Grace En Hui Lim1, Ansel Tang2, Cheng Han Ng2, Yip Han Chin2, Wen Hui Lim2, Darren Jun Hao Tan2, Jie Ning Yong2, Jieling Xiao2, Chloe Wen-Min Lee2, Mark Chan3, Nicholas Ws Chew4, Eunice Xiang Xuan Tan5, Mohammad Shadab Siddiqui6, Daniel Huang5, Mazen Noureddin7, Arun J Sanyal6, Mark D Muthiah8. 1. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. 2. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 3. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Department of Cardiology, National University Heart Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore. 4. Department of Cardiology, National University Heart Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore. 5. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore; National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Health System, Singapore. 6. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 7. Cedars-Sinai Fatty Liver Program, Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Department of Medicine, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 8. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore; National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Health System, Singapore. Electronic address: mdcmdm@nus.edu.sg.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The shift to redefine nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) as metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) can profoundly affect patient care, health care professionals, and progress within the field. To date, there remains no consensus on the characterization of NAFLD vs MAFLD. Thus, this study sought to compare the differences between the natural history of NAFLD and MAFLD. METHODS: Medline and Embase databases were searched to include articles on prevalence, risk factors, or outcomes of patients with MAFLD or NAFLD. Meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using the generalized linear mix model. Risk factors and outcomes were evaluated in conventional pairwise meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles involving 379,801 patients were included. Pooled prevalence of MAFLD was 39.22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.96%-48.15%) with the highest prevalence in Europe and Asia, followed by North America. The current MAFLD Definition only accounted for 81.59% (95% CI, 66.51%-90.82%) of NAFLD diagnoses. Patients had increased odds of being diagnosed with MAFLD compared with NAFLD (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.16-1.63; P < .001). Imaging modality resulted in a significantly higher odds of being diagnosed with MAFLD compared with NAFLD, but not biopsy. MAFLD was significantly associated with males, higher body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, lipids, transaminitis, and greater fibrosis scores compared with NAFLD. CONCLUSIONS: There were stark differences in the prevalence and risk factors between MAFLD and NAFLD. However, in the use of the MAFLD Definition, a greater emphasis on the management of concomitant metabolic diseases and a collaborative effort is required to explore the complex pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying the disease.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The shift to redefine nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) as metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) can profoundly affect patient care, health care professionals, and progress within the field. To date, there remains no consensus on the characterization of NAFLD vs MAFLD. Thus, this study sought to compare the differences between the natural history of NAFLD and MAFLD. METHODS: Medline and Embase databases were searched to include articles on prevalence, risk factors, or outcomes of patients with MAFLD or NAFLD. Meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using the generalized linear mix model. Risk factors and outcomes were evaluated in conventional pairwise meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles involving 379,801 patients were included. Pooled prevalence of MAFLD was 39.22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.96%-48.15%) with the highest prevalence in Europe and Asia, followed by North America. The current MAFLD Definition only accounted for 81.59% (95% CI, 66.51%-90.82%) of NAFLD diagnoses. Patients had increased odds of being diagnosed with MAFLD compared with NAFLD (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.16-1.63; P < .001). Imaging modality resulted in a significantly higher odds of being diagnosed with MAFLD compared with NAFLD, but not biopsy. MAFLD was significantly associated with males, higher body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, lipids, transaminitis, and greater fibrosis scores compared with NAFLD. CONCLUSIONS: There were stark differences in the prevalence and risk factors between MAFLD and NAFLD. However, in the use of the MAFLD Definition, a greater emphasis on the management of concomitant metabolic diseases and a collaborative effort is required to explore the complex pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying the disease.
Authors: Ansel Shao Pin Tang; Kai En Chan; Jingxuan Quek; Jieling Xiao; Phoebe Tay; Margaret Teng; Keng Siang Lee; Snow Yunni Lin; May Zin Myint; Benjamin Tan; Vijay K Sharma; Darren Jun Hao Tan; Wen Hui Lim; Apichat Kaewdech; Daniel Huang; Nicholas Ws Chew; Mohammad Shadab Siddiqui; Arun J Sanyal; Mark Muthiah; Cheng Han Ng Journal: Clin Mol Hepatol Date: 2022-03-02
Authors: Benjamin Kai Yi Nah; Cheng Han Ng; Kai En Chan; Caitlyn Tan; Manik Aggarwal; Rebecca Wenling Zeng; Jieling Xiao; Yip Han Chin; Eunice X X Tan; Yi Ping Ren; Douglas Chee; Jonathan Neo; Nicholas W S Chew; Michael Tseng; Mohammad Shadab Siddiqui; Arun J Sanyal; Yock Young Dan; Mark Muthiah Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.614