This is a repository copy of Vitamin D and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is now the most common cause of chronic liver disease, worldwide. The molecular pathogenesis of NAFLD is complex, involving numerous signalling molecules including microRNAs (miRNAs). Dysregulation of miRNA expression is associated with hepatic inflammation, fibrosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although miRNAs are also critical to the cellular response to vitamin D, mediating regulation of the vitamin D receptor (VDR) and vitamin D’s anticancer effects, a role for vitamin D regulated miRNAs in NAFLD pathogenesis has been relatively unexplored. Therefore, this review aimed to critically assess the evidence for a potential subset of miRNAs that are both dysregulated in NAFLD and modulated by vitamin D. Comprehensive review of 89 human studies identified 25 miRNAs found dysregulated in more than one NAFLD study. In contrast, only 17 studies, including a protocol for a trial in NAFLD, had examined miRNAs in relation to vitamin D status, response to supplementation, or vitamin D in the context of the liver. This paper summarises these data and reviews the biological roles of six miRNAs (miR-21, miR-30, miR-34, miR-122, miR-146, miR-200) found dysregulated in multiple independent NAFLD studies. While modulation of miRNAs by vitamin D has been understudied, integrating the data suggests seven vitamin D modulated miRNAs (miR-27, miR-125, miR-155, miR-192, miR-223, miR-375, miR-378) potentially relevant to NAFLD pathogenesis. Our summary tables provide a significant resource to underpin future hypothesis-driven research, and we conclude that the measurement of serum and hepatic miRNAs in response to vitamin D supplementation in larger trials is warranted.

To evaluate the ultra-lose dose imaging protocol (ULDP), compared to the standard low-dose imaging protocol (LDP), which are used for haemodialysis access, in terms of radiation exposure and image quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, institutional review board-approved, prospective, double-blinded randomised controlled study to compare radiation exposure and image quality of the ULDP and LDP. Ten proceduralists, two radiographers, and 11 nurses were enrolled. Radiation exposure during 80 procedures (40 angioplasties and 40 thrombolysis) was recorded (direct radiation to patients from protocol report and scattered radiation to participants from the RaySafe i2 real-time dosimetry system). Baseline characteristics of procedure were recorded. Image quality was assessed subjectively using questionnaires based on the five-point Likert scale after each procedure. RESULTS: Compared with LDP, the use of ULDP was associated with a significantly lower rate of radiation exposure to proceduralists, patients, and scrub nurses (0.506AE0.430 versus 0.847AE0.965 mSv/s, p¼0.044; 0.571AE1.284 versus 1.284AE1.007 mGy/s, p<0.001; and 0.052AE0.071 versus 0.141AE0.185 mSv/s, p¼0.005, respectively). No significant difference in image quality or duration of procedure was observed (all p values >0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with LDP, the use of ULDP was associated with a significantly lower rate of radiation exposure to proceduralists, patients, and scrub nurses without compromising the image quality or duration of procedure.

No abstract