Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Dec 30;17(12):e0274659. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274659

Risk factors for gallstone disease onset in Japan: Findings from the Shizuoka Study, a population-based cohort study

Kazuya Higashizono 1,2,*,#, Eiji Nakatani 1,#, Philip Hawke 3, Shuhei Fujimoto 1, Noriyuki Oba 2
Editor: Donovan Anthony McGrowder4
PMCID: PMC9803237  PMID: 36584097

Abstract

In the research literature on factors associated with gallstones, large population-based cohort studies are rare. We carried out a study of this type to explore risk factors for the onset of gallstones. This study included Japanese participants aged 40–107 years who were followed prospectively from January 2012 to September 2020 using a dataset composed of two individually linked databases, one containing annual health checkup records and the other containing medical claims for beneficiaries of the National Health Insurance System and the Medical Care System for Elderly in the Latter Stage of Life in Shizuoka Prefecture, Japan. Among the 611,930 participants in the analysis set, 23,843 (3.9%) were diagnosed with gallstones during the observational period (median [max]: 5.68 [7.5] years). Multivariate analysis revealed that risk of gallstone disease was increased by male sex, cerebrovascular disease, any malignancy, dementia, rheumatic disease, chronic pulmonary disease, hypertension, and H. pylori-infected gastritis. These findings provide essential insights into the etiology of cholelithiasis and may contribute to efforts to reduce the incidence of the disease.

Introduction

Gallstone disease, the condition of stones or sludge developing in the gallbladder or bile duct, is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases [1]. Gallstones are associated with potential risk of cholecystitis, pancreatitis, biliary tract obstruction, and gallbladder cancer [2]. Gallstone-associated diseases often require cholecystectomy or percutaneous/endoscopic biliary drainage due to late diagnosis and treatment of severe acute biliary inflammation/infection associated with sepsis and multiple organ failure. The reported mortality of acute cholangitis varies from 2.5% to 65% [3]. Therefore, elucidation of the risk factors for gallstones may help to prevent the onset of cholangitis, leading to increased life expectancy, reduction of medical costs, and improved social productivity.

Gallstones are composed of a mixture of cholesterol, calcium salts of bilirubinate or palmitate, proteins, and mucin. Based upon their predominant constituents, gallstones are broadly classified into cholesterol, brown pigment, and black pigment stones [4]. A variety of risk factors have been reported to be associated with gallstone formation. Established risk factors for the development of cholesterol gallstones due to enhanced cholesterol synthesis and secretion include genetic background and lifestyle, as well as internal disorders such as aging, female sex, pregnancy, obesity, rapid weight loss, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia [510]. Predominant risk factors for pigment stones include liver dysfunction [11], Crohn’s disease [12], and hyperbilirubinemia due to underlying genetic predisposition [13]. Spinal cord injury [14], prolonged fasting / parenteral nutrition [15], and gastrectomy [16] have also been reported to be risks for gallstone onset. Clinically, the incidence of gallstone disease has been increasing in the past decade in East Asia, coincident with increasing calorie and fat consumption, decreasing fiber intake, and increasing prevalence of sedentary lifestyle [17].

Despite the large number of previous epidemiological studies analyzing background factors related to gallstones, there have been few large-scale epidemiological studies, especially in East Asian countries. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with the onset of gallstone disease in the healthy Japanese population, which can be assumed to reflect the characteristics of East Asians in general.

Methods

Data source

The study was based on the Shizuoka Kokuho Database, which is derived from a database providing the linked data of Federation of National Health Insurance Association (FNHIA) subscribers, including demographic and registration data, medical claims data, and health checkup data of enrollees in Shizuoka Prefecture [18]. Shizuoka Prefecture has a population of about 3.6 million people with climatic conditions and population distribution representative of Japan. The database represents 25% of the population under 65 and 75% of the population over 65 in the Prefecture, mainly due to it including individuals enrolled in the country’s national health insurance programs (aged < 75, approximately 20% of all prefectural residents) and beneficiaries of late-stage elderly healthcare (aged ≥ 75, all prefectural residents in the age group).

Japanese medical insurance and health checkup systems

Japan’s medical system is based on a comprehensive insurance system. There are two types of health insurance for people aged < 75 years: Employee Health Insurance for the employees of government organizations and large companies, and National Health Insurance for small business owners and their employees. Health insurance for people aged ≥ 75 years is provided by the Medical Care System for Elderly in the Latter Stage of Life.

The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare recommends annual health checkups for insured persons 40 year of age and older. These checkups focus especially on visceral fat obesity.

Study design, data availability period, and study population

The study scheme is shown in Fig 1. The study was analyzed as a retrospective cohort generated from the database. The dataset comprised 8.5 years of longitudinal data from April 2012 to September 2020. All enrollees were investigated using the individually linked data in the databases for their annual health checkups and their insurance claims. Each enrollee’s data availability period was defined as the time from the date of insurance registration or April 2012, whichever was later, to the date of insurance withdrawal or September 2020, whichever was earlier.

Fig 1. Study schema.

Fig 1

Cohort entry is defined as the date of registration with the health insurance provider or April 1, 2012, whichever occurred later. The index date is defined as the initial date of annual health checkups with ≥ 1 year continuous subscribership to the health insurance system. “Follow-up period” is defined as the interval between the index date and (1) the end of the study (September 30, 2020) or (2) the withdrawal date from the health insurance system, whichever occurred first.

We excluded participants who received a diagnosis of gallstones before the start date of their health checkup, those who did not undergo a health checkup, and those whose observation period was < 1 year.

Onset of gallstone disease

Patients were classified as having gallstones when their insurance claims showed the code K80, which is listed in the International Classification of Diseases - 10th Revision (ICD-10) [19]. The claim codes for the medical interventions for the gallstone patients in this study are shown in S1 Table.

Covariates

For the variable of specific comorbidity, the one-year period prior to the date of the medical examination was used as the search period, and the variable was judged as being present if the disease had been recorded as confirmed in the insurance claims data. Variables likely to be associated with the onset of gallstones were similarly defined based on the ICD-10 list, with a search period of one year used to determine their presence or absence.

All of the health checkup data required for the study, including age, gender, height, weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, smoking habits, as well as the use of antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and hypoglycemic drugs, was available in the form of self-reported questionnaire data.

Statistical analysis

The data was summarized as mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and as frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to explore factors associated with gallstone onset. Hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and P value were calculated, and a Wald test was conducted. Potential risk factors such as key etiological and epidemiological factors were examined using a regression analysis. To carry out the analysis conservatively, no model selection was carried out, and all variables that reached statistical significance in the univariable regression analysis were entered into the multivariable regression analysis. Variables with a relatively large number of missing values in the health checkup data were excluded from the multivariable model. One of two variables with high correlation was not used in the multivariable model owing to multicollinearity, based on the criterion of an absolute Spearman’s correlation coefficient of > 0.4. As the missing covariates did not occur completely at random among all participants, a simple missing data imputation was not carried out. A P value of < .05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using the software packages EZR Version 1.27 (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan) and SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Ethics

All enrollee data was anonymized by the Federation of National Health Insurance Association to protect participant confidentiality [18]. This study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Shizuoka Graduate School of Public Health in Shizuoka, Japan (#SGUPH_2021_001_040).

Results

Study population

Among the 2,654,567 individuals in the Shizuoka Kokuho Database, 741,009 underwent health checkups. Among these, 113,195 patients who had undergone an observation period of < 1 year and 15,884 who had already been diagnosed with gallstones were excluded. Data for the 611,930 remaining individuals was analyzed (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Flow chart of study.

Fig 2

Gallstone disease onset

During the observation period (median [max]: 5.68 [7.5] years), 23,843 patients (3.9%) were newly diagnosed with gallstones.

Among these, 4,759 (20.0%) had undergone cholecystectomy and percutaneous/endoscopic drainage. The baseline characteristics of individuals with gallstones who underwent treatment for the disease and those who did not are shown in S1 Table. The baseline characteristics for the gallstone and other patients are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Participant characteristics and variables for univariable Cox model analysis.

Variable Category or unit Patients with gallstones Other patients
N = 23843 N = 588087
Sex Women 12797 (53.7) 335191 (57.0)
Men 11046 (46.3) 252896 (43.0)
Age 0 to <40 years 41 (0.2) 4699 (0.8)
40 to <50 years 620 (2.6) 44827 (7.6)
50 to <60 years 1256 (5.3) 52581 (8.9)
60 to <70 years 7779 (32.6) 222038 (37.8)
70 to <80 years 8980 (37.7) 176696 (30.0)
80 years to 5167 (21.7) 87246 (14.8)
Comorbidities
Cerebrovascular disease Presence 4262 (17.9) 73757 (12.5)
Any malignancy Presence 2386 (10.0) 41148 (7.0)
Dementia Presence 753 (3.2) 13749 (2.3)
Myocardial infarction Presence 457 (1.9) 7897 (1.3)
Renal disease Presence 660 (2.8) 11377 (1.9)
Rheumatic disease Presence 721 (3.0) 13352 (2.3)
Liver disease Presence 47 (0.2) 641 (0.1)
Congestive heart failure Presence 2708 (11.4) 44666 (7.6)
Chronic pulmonary disease Presence 5258 (22.1) 106453 (18.1)
Diabetes Presence 1555 (6.5) 26978 (4.6)
Hypertension Presence 13425 (56.3) 265039 (45.1)
Pylori-infected gastritis Presence 1513 (6.3) 28545 (4.9)
History of gastrectomy Presence 18 (0.1) 193 (0.0)
HIV infection Presence 1 (0.0) 48 (0.0)
Crohn’s disease Presence 16 (0.1) 269 (0.0)
Spinal injury Presence 1 (0.0) 18 (0.0)
Total parenteral nutrition Presence 0 (0.0) 5 (0.0)
Medical checkup
Frequency of alcohol consumption Never 12178 (62.4) 296763 (59.2)
Occasionally 3565 (18.3) 100302 (20.0)
Everyday 3761 (19.3) 104269 (20.8)
Use of lipid-lowering agents Yes 6818 (28.6) 139738 (23.8)
Current smoker Yes 2392 (10.0) 69971 (11.9)
Walking or physical exercise > 1 h / wk Yes 10510 (49.6) 267136 (50.5)
Increase in weight > 10 kg since age of 20 y Yes 7348 (34.6) 154621 (29.2)
Estimated GFR mL/min/1.73 m2 66.42 (16.04) 69.47 (15.75)
BMI kg/m2 23.15 (3.55) 22.63 (3.43)
GGT U/L 38.98 (66.47) 32.55 (45.30)
AST U/L 25.66 (13.80) 24.05 (10.57)
ALT U/L 21.59 (16.54) 20.17 (13.26)
HbA1c % 5.79 (0.73) 5.74 (0.70)
LDL cholesterol mg/dL 120.76 (30.90) 124.02 (31.30)
Systolic blood pressure mmHg 130.70 (16.59) 129.38 (17.36)
Triglycerides mg/dL 118.60 (70.72) 113.92 (72.42)
Uric acid mg/dL 5.35 (1.34) 5.22 (1.36)

ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

Identification of risk factors of gallstone disease onset

Potential risk factors and significant variables were evaluated using a univariable Cox regression analysis (Table 2). Several variables had correlations of > 0.4 (S3 Table). Variables with p<0.05 in the univariable analysis were entered into the multivariable model.

Table 2. Results of univariable Cox model analysis.

Variable (reference) Category or unit Univariable Cox model
HR 95% CI p value
Sex (women) Men 1.21 1.18–1.24 <0.001
Age (0 to < 40 years) 40 to < 50 years 1.36 0.99–1.86 0.090
50 to < 60 years 1.98 1.45–2.71 <0.001
60 to < 70 years 2.62 1.93–3.56 <0.001
70 to < 80 years 3.65 2.69–4.96 <0.001
80 years and over 4.44 3.27–6.04 <0.001
Cerebrovascular disease (absence) Presence 1.49 1.44–1.54 <0.001
Any malignancy (absence) Presence 1.54 1.47–1.60 <0.001
Dementia (absence) Presence 1.60 1.49–1.72 <0.001
Myocardial infarction (absence) Presence 1.52 1.39–1.67 <0.001
Renal disease (absence) Presence 1.61 1.49–1.74 <0.001
Rheumatic disease (absence) Presence 1.34 1.24–1.44 <0.001
Liver disease (absence) Presence 2.03 1.52–2.70 <0.001
Congestive heart failure (absence) Presence 1.65 1.58–1.71 <0.001
Chronic pulmonary disease (absence) Presence 1.29 1.25–1.33 <0.001
Diabetes (absence) Presence 1.50 1.42–1.58 <0.001
Hypertension (absence) Presence 1.51 1.47–1.54 <0.001
Pylori-infected gastritis (absence) Presence 1.29 1.22–1.36 <0.001
History of gastrectomy (absence) Presence 2.22 1.40–3.52 <0.001
HIV infection (absence) Presence 0.57 0.08–4.06 0.576
Crohn’s disease (absence) Presence 1.61 0.98–2.62 0.058
Spinal injury (absence) Presence 1.60 0.23–11.37 0.637
Total parenteral nutrition (absence) Presence NE NE NE
Frequency of alcohol consumption Never 1.00
Occasionally 0.90 0.87–0.93 <0.001
Everyday 0.91 0.88–0.95 <0.001
Use of lipid-lowering agents (no) Yes 0.83 0.81–0.86 <0.001
Current smoker (no) Yes 1.09 1.04–1.14 <0.001
Walking or physical exercise > 1 h / wk (no) Yes 0.91 0.88–0.93 <0.001
Increase in weight > 10 kg since age of 20 y (no) Yes 1.33 1.29–1.37 <0.001
Estimated GFR 1 mL/min/1.73 m2 0.99 0.99–0.99 <0.001
BMI 1 kg/m2 1.05 1.04–1.05 <0.001
GGT 100 U/L 1.15 1.14–1.16 <0.001
AST 10 U/L 1.07 1.06–1.07 <0.001
ALT 10 U/L 1.05 1.05–1.06 <0.001
HbA1c 1% 1.06 1.05–1.07 <0.001
LDL cholesterol 10 mg/dL 0.96 0.96–0.97 <0.001
Systolic blood pressure 10 mmHg 1.04 1.03–1.05 <0.001
Triglycerides 100 mg/dL 1.10 1.08–1.12 <0.001
Uric acid 1 mg/dL 1.07 1.06–1.07 <0.001

ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; HR, hazard ratio; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

The multivariable regression analysis showed that increasing age and male sex (HR: 1.09 [95% CI: 1.06–1.12]) increased the risk of gallstones (Table 3). The presence of comorbidities such as cerebrovascular disease (1.14 [1.10–1.19]), any malignancy (1.30 [1.24–1.36]), dementia (1.13 [1.04–1.23]), rheumatic disease (1.23 [1.14–1.33]), liver disease (1.56 [1.16–2.10]), congestive heart failure (1.17 [1.12–1.23]), chronic pulmonary disease (1.15 [1.12–1.19]), diabetes (1.15 [1.08–1.22]), hypertension (1.10 [1.06–1.13]), and H. pylori-infected gastritis (1.25 [1.18–1.32]) were also risks for the disease. Further, the health checkup data revealed that higher values for BMI (1.04 [1.04–1.05] per 1 kg/m2 increase), GGT (1.15 [1.13–1.16] for 100 U/L increase), HbA1c (1.03 [1.01–1.04] per 1% increase), and triglycerides (1.04 [1.02–1.06] per 100 mg/dL increase) were associated with the onset of the disease. However, a habit of walking or other physical exercise > 1 h / week (0.91 [0.94–0.89]), higher LDL cholesterol (0.98 [0.98–0.99] per 10 mg/dL increase), and higher systolic blood pressure (0.98 [0.97–0.99] per 10 mmHg increase), were associated with reduced risk of gallstones.

Table 3. Results of multivariable Cox model analysis.

Variable (reference), n = 541,972, events = 20,810 Category or unit Multivariable Cox model
HR 95% CI p value
Sex (women) Men 1.09 1.06–1.12 <0.001
Age (0 to < 40 years) 40 to < 50 years 1.31 0.95–1.81 0.103
50 to < 60 years 1.94 1.41–2.68 <0.001
60 to < 70 years 2.54 1.85–3.48 <0.001
70 to < 80 years 3.34 2.44–4.59 <0.001
80 years and over 3.97 2.89–5.45 <0.001
Cerebrovascular disease (absence) Presence 1.14 1.10–1.19 <0.001
Any malignancy (absence) Presence 1.30 1.24–1.36 <0.001
Dementia (absence) Presence 1.13 1.04–1.23 0.005
Myocardial infarction (absence) Presence 1.02 0.92–1.14 0.647
Renal disease (absence) Presence 1.14 1.05–1.24 0.003
Rheumatic disease (absence) Presence 1.23 1.14–1.33 <0.001
Liver disease (absence) Presence 1.56 1.16–2.10 0.003
Congestive heart failure (absence) Presence 1.17 1.12–1.23 <0.001
Chronic pulmonary disease (absence) Presence 1.15 1.12–1.19 <0.001
Diabetes (absence) Presence 1.15 1.08–1.22 <0.001
Hypertension (absence) Presence 1.10 1.06–1.13 <0.001
Pylori-infected gastritis (no) Yes 1.25 1.18–1.32 <0.001
History of gastrectomy (no) Yes 1.46 0.88–2.43 0.142
Use of lipid-lowering agents (no) Yes 1.02 0.99–1.06 0.159
Current smoker (no) Yes 1.04 0.99–1.09 0.104
Walking or physical exercise > 1 h / wk (no) Yes 0.91 0.94–0.89 <0.001
BMI 1 kg/m2 1.04 1.04–1.05 <0.001
GGT 100 U/L 1.15 1.13–1.16 <0.001
HbA1c 1% 1.03 1.01–1.04 0.001
LDL cholesterol 10 mg/dL 0.98 0.98–0.99 <0.001
Systolic blood pressure 10 mm Hg 0.98 0.97–0.99 <0.001
Triglycerides 100 mg/dL 1.04 1.02–1.06 <0.001

BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; HR, hazard ratio; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

Discussion

The three main causes of gallstone genesis are enhanced cholesterol nucleation, impaired gallbladder emptying with stasis, and intestinal hypomotility. Enhanced cholesterol nucleation is the most common type, accounting for 75–80% of occurrences, and is caused by impaired cholesterol metabolism [20]. Thus, metabolic syndrome and associated diseases such as higher BMI, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus have been widely reported to play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of gallstone disease. The results of the present study are consistent with these previous studies.

This study demonstrates that increasing age, male sex, a variety of comorbidities (cerebrovascular disease, any malignancy, rheumatic disease, liver disease, congestive heart failure, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disorder, diabetes, hypertension, and pylori-infected gastritis), and several medical checkup items (BMI, γ-GT, HbA1c [%]) were closely associated with development of gallstones. Several of these factors have been identified in previous studies [2123]; however, the present study is the first large-scale cohort study to reveal the risk factors of rheumatic disease, malignancy, H. pylori-infected gastritis, chronic pulmonary disease, and renal disorder.

Unlike previous reports, a higher prevalence of gallstones among men was observed in this study. Several classic epidemiologic studies have reported that pregnancy and female sex hormones place women at a higher risk [36]. The high prevalence of gallstones among men in our study population is an indicator of a significant shift in the epidemiology of gallstone disease. One possible explanation for this is that the obesity rate among men has been on an upward trend in Japan since 2013. In 2019, 33.0% of men were considered overweight due to having an average body mass index of 25 or greater, 4.4% higher than in 2013. For women, the overall average was 22.3%, up 2.0% from 2013. A smaller proportion of women were obese compared to men across all age groups in 2019 [24]. Similarly, Sung et al. reported that the prevalence of asymptomatic cholelithiasis was higher in men than women over the age of 50 in Japan in 2017, concluding that this was due to the higher BMI, triglyceride, and fasting plasma glucose levels found in men than in women [25].

It had previously been suggested that patients with rheumatoid disease may be at increased risk for gallstones, but evidence for this association had been lacking before the present study. Our results are consistent with the suggestions of several past reports. Chen demonstrated a significant inverse relationship between systemic chronic inflammation and dyslipidemia in patients with rheumatoid disease [26]. In a study of 224 rheumatoid arthritis patients in Japan, Ito et al. found a significantly higher incidence of gallstones than in the general population, concluding that the chronic inflammatory state due to the condition altered lipid profile and gallbladder function, leading to the higher incidence [27]. In addition, other conditions such as low levels of physical activity or use of steroidal treatments by those with rheumatoid arthritis may be associated with an increased incidence of gallstones.

Among the few previous reports on the relationship between malignant disease and the development of cholelithiasis, Reimar W. et al. [28] found an association similar to the one found in the present study. Their population-based cohort study of 51,228 cancer patients reported that biliary obstruction due to malignant metastases to the liver in cancer patients, together with malnutrition and rapid weight loss in patients with malignant tumors, lead to a higher incidence of cholecystitis than in the general population. Thus, the specific conditions of patients with malignant diseases such as systemic inflammation and abnormal lipid metabolism appear to contribute to the development of cholelithiasis.

Interestingly, the present study found that H. pylori infection was positively correlated with the development of cholelithiasis. In a cross-sectional study, Takahashi et al. [29] reported that H. pylori infection was positively correlated with the presence of gallstones. H. pylori has proven to be a major pathogen in gastric diseases such as chronic gastritis, gastric ulcers, duodenal ulcers, and gastric cancer [30]. Furthermore, H. pylori infection has also been reported to be associated with extra-gastric diseases such as dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and increased bilirubin levels [3135]. Given that H. pylori infection is related to these metabolic diseases, it may also be an indirect mediator of the gallbladder environment, leading to the development of gallstones.

This study also confirms that chronic lung disease with smoking as a risk factor increases the risk of cholelithiasis. There are several reports indicating that smoking is a risk factor for developing the disease [36, 37], and the present study identifies chronic lung disease as a risk factor for it. However, little is known about the biological mechanisms by which these factors may cause the disease. One possibility is that the dozens of toxic compounds contained in tobacco smoke [37, 38] may have a detrimental effect on the gallbladder. The relevant biological mechanisms need further elucidation.

This study also found a higher incidence of cholelithiasis in patients with chronic kidney disease. Several previous reports have also shown an association between renal disease and cholelithiasis [39]. Dysautonomia, which is common in patients with renal failure, impairs gallbladder motility, and renal failure increases biliary cholesterol and decreases primary bile acids in bile, making such patients more susceptible to cholelithiasis [40]. Thus, previous research found that several abnormalities related to renal function appear to promote gallstone formation, a finding consistent with that of the present study.

In addition, the present study found an association between gallstones and dementia. Miyamoto et al [41] found in a cross-sectional study that biliary sludge developed in older adults with dementia, which may have been due to the poor nutritional intake, immobility, and frailty commonly observed in dementia patients. This suggests that the development of cholelithiasis may be influenced by complex factors such as low levels of nutritional intake and physical activity.

Previous studies have also found an association between gallstones and hypertension [42]. It is important to note that the present study found two seemingly contradictory associations in relation to hypertension (Table 3): simultaneous treatment for hypertension in the insurance record was associated with an increased risk of cholelithiasis (HR: 1.10), while higher SBP in the medical record was associated with a decreased risk of the disease (HR: 0.98). This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that most patients being treated for hypertension can be expected to have been prescribed anti-hypertensive drugs, and therefore to have had blood pressure in the normal range when they were treated for gallstones.

This study also compared the characteristics of individuals with gallstones who received treatment for the disease with those that did not receive treatment for it, and found that individuals who had comorbid lifestyle-related diseases were more likely to receive treatment for gallstones (S2 Table).

Additionally, this study found trends for several factors that differ from those of previous reports. It did not find associations between the development of cholelithiasis and parenteral nutrition, spinal cord injury, or gastrectomy, likely due to the small number of cases involving these factors.

The major strength of this study is its presentation of incidence trends in a recent 7.5-year period based on a large sample. However, this study also has several limitations. First, the incidence of gallstones was defined according to the International Classification of Diseases (Tenth Edition) coding, which has not yet been validated using medical record data. Secondly, age at onset could not be accurately ascertained, so age at diagnosis was used as a proxy. Thirdly, in the health check-up, the questionnaire items did not accurately capture data on frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption, and these variables could not be assessed in a multivariable regression analysis. Finally, the study confirmed that enrollees with newly-diagnosed gallstones did not have gallstones during the one-year covariate assessment window. However, if a patient who already had gallstones did not use insurance for gallstone treatment during the baseline period, he or she may have been treated as a new onset patient. The definition of cholelithiasis used in this study includes patients who made an insurance claim for cholelithiasis at least once during the observation period, but patients with cholelithiasis who did not visit a healthcare provider could not be included in the study. Despite these limitations, this study provides novel evidence for the association between gallstone disease and a large number of risk factors.

Conclusion

This study reveals that the risk of cholelithiasis in the general Japanese population is increased by male sex, cerebrovascular disease, malignancy, dementia, rheumatic disease, chronic pulmonary disease, hypertension, and H. pylori gastritis. These findings may contribute to efforts to reducing the incidence of cholelithiasis.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Insurance claim codes for gallstone-related medical interventions.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Characteristics of individuals with gallstones who underwent treatment for the disease and those who did not undergo treatment.

ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Spearman’s correlation matrix.

ALT, Alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Professor Yoshiki Miyachi of Kyoto University and Shizuoka Graduate University of Public Health for his useful comments and criticism.

Data Availability

According to Shizuoka Prefecture's data use agreement with local insurers, readers cannot access the analyzed data. Researchers interested in accessing this data set may apply to Shizuoka Prefecture to request access. Please contact the staff of Shizuoka Graduate University of Public Health (Email: info@s-sph.ac.jp).

Funding Statement

The Shizuoka Graduate University of Public Health conducts research projects on public health under contract to Shizuoka Prefecture, including this study.

References

  • 1.Portincasa P, Moschetta A, Petruzzelli M, Palasciano G, Di Ciaula A, Pezzolla A. Gallstone disease: Symptoms and diagnosis of gallbladder stones. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2006;20:1017–29. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2006.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Stinton LM, Shaffer EA. Epidemiology of gallbladder disease: cholelithiasis and cancer. Gut Liver 2012;6:172–87. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2012.6.2.172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kimura Y, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Hirata K, Sekimoto M, et al. Definitions, pathophysiology, and epidemiology of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007;14:15–26. doi: 10.1007/s00534-006-1152-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Reshetnyak VI. Concept of the pathogenesis and treatment of cholelithiasis. World J Hepatol 2012;4:18–34. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v4.i2.18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Attili AF, Carulli N, Roda E, Barbara B, Capocaccia L, Menotti A, et al. Epidemiology of gallstone disease in Italy: prevalence data of the Multicenter Italian Study on Cholelithiasis (M.I.COL.). Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:158–65. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Celaj S, Kourkoumpetis T. Gallstones in Pregnancy. JAMA 2021;325:2410. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.4502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Friedman GD, Kannel WB, Dawber TR. The epidemiology of gallbladder disease: observations in the Framingham Study. J Chronic Dis 1966;19:273–92. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(66)90132-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gebhard RL, Prigge WF, Ansel HJ, Schlasner L, Ketover SR, Sande D, et al. The role of gallbladder emptying in gallstone formation during diet-induced rapid weight loss. Hepatology 1996;24:544–8. doi: 10.1002/hep.510240313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.De Santis A, Attili AF, Ginanni Corradini S, Scafato E, Cantagalli A, De Luca C, et al. Gallstones and diabetes: a case-control study in a free-living population sample. Hepatology 1997;25:787–90. doi: 10.1002/hep.510250401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shabanzadeh DM, Sørensen LT, Jørgensen T. Determinants for gallstone formation—a new data cohort study and a systematic review with meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016;51:1239–48. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2016.1182583 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hansen NL, Brønden A, Nexøe-Larsen CC, Christensen AS, Sonne DP, Rehfeld JF, et al. Glucagon-Like Peptide 2 Inhibits Postprandial Gallbladder Emptying in Man: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover Study. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2020;11:e00257. doi: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lapidus A, Bångstad M, Aström M, Muhrbeck O. The prevalence of gallstone disease in a defined cohort of patients with Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:1261–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01076.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Parente F, Pastore L, Bargiggia S, Cucino C, Greco S, Molteni M, et al. Incidence and risk factors for gallstones in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a large case-control study. Hepatology 2007;45:1267–74. doi: 10.1002/hep.21537 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nightingale JM, Lennard-Jones JE, Gertner DJ, Wood SR, Bartram CI. Colonic preservation reduces need for parenteral therapy, increases incidence of renal stones, but does not change high prevalence of gall stones in patients with a short bowel. Gut 1992;33:1493–7. doi: 10.1136/gut.33.11.1493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Thijs C, Knipschild P. Oral contraceptives and the risk of gallbladder disease: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 1993;83:1113–20. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.8.1113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Inoue K, Fuchigami A, Higashide S, Sumi S, Kogire M, Suzuki T, et al. Gallbladder sludge and stone formation in relation to contractile function after gastrectomy. A prospective study. Ann Surg 1992;215:19–26. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199201000-00002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tsunoda K, Shirai Y, Hatakeyama K. Prevalence of cholesterol gallstones positively correlates with per capita daily calorie intake. Hepatogastroenterology 2004;51:1271–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nakatani E, Tabara Y, Sato Y, Tsuchiya A, Miyachi Y. Data resource profile of Shizuoka Kokuho Database (SKDB) using integrated health- and care-insurance claims and health checkups: the Shizuoka Study. J Epidemiol 2021. doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20200480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ferkingstad E, Oddsson A, Gretarsdottir S, Benonisdottir S, Thorleifsson G, Deaton AM, et al. Genome-wide association meta-analysis yields 20 loci associated with gallstone disease. Nat Commun 2018;9:5101. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07460-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Di Ciaula A, Wang DQ-H, Portincasa P. An update on the pathogenesis of cholesterol gallstone disease. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2018;34:71–80. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Faillie J-L, Yu OH, Yin H, Hillaire-Buys D, Barkun A, Azoulay L. Association of Bile Duct and Gallbladder Diseases With the Use of Incretin-Based Drugs in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1474–81. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zhao S-F, Wang A-M, Yu X-J, Wang L-L, Xu X-N, Shi G-J. Association between gallstone and cardio-cerebrovascular disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Exp Ther Med 2019;17:3092–100. doi: 10.3892/etm.2019.7291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fairfield CJ, Wigmore SJ, Harrison EM. Gallstone Disease and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease. Sci Rep 2019;9:5830. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-42327-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. National Health and Nutrition Survey in 2019 n.d. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kenkou/kenkou_eiyou_chousa.html (accessed 2022/july/05).
  • 25.Kim SB, Kim KH, Kim TN, Heo J, Jung MK, Cho CM, et al. Sex differences in prevalence and risk factors of asymptomatic cholelithiasis in Korean health screening examinee: A retrospective analysis of a multicenter study. Medicine 2017;96:e6477. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006477 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chen W, Wang Q, Zhou B, Zhang L, Zhu H. Lipid Metabolism Profiles in Rheumatic Diseases. Front Pharmacol 2021;12:643520. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.643520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ito S, Hasegawa H, Nozawa S, Ishikawa H, Tohyama C, Nakazono K, et al. Gallstones in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1999;26:1458–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Thomsen RW, Thomsen HF, Nørgaard M, Cetin K, McLaughlin JK, Tarone RE, et al. Risk of cholecystitis in patients with cancer: a population-based cohort study in Denmark. Cancer 2008;113:3410–9. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Takahashi Y, Yamamichi N, Shimamoto T, Mochizuki S, Fujishiro M, Takeuchi C, et al. Helicobacter pylori infection is positively associated with gallstones: a large-scale cross-sectional study in Japan. J Gastroenterol 2014;49:882–9. doi: 10.1007/s00535-013-0832-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Alexander SM, Retnakumar RJ, Chouhan D, Devi TNB, Dharmaseelan S, Devadas K, et al. Helicobacter pylori in Human Stomach: The Inconsistencies in Clinical Outcomes and the Probable Causes. Front Microbiol 2021;12:713955. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.713955 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Satoh H, Saijo Y, Yoshioka E, Tsutsui H. Helicobacter Pylori infection is a significant risk for modified lipid profile in Japanese male subjects. J Atheroscler Thromb 2010;17:1041–8. doi: 10.5551/jat.5157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hsieh M-C, Wang SSW, Hsieh Y-T, Kuo F-C, Soon M-S, Wu D-C. Helicobacter pylori infection associated with high HbA1c and type 2 diabetes. Eur J Clin Invest 2013;43:949–56. doi: 10.1111/eci.12124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhou X, Liu W, Gu M, Zhou H, Zhang G. Helicobacter pylori infection causes hepatic insulin resistance by the c-Jun/miR-203/SOCS3 signaling pathway. J Gastroenterol 2015;50:1027–40. doi: 10.1007/s00535-015-1051-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Refaeli R, Chodick G, Haj S, Goren S, Shalev V, Muhsen K. Relationships of H. pylori infection and its related gastroduodenal morbidity with metabolic syndrome: a large cross-sectional study. Sci Rep 2018;8:4088. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22198-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zhao M-M, Krebs J, Cao X, Cui J, Chen D-N, Li Y, et al. Helicobacter pylori infection as a risk factor for serum bilirubin change and less favourable lipid profiles: a hospital-based health examination survey. BMC Infect Dis 2019;19:157. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-3787-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Katsika D, Tuvblad C, Einarsson C, Lichtenstein P, Marschall H-U. Body mass index, alcohol, tobacco and symptomatic gallstone disease: a Swedish twin study. J Intern Med 2007;262:581–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2007.01860.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Aune D, Vatten LJ, Boffetta P. Tobacco smoking and the risk of gallbladder disease. Eur J Epidemiol 2016;31:643–53. doi: 10.1007/s10654-016-0124-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Anglo-Dutch Nicotine Intestinal Study Group, Rhodes M, Zijlastra FJ, Bradburn DM, Srivastava ED, van Dijk APM, et al. Effect of Nicotine on Gallbladder Bile. Can J Gastroenterol 1900;8:304548. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Park SK, Jung JY, Oh C-M, Kim M-H, Ha E, Lee D-Y, et al. The Level of Urine Dipstick Proteinuria and Its Relation to the Risk of Incident Cholelithiasis. J Epidemiol 2021;31:59–64. doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20190223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Elsadek HM, Qasem AA, Farag SE, Al Sowy AM, Ebouda FM, Alghamdi FS. Gallbladder dysfunction and gallstone prevalence in patients with chronic kidney disease. Is there a difference between predialysis and hemodialysis patients? A multi-center Study. Int J Adv Res (Indore) 2014;2:842–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Miyamoto T, Ebihara T, Kozaki K. The association between eating difficulties and biliary sludge in the gallbladder in older adults with advanced dementia, at end of life. PLoS One 2019;14:e0219538. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhang Y, Sun L, Wang X, Chen Z. The association between hypertension and the risk of gallstone disease: a cross-sectional study. BMC Gastroenterol 2022;26;22:138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Donovan Anthony McGrowder

29 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-24368Risk factors for gallstone disease onset in Japan: findings from the Shizuoka Study, a population-based cohort studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Higashizono,   

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 November 13, 2022. 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,

Donovan Anthony McGrowder, PhD., MA., MSc

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 note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Higashizono,   

 Your manuscript “Risk factors for gallstone disease onset in Japan: findings from the Shizuoka Study, a population-based cohort study” has been assessed by our reviewers. They have raised a number of points which we believe would improve the manuscript and may allow a revised version to be published in PLOS ONE. Their reports, together with any other comments, are below.

 If you are able to fully address these points, we would encourage you to submit a revised manuscript to PLOS ONE.

 Regards,

Dr. Donovan McGrowder

Associate Editor

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: General comments:

The authors investigated the risk factors for gallstones disease onset in Japan via two large National Health Insurance System and National Health Insurance System and the Medical Care System for Elderly in the Latter Stage of Life in Shizuoka. The authors found the risk factors of increased gallstones disease included male sex, cerebrovascular disease, any malignancy, dementia, rheumatic disease, chronic pulmonary disease, hypertension, and H. pylori-infected gastritis.

Minor comments:

1. According to the Table 3, presence of the hypertension increased the risk of the gallstones disease with hazard ratio (HR) 1.10 (1.06-1.13), p<0.001. However, in systolic blood pressure (SBP), higher SBP reduced the risk of gallstones disease (HR: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.97-0.99, p<0.001). Among this discrepancy, would author offer the explanation or discussion for it?

2. May we kindly ask for the definition of the liver disease? Moreover, in Table 2 and Table 3, the parameters shown are not the same. For example, there were AST/ALT/uric acid/eGFR in Table 2 but not in Table 3. Is that because the statistic insignificance? But you showed some parameters, such as history of gastrectomy or use of lipid-lowering agents without significant also in Table 3. It would be grateful if you would explain it.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript “Risk factors for gallstone disease onset in Japan: findings from the Shizuoka Study, a population-based cohort study”, Dr. Higashizono and colleagues carried out the large population-based cohort studies in Japanese population about gallstone onset. The authors suggest some new risk factors of cholelithiasis, such as male, dementia, rheumatic disease, chronic pulmonary disease, hypertension, and H. pylori gastritis. I believe the research findings bring clinical benefit in cholelithiasis prevention and treatment. Therefore, I recommend the authors considering the following minor points.

1. Methods: Please describe the detail methods for detecting gallstones. Where did the medical checks take place? What were the gallstone detecting devices? Especially, please clarify the methods to distinguish gallstone from other gallbladder diseases such as polyps and segmental adenomyomatosis.

2. Results, Gallstone disease onset: Please discuss about newly detection rate of gallstones by comparing with those of former reports.

3. Results, Gallstone disease onset: The authors showed that approximately 20% of gallstone disease patients had undergone medical intervension. The morbidity seems to be considerably high. For example, Morris-Stiff et al. had studied the patients with asymptomatic gallstone and reported that the gallstone related symptoms developed at approximately 2% per year (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022). Please discuss about the difference of the onset rates.

4. Results, Gallstone disease onset: Please compare and discuss the demographical and clinical data between the patient groups, who received and did not receive medical intervention for gallstone disease.

5. Table 3: Please indicate and discuss the result of frequency of alcohol consumption in multivariable Cox model analysis.

6. I also recommend the authors examining the effect of alcohol consumption quantity for gallstone forming.

7. I am very interested in the natural history of cholelithiasis in this population. Do the authors have any additional follow up data after initial gallstone detection?

8. Supporting information: the font size of the table is too small to read easily. Please use larger letters.

**********

[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.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 30;17(12):e0274659. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274659.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Nov 2022

Responses to the comments of Reviewer #1

We wish to express our appreciation to the reviewer for the insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve our paper.

1. According to the Table 3, presence of the hypertension increased the risk of the gallstones disease with hazard ratio (HR) 1.10 (1.06-1.13), p<0.001. However, in systolic blood pressure (SBP), higher SBP reduced the risk of gallstones disease (HR: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.97-0.99, p<0.001). Among this discrepancy, would author offer the explanation or discussion for it?

Response:

We greatly appreciate this valuable comment. In accordance with the suggestion, we have made the following revision to the Discussion (lines 296–307):

“It is important to note that this study found two seemingly contradictory associations in relation to hypertension (Table 3): simultaneous treatment for hypertension in the insurance record was associated with an increased risk of cholelithiasis (HR: 1.10), while higher SBP in the medical record was associated with a decreased risk of the disease (HR: 0.98). This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that most patients being treated for hypertension can be expected to have been prescribed anti-hypertensive drugs, and therefore to have had blood pressure in the normal range when they were treated for gallstones.”

2. May we kindly ask for the definition of the liver disease? Moreover, in Table 2 and Table 3, the parameters shown are not the same. For example, there were AST/ALT/uric acid/eGFR in Table 2 but not in Table 3. Is that because the statistic insignificance? But you showed some parameters, such as history of gastrectomy or use of lipid-lowering agents without significant also in Table 3. It would be grateful if you would explain it.

Response:

We are grateful for the insightful comment. In accordance with your suggestions, we have added the text below to the statistical analysis section methods section (lines 136–139) and respond below.

“To carry out the analysis conservatively, no model selection was carried out, and all variables that reached statistical significance in the univariable regression analysis were entered into the multivariable regression analysis.”

In Supplementary Table 1, AST and GGT, ALT and GGT, and eGFR and age, were also correlated. Therefore, AST, ALT and eGFR were not fed into the multivariate model. In other words, GGT and age were included in the multivariate model. Also, the reason for including non-significant variables such as a history of gastrectomy and use of lipid-lowering agents in the multivariate model is that the model selection method was not implemented conservatively (such that only significant variables were left), and variables that were significant in the univariate analysis were simply put into the multivariate model.

Responses to the comments of Reviewer #2

We wish to express our appreciation to the reviewer for the insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve our paper.

1. 1. Methods: Please describe the detail methods for detecting gallstones. Where did the medical checks take place? What were the gallstone detecting devices? Especially, please clarify the methods to distinguish gallstone from other gallbladder diseases such as polyps and segmental adenomyomatosis.

Response:

We greatly appreciate the valuable comments. The onset of gallstones is defined according to previous report [19], and our analysis was carried out using the same method as that report. Additionaly, only diagnoses of cholelithiasis entered as "no suspicion" were extracted from the medical claims data. On the other hand, from the insurance claim data alone, it was unclear what instruments were used to detect gallstones and how gallstones were differentiated from other gallbladder diseases (e.g., polyps and segmental adenomyomatosis).

2. 2. Results, Gallstone disease onset:

Please discuss about newly detection rate of gallstones by comparing with those of former reports.

Response:

We greatly appreciate the insightful comment. To our knowledge, there are no reports on the incidence (not prevalence) of gallstones in Japan. Therefore, we believe that it is difficult to compare the incidence in our study with others.

3. 3. Results, Gallstone disease onset: The authors showed that approximately 20% of gallstone disease patients had undergone medical intervension. The morbidity seems to be considerably high. For example, Morris-Stiff et al. had studied the patients with asymptomatic gallstone and reported that the gallstone related symptoms developed at approximately 2% per year (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022). Please discuss about the difference of the onset rates.

Response:

We very much appreciate the valuable comment. The population in this study was individuals diagnosed with gallstones in the claim database. Thus, we cannot know whether these patients were symptomatic or not. The incidence of symptomatic cholelithiasis (cholecystitis) was not the focus on our study, and therefore, the nature of the asymptomatic cholelithiasis reported in the Morris-Stiff et al. study (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2022) cannot be compared to the results our study.

4. 4. Results, Gallstone disease onset: Please compare and discuss the demographical and clinical data between the patient groups, who received and did not receive medical intervention for gallstone disease.

Response:

We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment. In accordance with the suggestion, we have made the following revision to the Methods, Result, Discussion and S1 Table.

In Methods:

“Insurance claim codes of for gallstone-related medical interventions.” (lines 115-116)

In Results:

“The baseline characteristics of individuals with gallstones who underwent treatment for the disease and those who did not are shown in S1 Table.” (lines 170-172)

In Discussion:

“This study also compared the characteristics of individuals with gallstones who received treatment for the disease with those that did not receive treatment for it, and found that individuals who had comorbid lifestyle-related diseases were more likely to receive treatment for gallstones (S2 Table).” (lines 304-307)

5. 5. Table 3: Please indicate and discuss the result of frequency of alcohol consumption in multivariable Cox model analysis.

6. I also recommend the authors examining the effect of alcohol consumption quantity for gallstone forming.

Response:

In the health check-up data, the questionnaire on frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption generated in relation to each other. However, when analyzed in combination, it is difficult to calculate the amount of alcohol consumed by the subjects.

Item Answer

How often do you drink alcohol? (Sake, shochu, beer, wine, whiskey, brandy, etc.) 1. Everyday

2. Sometimes

3. Rarely drink(Cannot drink)

How much do you drink per day? Sake (180ml), middle-size beer (500ml), shochu (80ml), whiskey (60ml), two glasses of wine (240ml)? 1. Less than 180ml

2. Over180 ml, less than 360 ml

3. Over 360 ml, less than 540 ml

4. Over 540 ml

The data in Table 3 was the minimal amount required for the analysis of frequency of alcohol consumption, but there were also many missing measurements, so multivariate analysis could not be used. For these reasons, it is difficult to perform the analysis suggested by the reviewer. This point was added to the limitations as follows. (lines 317-319).

“Thirdly, in the health check-up, the questionnaire items did not accurately capture data on frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption, and these variables could not be assessed in a multivariable regression analysis.”

6. 7. I am very interested in the natural history of cholelithiasis in this population. Do the authors have any additional follow up data after initial gallstone detection?

Response: We very much appreciate the suggestion. It would be possible to compile additional data on follow-up after the initial discovery of gallstones by extracting it from a large data set. However, we would prefer to refrain from reporting on this issue in this manuscript, as doing to would produce a prognostic study after the onset of the disease rather than a risk exploration study up to the onset of the disease, which is the focus of this study.

7. 8. Supporting information: the font size of the table is too small to read easily. Please use larger letters.

Response: We greatly appreciate the valuable comment. In accordance with it, the font size of Supplementary Table 1 has been increased and the table has been divided into two parts to make it easier to read.

We believe that the above responses fully address the reviewer’s comments.

Thank you once again to the reviewers for their comments on the paper. We hope that our revised manuscript is now suitable for publication.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 20221109_Responses_to_Reviewer.doc

Decision Letter 1

Donovan Anthony McGrowder

14 Dec 2022

Risk factors for gallstone disease onset in Japan: findings from the Shizuoka Study, a population-based cohort study

PONE-D-22-24368R1

Dear Dr. Higashizono,

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,

Donovan Anthony McGrowder, PhD., MA., MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr. Higashizono,

The manuscript entitled “Risk factors for gallstone disease onset in Japan: findings from the Shizuoka Study, a population-based cohort study” was revised in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and is provisionally accepted pending final checks for formatting and technical requirements.

Regards,

Dr. Donovan McGrowder (Academic Editor)

Acceptance letter

Donovan Anthony McGrowder

21 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-24368R1

Risk factors for gallstone disease onset in Japan: findings from the Shizuoka Study, a population-based cohort study

Dear Dr. Higashizono:

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. Donovan Anthony McGrowder

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Insurance claim codes for gallstone-related medical interventions.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Characteristics of individuals with gallstones who underwent treatment for the disease and those who did not undergo treatment.

    ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Spearman’s correlation matrix.

    ALT, Alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 20221109_Responses_to_Reviewer.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    According to Shizuoka Prefecture's data use agreement with local insurers, readers cannot access the analyzed data. Researchers interested in accessing this data set may apply to Shizuoka Prefecture to request access. Please contact the staff of Shizuoka Graduate University of Public Health (Email: info@s-sph.ac.jp).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES