Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease : can ultrasound assist in early diagnosis of prediabetes and delay progression to type2 diabetes mellitus

Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) is a condition that is frequently seen but seldom investigated. Until recently, NAFLD was considered benign, self-limiting and unworthy of further investigation. This opinion is based on retrospective studies with relatively small numbers and scant follow-up of histology data. (1) The prevalence for adults, in the USA is, 30%, and NAFLD is recognized as a common and increasing form of liver disease in the paediatric population (1). Australian data, from New South Wales, suggests the prevalence of NAFLD in “healthy” 15 year olds as being 10%.(2) Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is a condition where fat progressively invades the liver parenchyma. The degree of infiltration ranges from simple steatosis (fat only) to steatohepatitis (fat and inflammation) steatohepatitis plus fibrosis (fat, inflammation and fibrosis) to cirrhosis (replacement of liver texture by scarred, fibrotic and non functioning tissue).Non-alcoholic fatty liver is diagnosed by exclusion rather than inclusion. None of the currently available diagnostic techniques -liver biopsy, liver function tests (LFT) or Imaging; ultrasound, Computerised tomography (CT) or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) are specific for non-alcoholic fatty liver. An association exists between NAFLD, Non Alcoholic Steatosis Hepatitis (NASH) and irreversible liver damage, cirrhosis and hepatoma. However, a more pervasive aspect of NAFLD is the association with Metabolic Syndrome. This Syndrome is categorised by increased insulin resistance (IR) and NAFLD is thought to be the hepatic representation. Those with NAFLD have an increased risk of death (3) and it is an independent predictor of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (1). Liver biopsy is considered the gold standard for diagnosis, (4), and grading and staging, of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Fatty-liver is diagnosed when there is macrovesicular steatosis with displacement of the nucleus to the edge of the cell and at least 5% of the hepatocytes are seen to contain fat (4).Steatosis represents fat accumulation in liver tissue without inflammation. However, it is only called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease when alcohol - >20gms-30gms per day (5), has been excluded from the diet. Both non-alcoholic and alcoholic fatty liver are identical on histology. (4).LFT’s are indicative, not diagnostic. They indicate that a condition may be present but they are unable to diagnosis what the condition is. When a patient presents with raised fasting blood glucose, low HDL (high density lipoprotein), and elevated fasting triacylglycerols they are likely to have NAFLD. (6) Of the imaging techniques MRI is the least variable and the most reproducible. With CT scanning liver fat content can be semi quantitatively estimated. With increasing hepatic steatosis, liver attenuation values decrease by 1.6 Hounsfield units for every milligram of triglyceride deposited per gram of liver tissue (7). Ultrasound permits early detection of fatty liver, often in the preclinical stages before symptoms are present and serum alterations occur. Earlier, accurate reporting of this condition will allow appropriate intervention resulting in better patient health outcomes. References 1. Chalasami N. Does fat alone cause significant liver disease: It remains unclear whether simple steatosis is truly benign. American Gastroenterological Association Perspectives, February/March 2008 www.gastro.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5097 Viewed 20th October, 2008 2. Booth, M. George, J.Denney-Wilson, E: The population prevalence of adverse concentrations with adiposity of liver tests among Australian adolescents. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health.2008 November 3. Catalano, D, Trovato, GM, Martines, GF, Randazzo, M, Tonzuso, A. Bright liver, body composition and insulin resistance changes with nutritional intervention: a follow-up study .Liver Int.2008; February 1280-9 4. Choudhury, J, Sanysl, A. Clinical aspects of Fatty Liver Disease. Semin in Liver Dis. 2004:24 (4):349-62 5. Dionysus Study Group. Drinking factors as cofactors of risk for alcohol induced liver change. Gut. 1997; 41 845-50 6. Preiss, D, Sattar, N. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: an overview of prevalence, diagnosis, pathogenesis and treatment considerations. Clin Sci.2008; 115 141-50 7. American Gastroenterological Association. Technical review on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology.2002; 123: 1705-25

Child characteristics associated with delay of gratification in children with Down syndrome

Aim: Children with Down syndrome have been identified as having difficulty delaying gratification when compared to mental age matched children who are developing typically. This study investigated the association between individual characteristics hypopthesized to be associated with ability to delay as well as the strategies children used in a waiting task. Method: Thirty-two children with Down syndrome and 50 typically developing children matched for mental age completed the tasks. Observations of their behaviour while waiting were video-recorded for later analysis. In addition, parents completed questionnaires with respect to their child’s personality and behaviour. Results: Children with Down syndrome were significantly less able to delay gratification than the comparison group. Different patterns of association were found for the two groups between the observational and questionnaire measures and delay time. Conclusions: Children with Down syndrome have greater difficulty delaying gratification than would be predicted on the basis of their mental age. The contributions to delay appear to differ from those for typically developing children and these differences need to be considered when planning interventions for developing this skill

Strategy use of children with Down syndrome in a delay of gratification situation

Background: The capacity to delay gratification has been shown to be a very important developmental task for children who are developing typically. There is evidence that children with Down syndrome have more difficulty with a delay of gratification task than typically developing children of the same mental age. This study focused on the strategies children with Down syndrome use while in a delay of gratification situation to ascertain if these contribute to the differences in delay times from those of typically developing children. Method: Thirty-two children with Down syndrome (15 females) and 50 typically developing children participated in the study. Children with Down syndrome had a mental age, as measured by the Stanford-Binet IV, between 36 and 66 months (M = 45.66). The typically developing children had a mean chronological age of 45.76 months. Children participated in a delay of gratification task where they were offered two or one small treats and asked which they preferred. They were then told that they could have the two treats if they waited for the researcher to return (an undisclosed time of 15 min). If they did not want to wait any longer they could call the researcher back but then they could have only one treat. Twenty-two of the children with Down syndrome and 43 of the typically developing children demonstrated understanding of the task and their data are included here. Sessions were videotaped for later analysis. Results: There were significant differences in the mean waiting times of the two groups. The mean of the waiting times for children with Down syndrome was 181.32 s (SD = 347.62) and was 440.21 s (SD = 377.59) for the typically developing children. Eighteen percent of the group with Down syndrome waited for the researcher to return in comparison to 35% of the typically developing group. Sixty-four percent of children with Down syndrome called the researcher back and the remainder (18%) violated. In the typically developing group 37% called the researcher back and 28% violated. The mean waiting time for the group of children with Down syndrome who called the researcher back was 24 s. Examination of strategy use in this group was therefore very limited. There appeared to be quite similar strategy use across the groups who waited the full 15 min. Conclusions: These results confirm the difficulty children with Down syndrome have in delaying gratification. Teaching strategies for waiting, using information drawn from the behaviours of children who are developing typically may be a useful undertaking. Examination of other contributors to delay ability (e.g., language skills) is also likely to be helpful in understanding the difficulties demonstrated in delaying gratification.