Serum Fibrosis Tests Guide Prognosis in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fatty Liver Disease Patients Referred From Primary Care

Meta-Analysis: Global Prevalence and Mortality of Cirrhosis in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is responsible for a significant global health burden. Despite this burden, the prevalence and mortality of MASLD-related cirrhosis remain inadequately defined, hindering effective public health strategies. This study aimed to estimate the global prevalence and mortality associated with MASLD-related cirrhosis.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and SCOPUS was conducted using keywords related to MASLD and cirrhosis from inception of each database used through June 2024. COVIDENCE was used for abstract and manuscript review. MASLD populations were categorised into 'general practice setting' and 'high risk setting', which indicated studies from inpatient setting or those referred for liver biopsy for an indication (elevated liver enzymes). Our data extraction and quality assessment followed PRISMA guidelines. A random-effects model was utilised for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

From 7924 identified articles, 35 studies comprising 513,742 patients with MASLD met the inclusion criteria. The pooled global prevalence of cirrhosis among MASLD patients was 3.26% (95% CI: 2.47%-4.31%) in general practice settings (4 studies) and 14.51% (95% CI: 11.22%-18.57%) among those in inpatient settings or referred for liver biopsy (31 studies). Regionally, higher prevalence rates in high-risk settings were observed in North America and Australia (18.38%; 95% CI: 9.06%-33.75%), followed by Europe (10.16%; 95% CI: 5.71%-17.44%) and Asia (9.12%; 95% CI: 6.11%-13.40%) (p = 0.007). Notably, ICD-based diagnoses indicated a significantly higher prevalence of cirrhosis (27.43%) compared to those diagnosed by liver biopsy (13.24%; p < 0.001). The pooled all-cause mortality rate for MASLD-cirrhosis patients was estimated at 7.91 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 4.44-13.71) (9 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis underscores the substantial prevalence of cirrhosis among MASLD patients and highlights significant geographic and demographic variability, calling for improved screening and management strategies.

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Evolution of the final terminology

The medical term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was coined in 1986 for a condition that has since become the most prevalent liver disorder worldwide. In the last 3 years, the global professional community launched 2 consecutive efforts to purge NAFLD from the medical dictionary and recommended new terms based on disease pathophysiology rather than distinction from similar conditions featuring liver steatosis. A consensus by renowned clinical scholars primarily residing in the Asian-Pacific region introduced metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) as a new name to replace NAFLD in 2020. In 2023, a nomenclature and classification resulting in the term metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) was developed by a large expert panel under the auspices of leading liver societies from Europe and Americas. These marked and rapid shifts in nomenclature have garnered the attention of many researchers and clinicians across the globe due to the multilevel impact of a frequent and potentially progressive chronic liver disease in both adult and pediatric populations. The proposed terminologies differ in several ways but they have more in common than differences. They both capture key features of liver disease associated with cardiometabolic risk factors and with significant impact on all-cause and liver-related mortality. The framework of MASLD has incorporated many innovative aspects of MAFLD and while several conceptual disparities remain a work in progress, global efforts should focus on new insights into disease pathogenesis, outcome trajectories, prevention, and treatment. Here, some of these challenges are discussed to facilitate this process.

Serum biomarkers for liver fibrosis assessment

Liver fibrosis is the result of chronic liver injury of different etiologies produced by an imbalance between the synthesis and degeneration of the extracellular matrix and dysregulation of physiological mechanisms. Liver has a high regenerative capacity in the early stage of chronic diseases so a prompt liver fibrosis detection is important. Consequently, an easy and economic tool that could identify patients with liver fibrosis at the initial stages is needed. To achieve this, many non-invasive serum direct, such as hyaluronic acid or metalloproteases, and indirect biomarkers have been proposed to evaluate liver fibrosis. Also, there have been developed formulas that combine these biomarkers, some of them also introduce clinical and/or demographic parameters, like FIB-4, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score (NFS), enhance liver fibrosis (ELF) or Hepamet fibrosis score (HFS). In this manuscript we critically reviewed different serum biomarkers and formulas for their utility in the diagnosis and progression of liver fibrosis.

Biomarcadores séricos para la evaluación de la fibrosis hepática

La fibrosis hepática se desarrolla como respuesta a la presencia de daño hepático crónico de diferentes etiologías, provocando un desequilibrio entre la síntesis y degeneración de la matriz extracelular y la desregulación de diversos mecanismos fisiológicos. En los estadios iniciales de las patologías crónicas, el hígado posee una elevada capacidad de regeneración, por lo que la detección temprana de la fibrosis hepática resulta esencial. En este contexto, es preciso contar con herramientas sencillas y económicas que permitan detectar la fibrosis hepática en sus fases iniciales. Para evaluar la fibrosis hepática, se han propuesto multitud de biomarcadores séricos no invasivos, tanto directos, como el ácido hialurónico o las metaloproteasas, como indirectos. Así mismo, se han desarrollado diversas fórmulas que combinan dichos biomarcadores junto con parámetros demográficos, como el índice FIB-4, el índice de fibrosis en la enfermedad de hígado graso no alcohólico (NFS, por sus siglas en inglés), la prueba ELF o el score de fibrosis Hepamet (HFS, por sus siglas en inglés). En el presente manuscrito, realizamos una revisión crítica del valor diagnóstico y pronóstico de los diferentes biomarcadores séricos y fórmulas actualmente existentes.

Poor Diagnostic Efficacy of Noninvasive Tests for Advanced Fibrosis in Obese or Younger Than 60 Diabetic NAFLD patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Serum-based noninvasive tests (NITs) have been widely used to assess liver fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, the diagnostic efficacy of NITs across ranges of age, body mass index (BMI), and presence of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) may vary and have not been well-characterized.

METHODS

We analyzed 1489 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from 6 centers in Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. Using histology as the gold standard, we compared the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROCs) of Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), and the new Hepamet fibrosis score (HFS), with a focus on performance in subgroups as stratified by age, BMI, and the presence of T2DM.

RESULTS

By histology, 44.0% of the overall cohort (655/1489) had F2-4, and 20.6% (307/1489) had F3-4 fibrosis. FIB-4 had the highest AUROCs for both F2-4 (0.701 vs NFS 0.676 and HFS 0.682, P = .001) and F3-4 (0.767 vs NFS 0.736 and HFS 0.752, P = .002). However, for F3-4 fibrosis, the AUROCs of all 3 NITs were generally higher in older (>60 years), nonobese (BMI <25 kg/m2), and non-diabetic patients, although overall the best performance was observed with FIB-4 among nonobese (BMI<25) diabetic patients (AUROC, 0.92). The worst performance was observed in younger patients with T2DM for all NITs including FIB-4 (AUROC, 0.63-0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

FIB-4 had higher diagnostic efficacy for F3-4 than NFS or HFS, but this varied greatly by age, BMI, and T2DM, with better performance in older, nonobese, and nondiabetic patients. However, all NITs including FIB-4 had unacceptably poor performance in young or obese diabetic patients.

Comparative Accuracy of Clinical Fibrosis Markers, Hepascore and Fibroscan® to Detect Advanced Fibrosis in Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive tests are widely used to diagnose fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), however, the optimal method remains unclear. We compared the accuracy of simple serum models, a serum model incorporating direct measures of fibrogenesis (Hepascore), and Fibroscan®, for detecting fibrosis in NAFLD.

METHODS

NAFLD patients undergoing liver biopsy were evaluated with Hepascore, NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS), FIB-4 and AST-platelet ratio index (APRI), with a subset (n = 131) undergoing Fibroscan®. Fibrosis on liver biopsy was categorized as advanced (F3-4) or cirrhosis (F4). Accuracy was determined by area under receiving operating characteristic curves (AUC). Indeterminate ranges were calculated using published cut-offs.

RESULTS

In 271 NAFLD patients, 83 (31%) had F3-4 and 47 (17%) cirrhosis. 6/131 (4%) had an unreliable Fibroscan®. For the detection of advanced fibrosis, the accuracy of Hepascore (AUC 0.88) was higher than FIB-4 (0.73), NFS (0.72) and APRI (0.69) (p < 0.001 for all). Hepascore had similar accuracy to Fibroscan® (0.80) overall, but higher accuracy in obese individuals (0.91 vs 0.80, p = 0.001). Hepascore more accurately identified patients with cirrhosis than APRI (AUC 0.85 vs 0.71, p = 0.01) and NFS (AUC 0.73, p = 0.01) but performed similar to FIB-4 and Fibroscan®. For the determination of F3-4, the proportion of patients in indeterminate area was lower for Hepascore (4.8%), compared to FIB-4 (42%), NFS (36%) and APRI (44%) (p < 0.001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Hepascore has greater accuracy and a lower indeterminate range than simple serum fibrosis tests for advanced fibrosis in NAFLD, and greater accuracy than Fibroscan® in obese individuals.

Global Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Metabolic-associated Fatty Liver Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of 10 739 607 Individuals

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) was proposed as a better definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to encompass the metabolic dysregulation associated with NAFLD. This redefinition challenges our understanding of the disease. Hence, this study sought to conduct an updated analysis of the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and associated factors of MAFLD, with a further sensitivity analysis done based on lean and nonobese MAFLD individuals.

METHODS

Medline and Embase databases were searched to include articles on MAFLD. Meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using the generalized linear mix model. Associating factors were evaluated in conventional pairwise meta-analysis with sensitivity analysis on lean and nonobese MAFLD.

RESULTS

From pooled analysis involving 3 320 108 individuals, the overall prevalence of MAFLD was 38.77% (95% CI 32.94% to 44.95%); 5.37% (95% CI 4.36% to 6.59%) and 29.78% (95% CI 26.06% to 33.79%) of lean and nonobese individuals, respectively, had MAFLD. Metabolic complications such as hypertension [odds ratio (OR) 2.63, 95% CI 1.85 to 3.74, P < 0.0001 and OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.74 to 2.38, P < 0.0001, respectively] and diabetes (OR 3.80, 95% CI 2.65 to 5.43, P < 0.0001 and OR 3.46, 95% CI 2.81 to 4.27, P < 0.0001, respectively) were found as significant associating factors associated with lean and nonobese MAFLD.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis supports previous studies in reporting MAFLD to affect more than a third of the global population. While exploration of the pathogenic basis of fatty liver disease without metabolic dysregulation is required, the emphasis on management of concomitant metabolic disease in MAFLD can improve multidisciplinary efforts in managing the complex disease.

Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: a year in review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In 2020, a novel comprehensive redefinition of fatty liver disease was proposed by an international panel of experts. This review aims to explore current evidence regarding the impact of this new definition on the current understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and clinical trials for fatty liver disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

The effectiveness of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) was compared to the existing criteria for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Recent data robustly suggest the superior utility of MAFLD in identifying patients at high risk for metabolic dysfunction, the hepatic and extra-hepatic complications, as well as those who would benefit from genetic testing, including patients with concomitant liver diseases. This change in name and criteria also appears to have improved disease awareness among patients and physicians.

SUMMARY

The transformation in name and definition from NAFLD to MAFLD represents an important milestone, which indicates significant tangible progress towards a more inclusive, equitable, and patient-centred approach to addressing the profound challenges of this disease. Growing evidence has illustrated the broader and specific contexts that have tremendous potential for positively influencing the diagnosis and treatment. In addition, the momentum accompanying this name change has included widespread public attention to the unique burden of this previously underappreciated disease.