Catherine A. Hooker
University of California, San Diego
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Catherine A. Hooker.
Hepatology | 2015
Rohit Loomba; Claude B. Sirlin; Brandon Ang; Ricki Bettencourt; Rashmi Jain; Joanie Salotti; Linda Soaft; Jonathan Hooker; Yuko Kono; Archana Bhatt; Laura Hernandez; Phirum Nguyen; Mazen Noureddin; William Haufe; Catherine A. Hooker; Meng Yin; Richard L. Ehman; Grace Y. Lin; Mark A. Valasek; David A. Brenner; Lisa Richards
Ezetimibe inhibits intestinal cholesterol absorption and lowers low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that it reduces liver fat as estimated by ultrasound in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Therefore, we aimed to examine the efficacy of ezetimibe versus placebo in reducing liver fat by the magnetic resonance imaging‐derived proton density‐fat fraction (MRI‐PDFF) and liver histology in patients with biopsy‐proven NASH. In this randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial, 50 patients with biopsy‐proven NASH were randomized to either ezetimibe 10 mg orally daily or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in liver fat as measured by MRI‐PDFF in colocalized regions of interest within each of the nine liver segments. Novel assessment by two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional magnetic resonance elastography was also performed. Ezetimibe was not significantly better than placebo at reducing liver fat as measured by MRI‐PDFF (mean difference between the ezetimibe and placebo arms ‐1.3%, P = 0.4). Compared to baseline, however, end‐of‐treatment MRI‐PDFF was significantly lower in the ezetimibe arm (15%‐11.6%, P < 0.016) but not in the placebo arm (18.5%‐16.4%, P = 0.15). There were no significant differences in histologic response rates, serum alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels, or longitudinal changes in two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional magnetic resonance elastography‐derived liver stiffness between the ezetimibe and placebo arms. Compared to histologic nonresponders (25/35), histologic responders (10/35) had a significantly greater reduction in MRI‐PDFF (‐4.35 ± 4.9% versus ‐0.30 ± 4.1%, P < 0.019). Conclusions: Ezetimibe did not significantly reduce liver fat in NASH. This trial demonstrates the application of colocalization of MRI‐PDFF‐derived fat maps and magnetic resonance elastography‐derived stiffness maps of the liver before and after treatment to noninvasively assess treatment response in NASH. (Hepatology 2015;61:1239–1250)
Journal of Hepatology | 2016
Jeffrey Cui; Len Philo; Phirum Nguyen; Heather Hofflich; Carolyn Hernandez; Ricki Bettencourt; Lisa Richards; Joanie Salotti; Archana Bhatt; Jonathan Hooker; William Haufe; Catherine A. Hooker; David A. Brenner; Claude B. Sirlin; Rohit Loomba
BACKGROUND & AIMS Uncontrolled studies show sitagliptin, an oral DPP-4 inhibitor, may improve alanine aminotransferase and liver histology in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients. We aimed to compare sitagliptin vs. the efficacy of a placebo in reducing liver fat measured by MRI-derived proton density-fat fraction (MRI-PDFF). METHODS This randomized, double-blind, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled trial included 50 NAFLD patients with prediabetes or early diabetes randomized to sitagliptin orally 100mg/day or placebo for 24weeks. Primary outcome was liver fat change measured by MRI-PDFF in colocalized regions of interest within each of nine liver segments. Additional advanced assessments included MR spectroscopy (MRS) for internal validation of MRI-PDFFs accuracy, and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and FIBROSpect® II to assess liver fibrosis. RESULTS Sitagliptin was not significantly better than placebo in reducing liver fat measured by MRI-PDFF (mean difference between sitagliptin and placebo arms: -1.3%, p=0.4). Compared to baseline, there were no significant differences in end-of-treatment MRI-PDFF for sitagliptin (18.1% to 16.9%, p=0.27) or placebo (16.6% to 14.0%, p=0.07). The groups had no significant differences for changes in alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, low-density lipoprotein, homeostatic model assessment insulin resistance, and MRE-derived liver stiffness. In both groups at baseline and post-treatment, MRI-PDFF and MRS showed robust correlation coefficients ranging from r(2)=0.96 to r(2)=0.99 (p<0.0001), demonstrating the strong internal validity of the findings. FIBROSpect® II showed no changes in the sitagliptin group but was significantly increased in the placebo group (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Sitagliptin was safe but not better than placebo in reducing liver fat in prediabetic or diabetic patients with NAFLD. LAY SUMMARY In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the anti-diabetic drug sitagliptin was no more effective than placebo for improving liver fat and liver fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. This study demonstrates that non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging techniques, including magnetic resonance imaging-proton density-fat fraction and magnetic resonance elastography, can be used to assess treatment response in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease clinical trials.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging | 2015
Nathan S. Artz; William Haufe; Catherine A. Hooker; Gavin Hamilton; Tanya Wolfson; Guilherme M. Campos; Anthony Gamst; Jeffrey B. Schwimmer; Claude B. Sirlin; Scott B. Reeder
To examine the reproducibility of quantitative magnetic resonance (MR) methods to estimate hepatic proton density fat‐fraction (PDFF) at different magnetic field strengths.
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology | 2016
Janki Patel; Ricki Bettencourt; Jeffrey Cui; Joanie Salotti; Jonathan Hooker; Archana Bhatt; Carolyn Hernandez; Phirum Nguyen; H. Aryafar; Mark A. Valasek; William Haufe; Catherine A. Hooker; Lisa Richards; Claude B. Sirlin; Rohit Loomba
Background: Magnetic resonance imaging-estimated proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) has been shown to be a noninvasive, accurate and reproducible imaging-based biomarker for assessing steatosis and treatment response in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) clinical trials. However, there are no data on the magnitude of MRI-PDFF reduction corresponding to histologic response in the setting of a NASH clinical trial. The aim of this study was to quantitatively compare the magnitude of MRI-PDFF reduction between histologic responders versus histologic nonresponders in NASH patients. Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of the MOZART trial, which included 50 patients with biopsy-proven NASH randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg/day orally or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary aim was to perform a head-to-head comparative analysis of histologic responders [defined as a ⩾2-point reduction in the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) Activity Score (NAS) without worsening fibrosis] versus nonresponders, and the corresponding quantitative change in liver fat content measured via MRI-PDFF. Results: Of the 35 patients who underwent paired liver biopsy and MRI-PDFF assessment at the beginning and end of treatment, 10 demonstrated a histologic response. Compared with histologic nonresponders, histologic responders had a statistically significant reduction in MRI-PDFF of −4.1% ± 4.9 versus −0.6 ± 4.1 (p < 0.04) with a mean relative percent change of −29.3% ± 33.0 versus +2.0% ± 24.0 (p < 0.004), respectively. Conclusions: Utilizing paired MRI-PDFF and liver histology data, we demonstrate that a relative reduction of 29% in liver fat on MRI-PDFF is associated with a histologic response in NASH. After external validation by independent research groups, these results can be incorporated into designing future NASH clinical trials, especially those utilizing change in hepatic fat quantified by MRI-PDFF, as a treatment endpoint.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging | 2017
Gavin Hamilton; Alexandra Schlein; Michael S. Middleton; Catherine A. Hooker; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony Gamst; Rohit Loomba; Claude B. Sirlin
To investigate the regional variability of adipose tissue triglyceride composition in vivo using 1H MRS, examining potential confounders and corrections for artifacts, to allow for adipose tissue spectrum estimation.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging | 2017
William Haufe; Tanya Wolfson; Catherine A. Hooker; Jonathan Hooker; Yesenia Covarrubias; Alex N. Schlein; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S. Middleton; Jorge E. Angeles; Diego Hernando; Scott B. Reeder; Jeffrey B. Schwimmer; Claude B. Sirlin
To assess and compare the accuracy of magnitude‐based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI‐M) and complex‐based MRI (MRI‐C) for estimating hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) in children, using MR spectroscopy (MRS) as the reference standard. A secondary aim was to assess the agreement between MRI‐M and MRI‐C.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging | 2018
Charlie C. Park; Catherine A. Hooker; Jonathan Hooker; Emily Bass; William Haufe; Alexandra Schlein; Yesenia Covarrubias; Elhamy Heba; Mark Bydder; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony Gamst; Rohit Loomba; Jeffrey B. Schwimmer; Diego Hernando; Scott B. Reeder; Michael S. Middleton; Claude B. Sirlin; Gavin Hamilton
Improving the signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) of chemical‐shift‐encoded MRI acquisition with complex reconstruction (MRI‐C) may improve the accuracy and precision of noninvasive proton density fat fraction (PDFF) quantification in patients with hepatic steatosis.
Gastroenterology | 2017
Michael S. Middleton; Elhamy Heba; Catherine A. Hooker; Mustafa R. Bashir; Kathryn J. Fowler; Kumar Sandrasegaran; Elizabeth M. Brunt; David E. Kleiner; Edward Doo; Mark L. Van Natta; Joel E. Lavine; Brent A. Neuschwander-Tetri; Arun J. Sanyal; Rohit Loomba; Claude B. Sirlin
Journal of Hepatology | 2016
Jeffrey Cui; Len Philo; Phirum Nguyen; Heather Hofflich; Carolyn Hernandez; Ricki Bettencourt; Lisa Richards; Joanie Salotti; Archana Bhatt; Jonathan Hooker; William Haufe; Catherine A. Hooker; David A. Brenner; Claude B. Sirlin; Rohit Loomba
Author | 2017
Michael S. Middleton; Elhamy Heba; Catherine A. Hooker; Mustafa R. Bashir; Kathryn J. Fowler; Kumar Sandrasegaran; Elizabeth M. Brunt; David E. Kleiner; Edward Doo; Mark L. Van Natta; James Tonascia; Joel E. Lavine; Brent A. Neuschwander-Tetri; Arun J. Sanyal; Rohit Loomba; Claude B. Sirlin