Evidence Hub

High Seroprevalence of Autoantibodies Typical of Autoimmune Liver Disease in Eastern Ethiopia: Is Chewing of Khat (Catha edulis) a Triggering Factor?

Orlien SMS, Ahmed TA, Ismael NY, Berhe N, Lauritzen T, Gundersen SG, Johannessen A

Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2018

104 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have identified chewing of khat (Catha edulis) as an independent risk factor for liver injury; however, the pathogenetic mechanism remains poorly understood. Case series have found markers of autoimmune hepatitis in patients with khat-related liver disease, suggesting that khat chewing might trigger an autoimmune response. The aims of the present study were (i) to assess the prevalence of autoantibodies typical for autoimmune liver diseases in a healthy population in Ethiopia and (ii) to explore the hypothesis that khat usage triggers autoimmunity.

METHODS: Consenting adults (≥18 years) without known autoimmune disease or manifest liver disease were included. One-hundred-and-sixty-nine individuals with current khat use were compared to 104 individuals who never used khat. Seroprevalence of antinuclear (ANA), antismooth muscle (SMA), and antimitochondrial antibodies (AMA) were determined and compared between the groups using logistic regression models to adjust for age and sex.

RESULTS: Overall, 2.6% of the study subjects were positive for ANA, 15.4% for SMA, and 25.6% for AMA. When comparing khat users to nonusers, ANA was detected in 4.1% vs. 0% (p=0.047), SMA in 16.0% vs. 14.4% (p=0.730), and AMA in 24.9% vs. 26.9% (p=0.704). ANA was excluded from multivariable analysis since there was no seropositive in the reference group. After adjusting for sex and age, no significant association between khat use and SMA or AMA was found.

CONCLUSIONS: No…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 104 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free