Skip to main content
. 2015 Feb 27;61(4):1239–1250. doi: 10.1002/hep.27647

Table 2.

Ezetimibe Versus Placebo: Longitudinal Full Liver Fat Mapping Using MRI PDFF and MRS With Colocalized MRI Measurements

2A Ezetimibe (n = 23)
Placebo (n = 22)
Difference
Liver Segments Baseline Posttreatment P Value Baseline Posttreatment P Value (P Value)
1 15.1 (8.6) 11.9 (6.8) 0.0249 18.1 (7.5) 16.5 (5.9) 0.2298 −1.5 (0.4341)
2 13.9 (8.3) 10.8 (6.5) 0.0336 17.3 (7.9) 15.7 (5.9) 0.2458 −1.3 (0.4913)
3 14.8 (9.1) 11.9 (7.8) 0.0585 18.2 (7.7) 16.5 (6.1) 0.2803 −1.2 (0.5832)
4a 15.6 (8.8) 11.9 (6.9) 0.0044 18.6 (7.8) 16.7 (5.8) 0.1677 −1.8 (0.3028)
4b 15.1 (8.9) 12.0 (7.3) 0.0326 18.6 (7.7) 16.3 (6.6) 0.0712 −0.8 (0.6646)
5 15.0 (9.7) 11.3 (7.5) 0.0148 18.9 (9.3) 16.5 (7.1) 0.1119 −1.3 (0.5149)
6 14.8 (8.9) 11.2 (7.1) 0.0170 18.3 (8.6) 15.9 (6.3) 0.1232 −1.2 (0.5462)
7 15.2 (8.6) 11.5 (6.6) 0.0067 19.1 (8.8) 16.7 (6.5) 0.1526 −1.4 (0.4951)
8 15.4 (8.6) 11.7 (6.8) 0.0098 19.2 (8.6) 17.0 (6.5) 0.1562 −1.5 (0.4547)
MRI PDFF (%) average 15.0 (8.7) 11.6 (6.9) 0.0158 18.5 (8.0) 16.4 (6.1) 0.1512 −1.3 (0.4839)
2B Ezetimibe (n = 19) Placebo (n = 21) Difference
Baseline Posttreatment P Value Baseline Posttreatment P Value (P Value)
MRS (%) 16.4 (8.6) 13.1 (7.0) 0.0178 18.5 (7.8) 17.0 (6.2) 0.3024 −1.9 (0.3345)
2C Ezetimibe (n = 19) Placebo (n = 21) Difference
MRI-level Baseline Posttreatment P Value Baseline Posttreatment P Value (P Value)
MRI-s 15.8 (8.8) 12.3 (6.9) 0.0142 18.5 (8.2) 16.6 (6.9) 0.1828 −1.6 (0.3944)
MRI-m 15.7 (8.9) 12.3 (7.2) 0.0163 18.4 (8.3) 16.4 (6.7) 0.1549 −1.5 (0.4046)
MRI-i 15.5 (9.1) 12.1 (7.0) 0.0257 17.9 (8.4) 16.2 (6.6) 0.2175 −1.7 (0.3870)
MRI average 15.7 (8.9) 12.2 (7.0) 0.0173 18.2 (8.3) 16.4 (6.7) 0.1800 −1.6 (0.3906)
Pearson r 0.992 P < 0.0001 0.994 P < 0.0001 0.990 P < 0.0001 0.982 P < 0.0001
Spearman ρ 0.989 P < 0.0001 0.982 P < 0.0001 0.977 P < 0.0001 0.952 P < 0.0001

Data are expressed as means (SD) or mean difference with P values in parentheses. Associated P values are from t test. Correlation coefficient expressed as Pearson's r and nonparametric Spearman's rho ρ with corresponding P value. P values shown in bold are statistically significant.

In 2A, MRI PDFFs measured in all nine liver segments were used to calculate segmental and overall fat fraction averages at baseline and posttreatment between the ezetimibe and placebo groups. In 2B, longitudinal changes in MRS measurements are shown. In 2C, internal cross-validation is shown between MRI-PDFF and MRS-PDFF and their correlations.

Abbreviations: MRI-PDFF, magnetic resonance imaging proton density-fat fraction; MRS, magnetic resonance spectroscopy; MRI-s, magnetic resonance imaging superior; MRI-m, magnetic resonance imaging middle; MRI-i, magnetic resonance imaging inferior.