no NAFLD, while risk of incident diabetes was higher for subjects with incident NAFLD (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.22, 4.36) or persistent NAFLD (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.30, 4.12) [18]. In a study of 1,940 men who had multiple health checkups, transient remission of NAFLD, observed in 139 men, showed a lower HR of incident diabetes (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.22, 3.57) than NAFLD persistent group (HR 3.44, 95% CI 2.29,5.21) when compared to subjects without NAFLD [19]. In the present study, we had a relatively large number of patients with NAFLD regression (n = 2,559) with a median 4 years of follow-up. We found that NAFLD regression was associated with decreased risk of incident diabetes.”

Discussion (page 15, lines 325-328)

“In addition, US is a sensitive but imperfect tool to diagnose hepatic steatosis [28]. The gold standard for diagnosing hepatic steatosis is liver biopsy. Hence, our data needs validation using histology to diagnose the presence of hepatic steatosis.”

Conclusion:

19. In the discussion section, the authors should provide more information on the implications of the study findings and how they relate to previous research in this area.

In response to the editor’s comment, we revised the Conclusion section as follows (page 16, lines 333-344)

“In conclusion, we demonstrated that regression of NAFLD was associated with decreased risk of incident diabetes compared to persistent NAFLD. This finding suggests that interventions focused on promoting NAFLD regression would be an effective strategy to decrease the burden of diabetes. The benefit was evident when NAFLD patients had low NFS, which suggests that early intervention for NAFLD is required before progression to NASH, to maximize metabolic benefit from NAFLD regression. In clinical practice, NAFLD with low NFS may be overlooked due to the perception of the condition as relatively benign. However, this may be the optimal time for NAFLD intervention, as NAFLD regression at this point can have a more significant impact on reducing the risk of diabetes. Prospective interventional trials are warranted to investigate whether and when NAFLD patients can benefit from NAFLD management, e.g. lifestyle modification or pharmacological treatment, in preventing diabetes or other metabolic complications.”

Response to the Reviewer 1

1. The data in the manuscript support the conclusion, and the methodology appears to be correct. Although the statistical analysis has been performed accurately, there should be a more detailed discussion of the statistical methods used. Furthermore, the authors have not fully made all the data underlying their findings available, with some restrictions mentioned. The manuscript is in standard English language, but it will benefit from a few grammatical corrections.

In response to the reviewer’s comments, we revised the statistical analysis parts in the Methods section as follows:

Methods (page 8, lines 187-212)

“In this study, we conducted a descriptive analysis to compare the characteristics of study participants at the first and second exams by regressed and persistent NAFLD. To compare the characteristics, we calculated the standard mean difference (SMD).

The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of diabetes. We followed the participants from the date of their second health screening visit (baseline) until the date of diagnosis of diabetes, the date of death, or the date of their last available follow-up visit, whichever came first. To analyze the incidence of diabetes, we calculated the cumulative incidence using Kaplan Meier methods. We calculated the incidence rate using the number of events divided by person-years. We used a proportional hazards regression model to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the development of diabetes. To control for potential confounding factors, we used a multivariable cox regression model. The adjusted model was controlled using age, sex, alcohol intake, smoking status, physical activity, BMI, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia at baseline. In the adjusted model, missing values in the covariate were treated as a separate category by itself. We created another category for the missing values and use them as a different level.

In addition, we examined the association between regression of NAFLD and incident diabetes separately in pre-defined subgroups defined by age (< 50 and ≥ 50 years), sex (men and women), BMI (under-normal weight, overweight, and obese), smoking (never, and ever), alcohol drinking (none, light, and moderate), physical activity (< 3 times per week or ≥ 3 times per week), hypertension (no and yes), and hyperlipidemia (no and yes). Furthermore, we conducted a subgroup analysis based on the severity of fibrosis, dividing participants into two groups: those with low NFS (< -1.455) in the first exam and those with moderate and high NFS.

Statistical analyses were performed with Stata version 16.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas) and R 3.2.1 (Vienna, Austria; http://www.R-project.org/). All reported p values are 2-tailed, and comparisons with P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.”

Response to the Reviewer 2

General comments:

Sinn D.H et al conducted a retrospective longitudinal cohort study titled “Regression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with reduced risk of incident diabetes: A longitudinal cohort study.” In this study the authors evaluated whether or not regression of NAFLD is associated with a reduction in development of diabetes. In my opinion the study can be improved by incorporating the following changes:

Thank you.

Specific comments:

1. In the title of the manuscript all important terminologies such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and diabetes should start with capital letters (Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Diabetes etc.)

Done.

2. Methods section, data collection portion, lines 141-143: while the authors have mentioned that the cut off value for NFS was -1.455, it would add value to the quality of the manuscript if the authors could cite a relevant reference for this. Similarly, relevant references for the definitions of diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia should also be cited.

As the reviewer suggested, we included the references of cut off value for NFS, and cited the definitions of diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia in the Methods section.

“Among participants with NAFLD, we calculated the NFS as -1.675 + 0.037 × age (years) + 0.094 × body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2) + 1.13 × impaired fasting glucose/diabetes (yes=1, no=0) + 0.99 × AST/ALT ratio – 0.013 × platelet count (×109/l) – 0.66 × albumin (g/dl) [1]. NFS was used to assess the severity of fibrosis and to classify participants with NAFLD in two groups: high-intermediate (NFS ≥ -1.455) and low (NFS < -1.455) probability of advanced fibrosis [16].

Diabetes mellitus was defined as a fasting serum glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL, HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, a self-reported history of diabetes, or self-reported use of insulin or antidiabetic medications [17].

Blood pressure was measured using a mercury sphygmomanometer after the subject had been seated for at least 10 minutes. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, or the use of antihypertensive medication [17].

Serum levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides (TG) were also measured as part of the health check-up exam at SMC’s Department of Laboratory Medicine. Hyperlipidemia was defined as HDL-C < 40 mg/dl in men or < 50 mg/dl in women, TG ≥ 150 mg/dl, or the use of lipid-lowering medication [17].

3. Discussion section, line 259: the full form of NASH should be mentioned as this is the first time this term has been used in the manuscript.

Done

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

Done

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/443344?

- https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/3/750/6009066?login=false

- https://eje.bioscientifica.com/configurable/content/journals$002feje$002f181$002f2$002fEJE-19-0143.xml? :ac=journals%24002feje%24002f181%24002f2%24002fEJE-19-0143.xml

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

We have cited the first two articles for this manuscript. The third one is an article that we have published using the same cohort, but with different study questions. As we used the same cohort data from the Samsung Medical Center Health Promotion Center for this study, details of data collection and abdominal US overlap with our previous study (PMID 31176297). We have cited relevant publications and revised the Method section to avoid duplicated text.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

The original submission already included the information that the informed consent was waived by the IRB in our institution.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

The data is available upon request. Please refer to the answer to Comment No 5.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

The data contain potentially sensitive information that can be used to identify or specify individual. Also, the data policy in our institution regulates sharing a de-identified data set, as it can be used to identify or specify individual. Data are available upon request to Samsung Medical Center Institutional Data Access / Ethics Committee (dm.cha@samsung.com), after approval. Anyone who want to contact Samsung Medical Center Institutional Data/Ethics Committee, they can e-mail directly or e-mail to corresponding author for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Samsung Medical Center. Informed consent was waived because the study was based on de-identified existing administrative and clinical data routinely collected for screening purposes. This information is described in the Method section.

Decision Letter 1

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

5 Jul 2023

Regression of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease is associated with reduced risk of incident Diabetes: A longitudinal cohort study

PONE-D-23-02839R1

Dear Dr. Gwak,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed all the comments raised in the previous round of review, and the manuscript is now deemed acceptable for publication. The manuscript is technically sound, and the data provided support the conclusions drawn. The statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and rigorously. However, it should be noted that the authors have indicated that not all data underlying the findings in their manuscript are fully available. Furthermore, I have no concerns regarding dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

10 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-02839R1

Regression of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease is associated with reduced risk of incident Diabetes: A longitudinal cohort study

Dear Dr. Gwak:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Sinn et al.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data contain potentially sensitive information that can be used to identify individuals. Also, the data policy at the authors' institution regulates sharing a de-identified data set. Data are available upon request to the Samsung Medical Center Institutional Data Access / Ethics Committee (dm.cha@samsung.com) after approval. Researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data may contact the Samsung Medical Center Institutional Data/Ethics Committee or email the corresponding author.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES