Abstract
The most common chronic liver illness worldwide is metabolic dysfunction linked to fatty liver disease (MAFLD), which is poorly understood by doctors and patients. Many people with this disease develop steatohepatitis, cirrhosis and its consequences, as well as extrahepatic manifestations; these conditions are particularly common if they are linked to diabetes mellitus or obesity. A breakthrough with numerous benefits is the switch from NAFLD to MAFLD in terms of terminology and methodology. The diagnosis of MAFLD is based on affirmative criteria; unlike NAFLD, it is no longer based on exclusion. The diagnosis of MAFLD and the evaluation of steatosis and fibrosis is achieved using liver biopsy and non-invasive laboratory or radiographic techniques. We briefly address the most recent developments in MAFLD epidemiology and diagnosis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Epidemiology of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD)
The global burden of fatty liver disease has increased noticeably in the past few decades, rising from 21.9% in 1991 to 37.3% in 2019 [1]. Despite being the most common chronic liver disease in the world today, not many people are aware of how common MAFLD is or how important it is to diagnose the condition. In a significant number of people, it can progress to steatohepatitis, cirrhosis and its consequences, particularly if it is accompanied by diabetes mellitus or obesity [2].
An international panel of experts proposed in 2019 to replace the outdated nomenclature of non-fatty liver disease (NAFLD) with metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) [3]. Positive criteria (hepatic steatosis with overweight or obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or metabolic dysregulation) are used by the MAFLD diagnostic algorithm as opposed to NAFLD [4]. The regional distribution of MAFLD varies with average worldwide prevalence approximately 33%. Sub-Saharan Africa reported the lowest global prevalence using ultrasound screening of ~ 14%, while South America reported the highest prevalence at 44% [5]. Younger people have a lower prevalence of the disease where it is estimated to be between 8.0 and 16.0% [6].
It should be noted that low degrees of steatosis can lead to incorrect and lower prevalence estimates; this is particularly the case when ultrasound is used as the diagnostic modality [7]. In patients with type 2 diabetes, MAFLD prevalence can reach up to 65%. MAFLD prevalence can also vary depending on the presence of comorbidities [8].
Natural history of MAFLD
The rs738409 C > G polymorphism in the human patatin-like phospholipase domain-containing-3 (PNPLA3) gene is linked to a genetic propensity to MAFLD. Compared to other genotypes, patients with the GG genotype have a higher chance of acquiring MAFLD. In cirrhosis patients, this polymorphism is also linked to hepatocellular cancer [9, 10].
In 4–7.1% of cases of MAFLD, steatohepatitis may develop, which can progress to cirrhosis within 10 years in a recent large retrospective cohort [5]. Once cirrhosis develops, progression to decompensated cirrhosis and/or liver cancer can ensue [11] (Table 1). Diabetes, increased liver enzymes, and hypertension are some of the risk factors that predict a higher rate of disease progression [12]. Patients with MAFLD have distinctive features associated with hepatocellular carcinoma. HCC in MAFLD has a bad prognosis, a late presentation, and a low response to curative therapy, and it can occur in the absence of cirrhosis.
Diagnosis of MAFLD
MAFLD is diagnosed when hepatic steatosis is detected by imaging, non-invasive biomarkers, or liver histology in an individual with evidence of metabolic dysregulation. The criteria for metabolic dysfunction are straightforward and include the presence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus, overweight or obesity, or clinical markers of metabolic dysfunction such as increased waist circumference or abnormal glycemia or lipid profiles. The extent of liver fibrosis can then be assessed by non-invasive methods such as elastography or liver biopsy. To distinguish between MAFLD and dual (or more) aetiology diseases, the patient should be assessed for other liver diseases, particularly viral hepatitis and alcohol use disorder. It should be noted, however, that the presence of another liver disease does not negate the diagnosis of co-existent MAFLD [4]. Table 1 illustrates the distinction between MAFLD and NAFLD (adopted from reference [14]).
The assessment of fibrosis and steatosis in MAFLD
Steatosis and fibrosis can be evaluated using non-invasive laboratory or radiographic techniques, or liver biopsy with histological evaluation.
Liver biopsy
Liver biopsy is indicated in cases of MAFLD to confirm a diagnosis in patients with an atypical presentation, in patients within the grey area, to estimate prognosis, and to identify individuals with additional causes for liver disease. A suitable liver specimen can be obtained by performing a percutaneous biopsy using a 16 G or larger needle under ultrasound guidance. An adequate specimen for histological interpretation needs to have ten or more portal tracts and be at least 2 cm in length. The fatty liver inhibition of progression (FLIP) algorithm, the Brunt score, the NAFLD activity score (NAS), and the steatosis, activity, and fibrosis (SAF) score are the commonly used systems to assess MAFLD biopsies. Emerging evidence suggests that the SAF score provides more robust histological assessment [14,15,16]. Liver biopsy, however, has many limitations such as inter-observer variability, sampling error, cost, and the low but definite risk of complications.
Interpretation of biopsy findings
Hematoxylin and eosin are used to detect morphological abnormalities, picrosirius red or Mallory's stain is used to detect fibrosis, and Perl's staining is used to diagnose hemosiderosis. The presence of steatosis, portal and lobular inflammation, and hepatocyte ballooning determines the severity of necroinflammation, which is classified as mild, moderate, or severe [17]. The sum of scores for steatosis, ballooning, and lobular inflammation add up to the NAS score. Cases with NAS ≥ 5 are labelled as definite metabolic associated steatohepatitis (MASH), whereas scores of 3 and 4 are borderline. Cases with NAS 0–2 are deemed not-MASH [18]. The inter-observer variability is improved using the SAF (steatosis, activity, and fibrosis) score [19]. For this score, fibrosis is categorised as (0) no fibrosis, (1) perisinusoidal fibrosis, (2) periportal and perisinusoidal fibrosis, (3) bridging fibrosis, and (4) cirrhosis.
Non-invasive tests (NITs)
NITs can be used to diagnose MAFLD, to assess the stage of disease, and to monitor treatment response. The diagnosis of MAFLD depends on identifying hepatic steatosis either by histology or imaging. While abdominal ultrasonography is often adequate for detecting hepatic steatosis, its sensitivity is low for steatosis < 20% [21]. The controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) can be obtained simultaneously with liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by vibration controlled transient elastography (VCTE). This method of detecting steatosis, however, is more qualitative than quantitative; if the CAP score is higher than a threshold, steatosis is considered to be present; nevertheless, the extent of steatosis does not correlate with higher readings. Although 248 dB/M is the most widely used cut-off, several studies have indicated higher optimal cut-offs, such as 288 dB/M and 302 dB/M. The choice of probe has an impact on CAP values and the M versus XL probes may yield different ideal cut points for the diagnosis of fatty liver. Theoretically, CAP can track alterations in hepatic steatosis over time [21,22,23].
When it comes to measuring liver fat, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods are considered the gold standard. Very small amounts of liver fat can be detected by magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) and MRI-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF). Currently, clinical research studies are the main indications for MRS and MRI-PDFF, given the cost and the need for specialised equipment [24].
Several simple scores have been suggested as substitutes for evaluating hepatic steatosis in large population studies. The fatty liver index (FLI) incorporating BMI, waist circumference, triglycerides, and GGT is one of the most frequently used scores. Its utility was recently confirmed in a large group of patients with MAFLD [26, 27]. A score known as the ultrasonographic fatty liver indicator (US FLI) can be used to rule out steatohepatitis when ultrasonographic features are closely inspected [27]. However, despite the recent notable progress in ultrasonography-based methods, it remains difficult to identify the inflammatory aspects of steatohepatitis using this technology. Further research is required to precisely identify the utility of the most advanced ultrasonographic techniques while reducing costs and increasing feasibility [28].
The degree of liver fibrosis in MAFLD has the strongest relationship with morbidity, liver-related outcomes, and death. NITs for fibrosis can be divided into three categories: specific fibrosis biomarkers, imaging biomarkers, and simple fibrosis scores [28, 29].
Simple fibrosis scores: these scores are inexpensive, reproducible, and widely validated. They involve clinical and routine laboratory parameters including FIB-4 (fibrosis-4 index), APRI (aspartate aminotransferase (AST)-to-platelet ratio index, and the NFS (NAFLD fibrosis score). Patients can be defined as being at low or high risk for advanced fibrosis for each score according to the following cut-offs: FIB-4 (1.30 and 2.67), APRI (0.5 and 1.5), and NFS (< − 1.455 and > 0.67611). These scores are well suited for use as an initial assessment in primary-care or resource-poor settings [31,32,33,34]. The inclusion of liver enzymes in the models represents a significant constraint as their levels might be normal in the presence of fibrosis. Further, liver enzymes vary with age [34].
In specialised settings, fibrosis markers can direct patient care. Among these is the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) panel, which demonstrated good overall accuracy in several observational studies and clinical trials. The N-terminal type III collagen peptide (Pro-C3) is another biomarker that indicates production of type III collagen. The ADAPT algorithm has an area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of 0.87 for advanced fibrosis and incorporates age, T2DM, Pro-C3, and platelet count. In low-risk population-based, and tertiary hospital cohorts, it has good diagnosis accuracy for advanced fibrosis [35,36,37].
A novel nomograph-based non-invasive model was found to be more accurate in diagnosing patients with MAFLD and determining their risk of significant fibrosis than APRI, NFS, and FIB-4. This model combined the waist-to-height ratio (WHTR), hyaluronidase (HA), serum collagen type III N-telopeptide (P3NP), chitinase 3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1), and CK-18 M65 [38]. The following five variables were then used to create an MLA model in 2021: serum procollagen type III (PC-III), albumin–globulin (A/G) ratio, BMI, collagen type IV (IV–C), and AST. MLA has the highest diagnosis accuracy in comparison to other diagnostic models [39] in patient cohorts [35,36,37].
Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by VCTE is a commonly used method that is favoured over biopsy. The majority of patients with MAFLD can have their stiffness measured using the XL probe. For good quality, there must be a minimum of 10 measurements, more than 60% of which must be valid, and the ratio of the median valid LSM to IQR must not be greater than 0.3. Compared to VCTE, magnetic resonance elastography is more accurate, but its wider application is constrained by cost and availability [40,41,42,43]. Shear wave elastography is another option for measuring liver stiffness and has diagnostic performance similar to VCTE for advanced hepatic fibrosis. The FAST score combines AST with CAP and liver stiffness measurement by VCTE and achieves a c-statistic of 0.74–0.95 for the detection of steatohepatitis with fibrosis [44].
Diagnosis of MAFLD cirrhosis
Because hepatic steatosis can disappear with progression to cirrhosis, patients with cirrhosis who meet the other diagnostic criteria for MAFLD are considered to have MAFLD associated cirrhosis [4]. In individuals with MAFLD, fibrosis severity can be reliably assessed by LSM, which can also be utilised to identify cirrhosis. Even though cirrhosis in some instances can be identified using ultrasonography, liver fat can mask the diagnosis. Thus, it is imperative to assess MAFLD cirrhosis using methods other than ultrasonography [45] LSM < 10 kPa rules out compensated advanced chronic liver disease, while LSM > 15 kPa is strongly suggestive and 10–15 kPa is suggestive [46]. Patients with MAFLD who have thrombocytopenia and/or LSM > 20–25 kPa are likely to have clinically significant portal hypertension and should have variceal screening by endoscopy. On the other hand, MAFLD patients with LSM > 15 kPa ought to be under HCC surveillance. The prognosis of MAFLD patients may also be evaluated by LSM, and the risk of death increases with increasing LSM [46, 47].
In most instances, liver biopsy is not indicated and will not alter patient management in the context of MAFLD cirrhosis. As per the 2022 APASL guidelines [48], individuals with cirrhosis who do not have conventional histology and who fit the following descriptions can be diagnosed with cirrhosis related to MAFLD: evidence of metabolic risk factors, either past or present, that satisfy the requirements for diagnosing MAFLD with at least one of the following: (1) Documentation of MAFLD on a previous liver biopsy. (2) Historical documentation of steatosis by hepatic imaging. A history of past alcohol intake should be taken into consideration as patients may have dual disease etiology with alcohol use disorder.
Diagnosis and impact of MAFLD in the setting of other liver diseases
MAFLD has the potential to coexist with other liver disease, including primary hemochromatosis, alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD), chronic hepatitis B virus infection (CHB), and chronic hepatitis C virus infection (CHC). A diagnosis of mixed or dual etiology liver disease should be made if the patient meets the criteria for a diagnosis of MAFLD plus one or more other, less common causes of fatty liver, either at baseline or during follow-up. Examples of these include long-term use of steatogenic medications, HCV genotype 3 infection, and Wilson disease [48].
Notably, MAFLD may synergistically cause liver cirrhosis or possibly the development of HCC in individuals with ARLD and CHB [49, 50]. As a result, patients with MAFLD should have any concurrent liver diseases thoroughly assessed and managed as appropriate. Moreover, underlying systemic metabolic dysfunction in MAFLD may increase the risk of cardiometabolic events in patients with other liver disease.
More research is needed to understand the natural history, therapeutic responsiveness, and prognosis of MAFLD patients with ARLD. The diagnosis of dual etiology fatty liver disease will be aided by a thorough history obtained during the patient interview, including information about past and present alcohol consumption. Recent research has produced a wealth of information challenging the so-called “safe limits” for alcohol use in the context of MAFLD [51, 52], since even modest alcohol consumption may raise the risk of cirrhosis and cancer [53,54,55] and reduce the rate at which steatohepatitis improves. Thus, it is wise to counsel MAFLD patients to abstain from alcohol or to consume it sparingly.
In studies from some parts of the world, it has been estimated that 38% of people with CHC have concomitant MAFLD [56]. In individuals with CHC, MAFLD considerably increases the rate at which liver disease progresses, the responsiveness to treatment, and the emergence of certain extrahepatic complications. It has also been shown that eliminating hepatitis C virus with direct-acting antiviral medications, or earlier with interferon therapy, reduces adverse liver outcomes and insulin resistance. A recent study from Thailand revealed that MAFLD was independently linked to an elevated risk of advanced liver fibrosis in CHB patients, suggesting that MAFLD may hasten the progression of this liver disease. Another study showed that in individuals with CHB, MAFLD alone enhanced the probability of developing HCC by 7.3-fold [57, 58]. Poor outcomes and chronically abnormal liver tests in persons with CHB and/or CHC infection following virological suppression or sustained virological response are pointers to the likely existence of MAFLD. Treatment for MAFLD in this group should, therefore, be prioritised [59,60,61,62].
In conclusion, metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease is the most prevalent liver disease in the world today. The identification of this disease is aided by the recently developed diagnostic framework, which will expand knowledge of the condition's natural history and management.
References
Le MH, Yeo YH, Li X, Li J, Zou B, Wu Y, et al. 2019 global NAFLD prevalence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(12):2809-2817.e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2021.12.002
Cusi K, Isaacs S, Barb D, Basu R, Caprio S, Garvey WT, et al. American association of clinical endocrinology clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in primary care and endocrinology clinical settings: co-sponsored by the American association for the study of liver diseases (AASLD). Endocr Pract. 2022;28(5):528–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eprac.2022.03.010
Eslam M, Sanyal AJ, George J. on behalf of an international consensus panel, MAFLD: a consensus-driven proposed nomenclature for metabolic associated fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.312
Eslam M, Newsome PN, Sarin SK, Anstee QM, Targher G, Romero-Gomez M, et al. A new definition for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: an international expert consensus statement. J Hepatol. 2020;73(1):202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2020.03.039
Wong VW, Ekstedt M, Wong GL, Hagström H. Changing epidemiology, global trends and implications for outcomes of NAFLD. J Hepatol. 2023;79(3):842–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2023.04.036
Raj SV, Ismail M, Chan WK, Majid HA. A systematic review on factors associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) among adolescents. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2023;57:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2023.06.014
Ferraioli G, Soares Monteiro LB. Ultrasound-based techniques for the diagnosis of liver steatosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25(40):6053–6062. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i40.6053
Ajmera V, Cepin S, Tesfai K, Hofflich H, Cadman K, Lopez S, et al. A prospective study on the prevalence of NAFLD, advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma in people with type 2 diabetes. J Hepatol. 2023;78(3):471–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2022.11.010
Romeo S, Kozlitina J, Xing C, Pertsemlidis A, Cox D, Pennacchio LA, et al. Genetic variation in PNPLA3 confers susceptibility to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Nat Genet. 2008;2008(40):1461–1465
Shen JH, Li YL, Li D, Wang NN, Jing L, Huang YH. The rs738409 (I148M) variant of the PNPLA3 gene and cirrhosis: a meta-analysis. J Lipid Res. 2015;56(1):167–175. https://doi.org/10.1194/jlr.M048777
Alqahtani SA, Chan WK, Yu ML. Hepatic outcomes of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease including cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Liver Dis. 2023;27(2):211–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cld.2023.01.019
Miller MJ, Harding-Theobald E, DiBattista JV, Zhao Z, Wijarnpreecha K, Lok AS, et al. Progression to cirrhosis is similar among all ages in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, but liver-related events increase with age. Hepatol Commun. 2023;7(6):e0148. https://doi.org/10.1097/HC9.0000000000000148
Fouad Y. Metabolic-associated fatty liver disease: new nomenclature and approach with hot debate. World J Hepatol. 2023;15(2):123–128
Allen AM, Therneau TM, Ahmed OT, Gidener T, Mara KC, Larson JJ, et al. Clinical course of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and the implications for clinical trial design. J Hepatol. 2022;77(5):1237–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2022.07.004
Chan WK, Treeprasertsuk S, Goh GB, Fan JG, Song MJ, Charatcharoenwitthaya P, et al. Optimizing use of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score, fibrosis-4 score, and liver stiffness measurement to identify patients with advanced fibrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17:2570–80.e37
Spinzi G, Terruzzi V, Minoli G. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:2030
Brunt EM, Janney CG, Di Bisceglie AM, Neuschwander-Tetri B, Bacon BR. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a proposal for grading and staging the histological lesions. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:2467–2474
Brunt EM, Janney CG, Di Bisceglie AM, Uschwander-Tetri BA, Bacon BR. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a proposal for grading and staging the histological lesions. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:2467–2474
Kleiner DE, Brunt EM, Van Natta M, Behling C, Contos MJ, Cummings OW, et al. Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2005;41:1313–1321
Bedossa P, Consortium FP. Utility and appropriateness of the fatty liver inhibition of progression (FLIP) algorithm and steatosis, activity, and fibrosis (SAF) score in the evaluation of biopsies of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2014;60:565–575
Hernaez R, Lazo M, Bonekamp S, Kamel I, Brancati FL, Guallar E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of ultrasonography for the detection of fatty liver: a meta-analysis. Hepatology. 2011;54:1082–1090
Karlas T, Petroff D, Sasso M, Fan JG, Mi YQ, de Lédinghen V, et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) technology for assessing steatosis. J Hepatol. 2017;66:1022–1030
Caussy C, Alquiraish MH, Nguyen P, Hernandez C, Cepin S, Fortney LE, et al. Optimal threshold of controlled attenuation parameter with MRI-PDFF as the gold standard for the detection of hepatic steatosis. Hepatology. 2018;67:1348–1359
Wong VW, Petta S, Hiriart JB, Cammà C, Wong GL, Marra F, et al. Validity criteria for the diagnosis of fatty liver by M probe-based controlled attenuation parameter. J Hepatol. 2017;67:577–584
Caussy C, Reeder SB, Sirlin CB, Loomba R. Noninvasive, quantitative assessment of liver fat by MRI-PDFF as an endpoint in NASH trials. Hepatology. 2018;68:763–772
Bedogni G, Bellentani S, Miglioli L, Masutti F, Passalacqua M, Castiglione A, et al. The fatty liver index: a simple and accurate predictor of hepatic steatosis in the general population. BMC Gastroenterol. 2006;6:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-6-33
Xu Z, Li H, Tian S, Wu J, Li X, Liu ZL, et al. Blood biomarkers for the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis in metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2020;73:1264–1265
Ballestri S, Lonardo A, Romagnoli D, Carulli L, Losi L, Day CP, et al. Ultrasonographic fatty liver indicator, a novel score which rules out NASH and is correlated with metabolic parameters in NAFLD. Liver Int. 2012;32:1242–1252
Ballestri S, Nascimbeni F, Lugari S, Lonardo A, Francica G. A critical appraisal of the use of ultrasound in hepatic steatosis. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;13(7):667–681
Taylor RS, Taylor RJ, Bayliss S, Hagstrom H, Nasr P, Schattenberg JM, et al. Association between fibrosis stage and outcomes of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(1611–1625):e1612
Wai C-T, Greenson JK, Fontana RJ, Kalbfleisch JD, Marrero JA, Conjeevaram HS, et al. A simple noninvasive index can predict both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology. 2003;38(518–26):58
Sterling RK, Lissen E, Clumeck N, Sola R, Correa MC, Montaner J, et al. Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. Hepatology. 2006;43(1317–25):59
Angulo P, Hui JM, Marchesini G, Bugianesi E, George J, Farrell GC, et al. The NAFLD fibrosis score: a noninvasive system that identifies liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Hepatology. 2007;45:846–854
Kaya E, Bakir A, Eren F, Yilmaz Y. The utility of noninvasive scores in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease patients with normal and elevated serum transaminases. Hepatol Forum. 2020;1:8
Mofrad P, Contos MJ, Haque M, Sargeant C, Fisher RA, Luketic VA, et al. Clinical and histologic spectrum of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease associated with normal ALT values. Hepatology. 2003;37:1286–1292
Gao F, Huang JF, Zheng KI, Pan XY, Ma HL, Liu WY, et al. Development and validation of a novel non-invasive test for diagnosing fibrotic non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in patients with biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.15055
Zheng KI, Liu WY, Pan XY, Ma HL, Zhu PW, Wu XX, et al. Combined and sequential non-invasive approach to diagnosing non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and persistently normal alanine aminotransferase levels. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001174
Zhou Y, Ye F, Li Y, Pan X, Chen Y, Wu X, et al. Individualized risk prediction of significant fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease using a novel nomogram. UEG Journal. 2019;7:1124–1134
Feng G, Zheng KI, Li Y-Y, Rios RS, Zhu PW, Pan XY, et al. Machine learning algorithm outperforms fibrosis markers in predicting significant fibrosis in biopsy-confirmed NAFLD. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2021;28:593–603
Anstee QM, Lawitz EJ, Alkhouri N, Wong VW, Romero-Gomez M, Okanoue T, et al. Noninvasive tests accurately identify advanced fibrosis due to NASH: baseline data from the STELLAR trials. Hepatology. 2019;70:1521–1530
Lee HW, Wong GL, Kwok R, Choi KC, Chan CK, Shu SS, et al. Serial transient elastography examinations to monitor patients with type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Hepatology. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.31142
Shiha GE, El-Etreby S, Bahgat M, Hamed M, El Sherbini M, Ghoneem EA, et al. Chronic hepatitis C patients with obesity: Do we need two operators for accurate evaluation of liver stiffness? Ann Hepatol. 2018;17:795–801
Wong VW, Irles M, Wong GL, Shili S, Chan AW, Merrouche W, et al. Unified interpretation of liver stiffness measurement by M and XL probes in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Gut. 2019;68:2057–2564
Xiao G, Zhu S, Xiao X, Yan L, Yang J, Wu G. Comparison of laboratory tests, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance elastography to detect fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis. Hepatology. 2017;66:1486–1501
Wong VW, Vergniol J, Wong GL, Foucher J, Chan HL, Le Bail B, et al. Diagnosis of fibrosis and cirrhosis using liver stiffness measurement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2010;51:454–462
De Franchis R, Baveno VIF. Expanding consensus in portal hypertension: report of the Baveno VI Consensus Workshop: stratifying risk and individualizing care for portal hypertension. J Hepatol. 2015;63:743–752
Boursier J, Vergniol J, Guillet A, Hiriart JB, Lannes A, Le Bail B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and prognostic significance of blood fibrosis tests and liver stiffness measurement by FibroScan in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016;65:570–578
Eslam M, Sarin SK, Wong VW, Fan JG, Kawaguchi T, Ahn SH, et al. The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of metabolic associated fatty liver disease. Hepatol Int. 2020;14(6):889–919
Choi HS, Brouwer WP, Zanjir WM, de Man RA, Feld JJ, Hansen BE, et al. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is associated with liver-related outcomes and all-cause mortality in chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology. 2020;71:539–548
Chiang DJ, McCullough AJ. The impact of obesity and metabolic syndrome on alcoholic liver disease. Clin Liver Dis. 2014;18:157
Griswold MG, Fullman N, Hawley C, Arian N, Zimsen SR, Tymeson HD, et al. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2018;392:1015–1035
Chang Y, Cho YK, Kim Y, Sung E, Ahn J, Jung HS, et al. Nonheavy DRINKING and worsening of noninvasive fibrosis markers in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a cohort study. Hepatology. 2019;69:64–75
Ajmera V, Belt P, Wilson LA, Gill RM, Loomba R, Kleiner DE, et al. Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, modest alcohol use is associated with less improvement in histologic steatosis and steatohepatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16(1511–1520):e1515
Ekstedt M, Franzén LE, Holmqvist M, Bendtsen P, Mathiesen UL, Bodemar G, et al. Alcohol consumption is associated with progression of hepatic fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:366–374
Eslam M, Sanyal AJ, George J. Toward more accurate nomenclature for fatty liver diseases. Gastroenterology. 2019;157:590–593
Younossi ZM, McCullough AJ, Ong JP, Barnes DS, Post A, Tavill A, et al. Obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in chronic hepatitis C. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2004;38:705–709
Tada T, Kumada T, Toyoda H, Sone Y, Takeshima K, Ogawa S, et al. Viral eradication reduces both liver stiffness and steatosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection who received direct-acting anti-viral therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47:1012–1022
Eslam M, Khattab MA, Harrison SA. Insulin resistance and hepatitis C: an evolving story. Gut. 2011;60:1139–1151
Charatcharoenwitthaya P, Pongpaibul A, Kaosombatwattana U, Bhanthumkomol P, Bandidniyamanon W, Pausawasdi N, et al. The prevalence of steatohepatitis in chronic hepatitis B patients and its impact on disease severity and treatment response. Liver Int. 2017;37:542–551
Chan AW, Wong GL, Chan HY, Tong JH, Yu YH, Choi PC, et al. Concurrent fatty liver increases risk of hepatocellular carcinoma among patients with chronic hepatitis B. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;32:667–676
Noureddin M, Wong MM, Todo T, Lu SC, Sanyal AJ, Mena EA. Fatty liver in hepatitis C patients post-sustained virological response with direct-acting antivirals. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24:1269
Peleg N, Issachar A, Arbib OS, Cohen-Naftaly M, Braun M, Leshno M, et al. Liver steatosis is a strong predictor of mortality and cancer in chronic hepatitis B regardless of viral load. JHEP Rep. 2019;1:9–16
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). No funding was obtained or required for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors shared conceptualization and designed the idea. Yasser Fouad wrote the initial draft. All authors revised the manuscript and approved the final version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors have nothing to disclose relevant to this work.
Human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Fouad, Y., Alboraie, M. & Shiha, G. Epidemiology and diagnosis of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease. Hepatol Int (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-024-10704-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-024-10704-3