metricas
covid
Buscar en
Annals of Hepatology
Toda la web
Inicio Annals of Hepatology FLI and FIB-4 in diagnosing metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver dis...
Journal Information
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
124
Original article
Full text access
Uncorrected Proof. Available online 21 October 2024
FLI and FIB-4 in diagnosing metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease in primary care: High prevalence and risk of significant disease
Visits
124
Mário Reis Álvares-da-Silvaa,b,c,d,e,
Corresponding author
marioreis@live.com

Corresponding author.
, Márcia da Silva Vargasa,f, Soheyla Mohd Souza Rabiea,f, Gabriella Jonkoa, Patricia Gabriela Riedela, Larisse Longoa,b, Marcelo Rodrigues Gonçalvesg,h,j, Vivian Cristine Luftg,h,i, Dvora Jovelevithsa,b,g
a Graduate Program in Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, 90035-007, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
b Experimental Laboratory in Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), Porto Alegre, 90035-007, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
c Gastroenterology and Hepatology Unit, HCPA, Porto Alegre, 90035-007, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
d Department of Internal Medicine, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, 91501-970, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
e Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CNPq Researcher, Brasília 71.605-001, Distrito Federal, Brazil
f Nutrition Unit, HCPA, Porto Alegre, 90035-007, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
g Department of Social Medicine, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, 90035-003, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
h Department of Nutrition, School of Medicine, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, 90050-170, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
i Graduate Program in Epidemiology, School of Medicine, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, 90035-003, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
j Graduate Program in Food, Nutrition and Health, School of Medicine, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, 90035-007, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Ver más
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (5)
Table 1. General characteristics of the population – retrospective cohort (n = 12,054.)
Table 2. Prevalence of the NAFLD Risk Factors in the studied patients – retrospective cohort (n = 12,054).
Table 3. Demographic characteristics of the included patients – cross-sectional study.
Table 4. Presence of hepatic steatosis and metabolic risk factors, according to the body mass index values in the studied population – cross-sectional study.
Table 5. Cardiovascular risk over next 10 years based on the presence of hepatic steatosis – cross-sectional study.
Show moreShow less
Figures (1)
Graphical abstract

MASLD is frequent and significant in primary care. Abbreviations: FIB-4: fibrosis-4; FLI score: fatty liver index; HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin; MASLD: metabolic dysfuntion-associated steatotic liver disease; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus;.

Keywords:
Liver fibrosis
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease
Metabolic risk
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Primary care
Abbreviations:
ALT
AST
BMI
CAP
CT
DM
ELF
FIB-4
FLI
GGT
HbA1c
HDL
HCPA
IDF
LDL
MAFLD
MASLD
MRI-PDFF
MS
NASH
NAFLD
NCD
NCEP-ATP III
NFS
PHC
PROS
RETR
T2DM
USPSTF
WC
Abbreviations
ALT

alanine aminotransferase

AST

aspartate aminotransferase

BMI

body mass index

CAP

continuous attenuation parameter

CT

computed tomography

DM

diabetes mellitus

ELF

enhanced liver fibrosis

FIB-4

fibrosis-4 score

FLI

fatty liver index

GGT

gamma glutamyl transferase

HbA1c

glycated hemoglobin

HDL

high-density lipoprotein

HCPA

Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre

IDF

International Diabetes Federation

LDL

low-density lipoprotein

MAFLD

metabolic associated fatty liver disease

MASLD

metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease

MRI-PDFF

magnetic resonance imaging-estimated proton density fat fraction

MS

metabolic syndrome

NASH

non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

NAFLD

non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

NCD

non-communicable diseases

NCEP-ATP III

National Cholesterol Education Program's Adult Treatment Panel III

NFS

NAFLD fibrosis score

PHC

primary health care

PROS

prospective

RETR

retrospective

T2DM

type 2 diabetes mellitus

USPSTF

US Preventive Services Task Force

WC

waist circumference.

Full Text
1Introduction

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), recently renamed as metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MASLD), is the most prevalent liver disease worldwide, affecting up to 25 % of the global population and emerging as a leading cause of liver transplantation [1-3]. It is strongly associated with obesity and metabolic syndrome (MS), especially type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Despite its significant burden and link to non-communicable diseases (NCD), MASLD has received limited attention, and there are no strong public policies to defeat it [4]. Its natural history comprises isolated steatosis, steatohepatitis with or without fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma [2]. Early detection plays a crucial role in preventing disease progression, highlighting the need for increased awareness, especially given that most patients are under general practitioner care [5].

Fibrosis is the most important risk factor related to liver and cardiovascular mortality in MASLD patients [6,7]. Recently, non-invasive markers such as biochemical scores and elastography have gained prominence in assessing fibrosis presence, reducing the reliance on liver biopsy, and enabling the identification of patients at risk of fibrosis at an earlier stage [8,9]. However, there is a lack of robust epidemiological studies, including initiatives within primary health care (PHC) to assess the presence of MASLD in this setting [4]. A recent study in 29 European countries showed that major gaps in disease confrontation include strategies, clinical guidelines, awareness, and education [10]. In Latin America, as the incidence of MS, T2DM and obesity is increasing, further regional epidemiological studies are required [11]. Indeed, in Brazil, a collaborative evidenced-based guideline from the hepatology and endocrinology national societies, published in 2023, suggested screening patients with body mass index > 25 kg/m2 for the presence of MASLD [12].

Globally, the prevalence and severity of MASLD in PHC remain largely unknown, including in high-risk regions like Latin America [13,14]. Also, there is no clear recommendation for MASLD screening in PHC, but attention is suggested, especially in cases of T2DM, given the accelerated progression observed in this population [11,15,16]. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of MASLD, estimating liver fibrosis through non-invasive markers in PHC patients in Brazil.

2Patients and methods

A two-phase study was conducted: a retrospective analysis (RETR) of all electronic records of patients seen in PHC in a microregion in the south of Brazil and a prospective (PROS) study in patients from the same unit. The study protocol conforms to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Ethics committee of Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA).

2.1Retrospective study

In RETR, demographic, clinical-pharmacological, laboratory and imaging data were collected to evaluate metabolic and hepatic profiles. Liver fibrosis was estimated by Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4). All the adult patients (>18 years) being followed up at the HCPA PHC Unit were included. The following information was evaluated as described in the medical records: a) age, sex, schooling and ethnicity; b) height, weight and body mass index (BMI); c) glucose, platelets, triglycerides, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT); d) medications currently in use (hypoglycemic drugs, insulin, anti-hypertensives, hypolipidemic drugs); e) diagnosis of medical conditions: T2DM, hypertension, obesity, malnutrition, metabolic syndrome [based on Diabetes Federation (IDF), National Cholesterol Education Program's Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III) and European Group for the Study of Insulin Resistance (EGIR)]; hypertension (information on the use of anti-hypertensives and /or recorded diagnosis); obesity (BMI >30 kg/m2); dyslipidemia (triglycerides > 150 mg/dL; HDL-cholesterol < 40 mg/dL; previously diagnosed T2DM and/or HbA1c > 6.5; pre-diabetes (fasting glucose >100 mg/dL; HbA1c > 5.7); f) FIB-4 calculation — [age (years) × AST (U/L) / platelets (109/L) x √ALT (u/L)], graduated as follows: low-risk of fibrosis (≤ 1.3), undetermined risk (> 1.3), risk of advanced fibrosis (2.67); g) liver image (abdominal ultrasonography, computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance); h) liver biopsy.

2.2Prospective study

This cross-sectional study involved a random sample of 350 adult (> 18yo) patients drawn from the medical records of 7,519 who were attended over the course of one year at a PHC unit. They were invited to participate via phone call and were asked to attend a specialized consultation at the institution. Enrollment in the study occurred after patients signed an informed consent form. For the study purposes, patients were excluded in the presence of hepatitis B or C, human immunodeficiency virus, steatogenic drugs such as steroids, chemotherapy, immunosuppressants, valproic acid, and amiodarone, occupational exposure. and inflammatory bowel disease. Patients reporting alcohol consumption >20 g/day (women) or >30 g/day (men) were excluded as well.

2.2.1Clinical assessment

The clinical assessment consisted of anthropometry, food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), and HBV/HCV rapid testing. Blood samples were collected to evaluate glucose and lipid profile, AST, ALT, GGT, albumin, and platelet counts. Nutritional advice was offered to all patients.

2.2.2Acquisition and definition of variables

Weight and height were evaluated through a P-200 C high-precision scale, with a 200 kg capacity and 1.5 kg accuracy, combined with a stadiometer accurate to 1 mm and measuring up to 200 cm. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated and classified according to the World Health Organization's guidelines for non-elderly adults, and Lipschitz's criteria for older adults [17]. Waist circumference (WC) was measured at the midpoint between the lower edge of the rib cage and the iliac crest, and compared to the standards set by the Brazilian Association for the Study of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome [18].

Metabolic syndrome (MS) was diagnosed primarily based on a WC of ≥94 cm (men) and ≥80 cm (women), along with the presence of two or more of the following criteria: fasting glucose (IFG) ≥100 mg/dL or a history of diabetes mellitus (DM), triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL or undergoing treatment, systolic blood pressure ≥130 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥85 mmHg or being treated for arterial hypertension (AH), and HDL-cholesterol levels <40 mg/dL for men and <50 mg/dL for women [19].

Hepatic steatosis was identified using the Fatty Liver Index (FLI), which incorporates WC, BMI, triglycerides, and GGT levels, and interpretated as <30 (no steatosis), ≥30 and <60 (inconclusive or suggestive of steatosis), and ≥60 (probable steatosis). MASLD was diagnosed in patients with an FLI ≥30, in addition to a cardiometabolic risk factor, as recently recommended [3].

The risk of liver fibrosis was evaluated using either a FIB-4 score >1.30 or the NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS), which considers variables such as age, hyperglycemia, BMI, platelet count, albumin, AST, and ALT levels. An NFS ≤ -1.455 suggests no advanced fibrosis, while a score >0.675 indicates the presence of advanced fibrosis [20,21].

The 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease was estimated using the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk score, based on guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology. This score includes demographic, clinical and laboratory ASCVD <7.5 % means low risk, while scores ≥10 %, high cardiovascular risk [22].

2.2.3Eating habits

A FFQ based on standard portion sizes was used [23]. The daily intake in grams was calculated by multiplying the portion size by the portion weight by the frequency of consumption (e.g., 3 for "more than three times per day," 2.5 for "2-3 times per day," 1 for "once a day," 0.8 for "5-6 times per week," 0.4 for "2-4 times per week," 0.1 for "once a week," 0.07 for "1-3 times per month," and 0 for "never or almost never"). For each item, consumption values exceeding the 99th percentile were replaced with the corresponding 99th percentile value. Macronutrient intake was then determined by multiplying the food consumption in grams by the nutrient composition per 100 grams as specified in the Brazilian Food Composition Table (TACO) [24]. If an item was not listed in TACO, data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Nutrient Database was used. Data analysis was performed using SAS software, version 9.4. Afterwards, all participants received dietary guidance focused on preventing liver steatosis and promoting healthy lifestyle choices.

2.3Statistical analysis

Quantitative variables were presented as either mean with standard deviation or median with interquartile range, depending on the data distribution. Qualitative variables were summarized using absolute and relative frequencies. To compare mean values, the Student's t-test was employed. For variables with non-normal distribution, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. Proportional comparisons were conducted using Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test when appropriate. Adjusted residuals were analyzed to supplement the comparisons. A significance level of 5 % (p<0.05) was applied, and all analyses were conducted using SPSS software, version 21.0.

3Results3.1Retrospective study

A total of 12,054 patients were included in the study and their records were meticulously evaluated. Most of them were female, with a mean age of 55.3. Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics. Only 10.8 % of patients had BMI described at the medical records. From them, 30.1 had overweight, 26.8 % obesity grade I, 13 % grade 2, and 7.1 % grade III. The prevalence of MS features was high, as described in Table 2. Imaging tests such as ultrasound, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance were performed in only 12.6 % of the study population. Of these, the detection of steatosis occurred in 216 patients, which represents 1.8 % of the total. However, the term NAFLD was not found in the medical records, nor was it in its newer denominations, metabolic associated fatty liver diseases (MAFLD) or MASLD. About 1 % of patients had a liver biopsy, but none of them had a histological diagnosis of NAFLD/NASH (non-alcoholic steatohepatitis), as they were patients with hepatitis C virus. No patient was referred to a specialized service due to MASLD.

Table 1.

General characteristics of the population – retrospective cohort (n = 12,054.)

General Characteristics of the Population   
Sex (n, %)FemaleAge (±SD)Age, meanEthnicity (self-declared) (n, %)WhiteBlackBrownUnknownSchooling (n, %)Complete high schoolIncomplete higher educationHigher EducationUnknown  7,882 (65.4)55.3 (19.0)10,862 (90.1)860 (7.1)291 (2.5) 41 (0.3)3,927 (32.6)960 (8.0)2,023 (16.8)1,045 (8.7) 

SD: standard deviation; BMI: body mass index.

Table 2.

Prevalence of the NAFLD Risk Factors in the studied patients – retrospective cohort (n = 12,054).

Risk Factor  Frequency of Test Performed (n)  Frequency of Risk Factorn (%) 
DyslipidemiaCholesterol > 200 mg/dLTryglycerides > 150 mg/dLHDL cholesterol < 40 mg/dLLDL cholesterol >100 mg/dLUse of hypolipidemic drugsPre-DiabetesHb1Ac > 5.7 %Glucose > 100 mg/dLDiabetesHb1Ac > 6.5 %T2DMUse of Hypoglycemic drugs BMIBMI > 25 kg/m²BMI > 30 kg/m²HypertensionPreviously diagnosed hypertensionUse of Antihypertensive drugs  51377,4015,1274,98612,0544,161 (34.5)8,5334,161 (34.5)12,05412,0541,3031,30312,05412,054  2,097 (40.8)2,375(32.1)1,165 (22.7)3125 (62.7)1,599 (13.3)2,146 (51.58)2,948 (34.5)1070 (25.7)1469 (12.2)807 (6.7)1,003 (77)611 (46.9)4,129 (34.3)2,312 (19.2) 

T2DM: Diabetes Mellitus; Hb1Ac: Glycated Hemoglobin; BMI: Body Mass Index.

3.1Prospective study

From the 350 participants selected, 20 were excluded due to high alcohol consumption. Table 3 shows the demographic and biochemical data of the 330 included patients. Only eight patients (2.4 %) reported previously knowing that they had hepatic steatosis. MASLD was present in 205 (62.1 %) patients. FLI score was ≥ 60 in 130 (39.4 %) of the sample. In patients with steatosis, age over 60 years and non-white skin color were more common. Table 3 also compares patients with and without steatosis through FLI in terms of some clinical aspects.

Table 3.

Demographic characteristics of the included patients – cross-sectional study.

Variables  Total sample (n = 330)  Steatosis (n = 130)  No steatosis (n = 200) 
Sex – n (%)        0.086 
Male  93 (28.2)  44 (47.3)  49 (52.7)   
Female  237 (71.8)  86 (36.3)  151 (63.7)   
Age (years) – average ± SD  58.0 ± 13.5  60.8 ± 10.9  56.1 ± 14.6  0.002 
Age range – n (%)  18-82      0.150 
<50 years  81 (24.5)  24 (29.6)  57 (70.4)   
50 to 59 years  84 (25.5)  34 (40.5)  50 (59.5)   
60 to 69 years  98 (29.7)  40 (40.8)  58 (59.2)   
≥ 70 years  67 (20.3)  32 (47.8)  35 (52.2)   
Ethnicity – n (%)        0.003 
White  300 (90.9)  110 (36.6)  190 (63.4)   
Non-white  30 (9.1)  20 (66.6)  10 (33.4)   
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 – n (%)  105 (31.8)  89 (84.8)  16 (15.2)  <0.001 
High WC – n (%)  249 (75.5)  124 (49.8)  125 (50.2)  <0.001 
Glycemia – n (%)        <0.001 
IFG ⁎⁎⁎  80 (21.2)  48 (60.0)*  32 (40.0)   
T2DM – n (%)  36 (10.9)  27 (75.0)*  9 (25.0)  <0.001 
Elevated tryglycerides – n (%)  97 (29.4)  67 (69.0)  30 (31.0)  <0.001 
AH – n (%)  172 (52.1)  92 (53.4)  80 (46.6)  <0.001 
MS – n (%)  157 (47.6)  96 (63.7)  61 (36.3)  <0.001 
Laboratory - average ± SD         
Total cholesterol  200.2 ± 43.2  201.3 ± 41.9  199.5 ± 44.3  0.202 
HDL-cholesterol  51.2 ± 13.6  46.2 ± 11.0  54.9 ± 14.0  0.038 
LDL-cholesterol  122.4 ± 38.7  121.6 ± 35.6  122.9 ± 40.7  0.042 
Platelets  248.1 ± 57.7  249.5 ± 59.5  247.1 ± 56.6  0.438 
Albumin  4.3 ± 0.2  4.2 ± 0.2  4.3 ± 0.2  0.725 
AST  19.4 ± 6.3  21.3 ± 7.6  18.2 ± 4.5  <0.001 
ALT⁎⁎  17 (13 – 23)  20 (15 – 30)  15 (12 – 20)  <0.001 
GGT⁎⁎  23 (16 – 33)  30 (24 – 40)  19 (14 – 27)  <0.001 
Smokers – n (%)  33 (10)  12 (36.3)  21 (63.7)  0.851 
Physically Active – n (%)⁎⁎⁎⁎  85 (25.8)  32 (24.6)  53 (26.5)  0.800 

Data expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median (25th - 75th percentiles), compared by Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney test, respectively, or N (%) with Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.

statistically significant association from residue test adjusted by 5 % significance.

⁎⁎

described by median (25th - 75th percentiles).

⁎⁎⁎

IFG - fasting glycemia ≥ 100 mg /dL; SD: standard deviation; BMI: body mass index; WC: waist circumference; T2DM: diabetes mellitus; AH: arterial hypertension; MS: metabolic syndrome; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; GGT: Gamma-glutamyltransferase.

⁎⁎⁎⁎

According IPAQ.

In Table 4, patients were divided by BMI and MS features were compared. Steatosis was more prevalent in patients with BMI > 25 kg/m2. NFS calculation demonstrated that 50 % had an intermediate risk, and that 9.2 % of patients had a high risk of fibrosis or cirrhosis. Mean FIB-4 was 1.14 (min 0.18; max 3.39). FIB-4 > 1.3 in 30.9 % of patients, and > 2.67 in 0.9 % of them. Cardiovascular risk was higher in patients with steatosis (Table 5). There were no differences in total energy value (2072.8 ± 716.3 vs. 2031.5 ± 618.1 Kcal – p = 0.578), carbohydrates (236.0 ± 82.2 vs. 233.8 ± 80.8 g – p = 0.807), proteins (114.5 ± 49.7 vs. 109.4 ± 41.1 g – p = 0.308), and fat intake (74.7 ± 29.1 vs. 73.2 ± 25.8 – p = 0.631) in patients with or without steatosis, respectively.

Table 4.

Presence of hepatic steatosis and metabolic risk factors, according to the body mass index values in the studied population – cross-sectional study.

Variables  TotalSample(n = 330)  BMI≤25 kg/m²(n = 115)  BMI>25 kg/m²(n = 215)  p 
Steatosis n(%)  130 (41.5)  9 (7.8)  121 (56.3)  <0.001 
IFG * (%)  119 (36.0)  28 (24.3)  91 (42.3)  0.002 
Metabolic syndrome – n(%)  157 (47.5)  30 (26.0)  127 (59.0)  <0.001 
Arterial hypertension- n(%)  173 (52.4)  46 (40)  127 (59.0)  <0.001 

IFG = fasting glycemia ≥ 100 mg /dL; BMI: body mass index; Data expressed as n (%), compared by Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.

Table 5.

Cardiovascular risk over next 10 years based on the presence of hepatic steatosis – cross-sectional study.

Cardiovascular risk (ASCVD)  Total sample(n = 255)  Steatosis positive (n = 110)  Steatosis negative (n = 145) 
Low risk  125 (49.0)  37 (33.7)  88 (60.8)*   
Moderate risk  30 (11.7)  13 (11.8)  17 (11.7)   
High risk  100 (39.3)  60 (54.5)*  40 (27.5)  <0.001 

Data expressed as N (%), compared by Pearson's chi-square test.

Statistically significant association by testing the residuals adjusted to 5 % significance. ASCVD: Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Score.

4Discussion

In this two-phase study conducted in PHC, which involved a large and unselected patient population, it was found that the prevalence of MASLD is significant, with a notable risk of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis. These findings highlight the importance of focusing on education and raising awareness about the disease in this context. In the RETR study, in patients who had laboratory, more than 40 % had evidence of dyslipidemia and more than 50 %, HbA1c > 5.7. Moreover, median FIB-4 above 1.3 attested to the risk of fibrosis. Indeed, 5 % of the patients had FIB-4 suggesting advanced fibrosis. The PROS study corroborated these findings, showing that MS was present in almost 50 % of the patients, and steatosis was present in approximately 40 % of the sample. MS was more frequent in those with steatosis and with a BMI above 25. The risk of liver fibrosis, assessed by the NFS score, was high, with more than 50 % of patients at intermediate risk and almost 10 % at risk of advanced fibrosis. In addition, patients with steatosis had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk. Moreover, MASLD diagnosis, assuming FLI as a surrogate marker of steatosis, was higher than 60 %. These findings, taken together, point to a high risk of MASLD in PHC in Brazil and highlight the need to act in the early diagnosis in this scenario.

The high prevalence of MASLD in all continents is related to the development of obesity and T2DM. In this study, liver steatosis estimation by FLI ≥ 60 was around 40 %. The result is higher than reported in South America (30.5 %), but it is probably the result of different methods of steatosis assessment [25]. A limitation of this study was documenting steatosis only based on FLI. However, it would have been very helpful in this study if included a more reliable estimate of steatosis, such as continuous attenuation parameter (CAP) or magnetic resonance imaging-estimated proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF). Nevertheless, FLI is quite appropriate for use in PHC due to its availability. The fact that patients with high FLI (or steatosis) had more MS and cardiovascular risk suggests that, even if it was overestimated, the result does not seem to be far from the real one.

The variations in the prevalence of MASLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) may be related to the differences in genetic and environmental risk factors [26]. Race and ethnicity may also be considered a risk for the development of MASLD. Recently, assessing NAFLD global burden, it was demonstrated a higher prevalence in Hispanics, followed by non-Hispanic white individuals, with a lower prevalence in African Americans [27]. Even in national strategies and clinical guidelines for related conditions, such as obesity or T2DM, NAFLD is rarely mentioned [5]. These discoveries highlight the need for a joint effort to shape and supply a robust response to public health.

A very significant finding was the little attention paid to liver disease: only 10 % of patients in the RETR study had calculated BMI and less than 50 % had tests to assess for hypercholesterolemia or hyperglycemia, as well as aminotransferases. As the percentage of obese adults in Brazil has more than doubled in 17 years, from 12.2 % (2002-2003) to 26.8 % (2019), it is impressive that BMI was not available in medical consultations in such a risky population [28]. Therefore, in this study, we demonstrate that the absence of these data in the RETR patient cohort indicates neglect of the disease in this population, making our findings even more valid. Additionally, it is worth noting that the findings in this study do not represent the general population but rather the population of patients seeking PHC. This introduces a selection bias, but aligns with the study's objective of illustrating the prevalence of MASLD in PHC.

The best way to identify the patients at early risk of liver fibrosis in PHC is still a challenge but also an opportunity since most patients are at a potentially reversible disease stage [29]. Given the high world prevalence of individuals with MASLD, it is not feasible to screen the populations at risk by means of liver biopsy and histological classification, which is currently the gold standard in clinical studies [30]. Non-invasive scores, such as FIB-4 and/or NFS, can be important tools for PHC providers to identify individuals at risk of developing fibrosis and decrease unnecessary referrals [11,31,32]. Recently, a Danish study with 3,378 individuals (1,973 general population) has demonstrated that enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) test alone or combined with FIB-4 is useful for screening of either alcoholic or non-alcoholic fatty liver [33]. Among the hepatic abnormalities found in the studied population, ALT elevation was significant. Nevertheless, even when AST and ALT are normal, it does not rule out the presence of chronic liver disease. This concept must be disseminated in PHC, since both in fatty liver disease and in NASH the patients appear not to be aware of the impact of metabolism on the health of their liver [34]34. Although not yet established, a two-way step in evaluation seems to be useful, as suggested by Alkhouri and colleagues [35]. FIB-4 would be the first step: if higher than 1.30, it is advisable to obtain a FibroScan-AST (FAST) score; if it is higher than 0.35, patients should be referred to the specialist.

It is interesting to note that the terms MAFLD or MASLD were not found in the medical records in this study, perhaps because they are relatively new terms, but NAFLD was not either. A global study of 102 countries presented a similar picture, highlighting the lack of attention to MASLD in health agendas [4]. A recent American study conducted a survey of 115 primary care providers with an 80 % response rate [36]. Over 40 % were unsure of which diagnostic tests to order and which data constituted a diagnosis of NAFLD. Moreover, few knew the components of FIB-4, few used FIB-4 in practice, and yet the most common reason for referral was to obtain fibrosis staging. Hepatologists need to teach non-specialists to recognize MASLD, but it is necessary first to create a consensus on how to assess it, as suggested by an article signed by the Britain Specialist Interest Group in the Early Detection of Liver Disease [37]. Moreover, the dissociation between PHC and specialized care causes a delay in the diagnosis of liver diseases, as recently shown [38]. The COVID-19 pandemic will probably make the situation even worse since it was related to weight gain, poor T2DM control, and increased alcohol-drinking behavior, all of them related to MASLD progression [37]. Nevertheless, PHC usually follows some guidelines for investigation of NCD, especially in asymptomatic patients, like US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which does not suggest universal liver disease screening in general population or among obese people. It would be recommended that liver medical societies alert these sectors to the potential risks of hepatic steatosis [39].

5Conclusions

In summary, this two-phase study showed that there is a high prevalence of MASLD in PHC, and a significant number of patients are at risk of developing liver fibrosis and deserve specialized attention. These findings reinforce it is necessary to train health professionals and develop clinical protocols for these services. Although expected, results like these have rarely been demonstrated with such a scientific basis, and they can serve to guide changes in public policies.

Funding

This study was supported by the following Brazilian funding agencies: Financiamento e Incentivo à Pesquisa from Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (FIPE/HCPA), (Dr. M.R. Álvares-da-Silva, grant 2019-0140); National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – Brazil (CNPq; M.R. Alvares-da-Silva); and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, CAPES/PNPD. No funding sources were involved in the study design or in data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Authors contributions

MRAS (concept, design, analysis, supervision, funding, writing of the article); MSV, SMSR (procedures, data bank, analysis, writing of article draft); GJ, PGL (procedures, data bank); LL (experiments); MRG, VCL (design, analysis); DJ (concept, design, analysis, supervision, funding); All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

References
[1]
JV Lazarus, M Colombo, H Cortez-Pinto, TT Huang, V Miller, M Ninburg, et al.
NAFLD - sounding the alarm on a silent epidemic.
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 17 (2020), pp. 377-379
[2]
AC Sheka, O Adeyi, J Thompson, B Hameed, PA Crawford, S. Ikramuddin.
Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a review.
JAMA, 323 (2020), pp. 1175-1183
[3]
ME Rinella, JV Lazarus, V Ratziu, SM Francque, AJ Sanyal, F Kanwal, et al.
A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature.
J Hepatol, 79 (2023), pp. 1542-1556
[4]
JV Lazarus, HE Mark, QM Anstee, JP Arab, RL Batterham, L Castera, et al.
Advancing the global public health agenda for NAFLD: a consensus statement.
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 19 (2022), pp. 60-78
[5]
JH Brindley, K Abeysekera, G Hood, S Jennings, J Moore, M Hickman, et al.
Feasibility and acceptability of a primary care liver fibrosis testing pathway centred on the diabetes annual review: PRELUDE1 prospective cohort study protocol.
[6]
M Ekstedt, P Nasr, S. Kechagias.
Natural history of NAFLD/NASH.
Curr Hepatol Rep, 16 (2017), pp. 391-397
[7]
GTS Guerreiro, L Longo, MA Fonseca, VEG de Souza, MR. Álvares-da-Silva.
Does the risk of cardiovascular events differ between biopsy-proven NAFLD and MAFLD?.
Hepatol Int, (2021),
[8]
S Tomah, N Alkhouri, O. Hamdy.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes: where do diabetologists stand?.
Clin Diabetes Endocrinol, 6 (2020), pp. 9
[9]
JA Moore, WH Wheless, J Zhang, J Marsden, PD Mauldin, WP Moran, et al.
Gaps in confirmatory fibrosis risk assessment in primary care patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Dig Dis Sci, 68 (2023), pp. 2946-2953
[10]
JV Lazarus, M Ekstedt, G Marchesini, J Mullen, K Novak, JM Pericàs, et al.
A cross-sectional study of the public health response to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in Europe.
J Hepatol, 72 (2020), pp. 14-24
[11]
JP Arab, M Dirchwolf, MR Álvares-da-Silva, F Barrera, C Benítez, M Castellanos-Fernandez, et al.
Latin American association for the study of the liver (ALEH) practice guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
Ann Hepatol, 19 (2020), pp. 674-690
[12]
RO Moreira, CM Valerio, CA Villela-Nogueira, C Cercato, F Gerchman, AMP Lottenberg, et al.
Brazilian evidence-based guideline for screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) in adult individuals with overweight or obesity: a joint position statement from the Brazilian Society of endocrinology and metabolism (SBEM), Brazilian society of hepatology (SBH), and Brazilian association for the study of obesity and metabolic syndrome (Abeso).
Arch Endocrinol Metab, 67 (2023),
[13]
P Golabi, V Isakov, ZM. Younossi.
Nonalcoholic Fatty liver disease: disease burden and disease awareness.
Clin Liver Dis, 27 (2023), pp. 173-186
[14]
JP Arab, LA Díaz, M Dirchwolf, HE Mark, JV Lazarus, E Vaughan, et al.
NAFLD: challenges and opportunities to address the public health problem in Latin America.
[15]
H Jarvis, D Craig, R Barker, G Spiers, D Stow, QM Anstee, et al.
Metabolic risk factors and incident advanced liver disease in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based observational studies.
[16]
JM Clark, DRH Cryer, M Morton, JH Shubrook.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease from a primary care perspective.
Diabetes Obes Metab, 25 (2023), pp. 1421-1433
[17]
DA. Lipschitz.
Screening for nutritional status in the elderly.
Prim Care, 21 (1994), pp. 55-67
[18]
B Geloneze, AC Vasques, CF Stabe, JC Pareja, LE Rosado, EC Queiroz, et al.
HOMA1-IR and HOMA2-IR indexes in identifying insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome: Brazilian metabolic syndrome study (BRAMS).
Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol, 53 (2009), pp. 281-287
[19]
TR Cardinal, A Vigo, BB Duncan, SMA Matos, MJM da Fonseca, SM Barreto, et al.
Optimal cut-off points for waist circumference in the definition of metabolic syndrome in Brazilian adults: baseline analyses of the longitudinal study of adult health (ELSA-Brasil).
Diabetol Metab Syndr, 10 (2018), pp. 49
[20]
R Zambrano-Huailla, L Guedes, JT Stefano, AAA de Souza, S Marciano, E Yvamoto, et al.
Diagnostic performance of three non-invasive fibrosis scores (Hepamet, FIB-4, NAFLD fibrosis score) in NAFLD patients from a mixed Latin American population.
Ann Hepatol, 19 (2020), pp. 622-626
[21]
FE Mózes, JA Lee, EA Selvaraj, ANA Jayaswal, M Trauner, J Boursier, et al.
Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD: an individual patient data meta-analysis.
[22]
KG Alberti, RH Eckel, SM Grundy, PZ Zimmet, JI Cleeman, KA Donato, et al.
Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the international diabetes federation task force on epidemiology and prevention; national heart, lung, and blood institute; American heart association; world heart federation; international atherosclerosis society; and international association for the study of obesity.
Circulation, 120 (2009), pp. 1640-1645
[23]
LW Mannato, TS Pereira, G Velasquez-Melendez, Cardoso LeO, IM Benseñor, Molina MeC.
Comparison of a short version of the Food Frequency Questionnaire with its long version–a cross-sectional analysis in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil).
Sao Paulo Med J, 133 (2015), pp. 414-420
[24]
VN Braz, MHBM. Lopes.
Evaluation of mobile applications related to nutrition.
Public Health Nutr, 22 (2019), pp. 1209-1214
[25]
TG Cotter, M. Rinella.
Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease 2020: The State of the Disease.
Gastroenterology, 158 (2020), pp. 1851-1864
[26]
Lonardo A, Singal AK, Osna N, Kharbanda KK. Effect of cofactors on NAFLD/NASH and MAFLD. A paradigm illustrating the pathomechanics of organ dysfunction. Metab Target Organ Damage. 2022;2(3). doi: 10.20517/mtod.2022.14.
[27]
Z Younossi, QM Anstee, M Marietti, T Hardy, L Henry, M Eslam, et al.
Global burden of NAFLD and NASH: trends, predictions, risk factors and prevention.
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 15 (2018), pp. 11-20
[28]
LM Triaca, AMA Dos Santos, CAO Tejada.
Socioeconomic inequalities in obesity in Brazil.
[29]
R Lomonaco, E Godinez Leiva, F Bril, S Shrestha, L Mansour, J Budd, et al.
Advanced liver fibrosis is common in patients with type 2 diabetes followed in the outpatient setting: the need for systematic screening.
Diabetes Care, 44 (2021), pp. 399-406
[30]
D Schuppan, S Myneni, R. Surabattula.
Liquid biomarkers for fibrotic NASH - progress in a complex field.
[31]
C Labenz, A Arslanow, M Nguyen-Tat, M Nagel, MA Wörns, MC Reichert, et al.
Structured early detection of asymptomatic liver cirrhosis: results of the population-based liver screening program SEAL.
J Hepatol, 77 (2022), pp. 695-701
[32]
A Srivastava, S Jong, A Gola, R Gailer, S Morgan, K Sennett, et al.
Cost-comparison analysis of FIB-4, ELF and fibroscan in community pathways for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
BMC Gastroenterol, 19 (2019), pp. 122
[33]
M Kjaergaard, KP Lindvig, KH Thorhauge, P Andersen, JK Hansen, N Kastrup, et al.
Using the ELF test, FIB-4 and NAFLD fibrosis score to screen the population for liver disease.
J Hepatol, 79 (2023), pp. 277-286
[34]
N Alkhouri, P Aggarwal, P Le, J Payne, C Sakkal, P Polanco, et al.
Simple diagnostic algorithm identifying at-risk nonalcoholic fatty liver disease patients needing specialty referral within the United States.
World J Hepatol, 14 (2022), pp. 1598-1607
[35]
KB Islam, D Brandman, JN Chu, ML Goldman, RK. Fox.
Primary care providers and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a needs assessment survey.
Dig Dis Sci, 68 (2023), pp. 434-438
[36]
I Macpherson, KWM Abeysekera, R Harris, D Mansour, S McPherson, I Rowe, et al.
Identification of liver disease: why and how.
Front Gastroenterol, 13 (2022), pp. 367-373
[37]
TH Karlsen, N Sheron, S Zelber-Sagi, P Carrieri, G Dusheiko, E Bugianesi, et al.
The EASL-Lancet Liver Commission: protecting the next generation of Europeans against liver disease complications and premature mortality.
[38]
J Rivera-Esteban, R Manzano-Nuñez, T Broquetas, I Serra-Matamala, O Bassegoda, A Soriano-Varela, et al.
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care and outcomes of people with NAFLD-related cirrhosis.
[39]
JV Lazarus, HE Mark, AM Allen, JP Arab, P Carrieri, M Noureddin, et al.
A global research priority agenda to advance public health responses to fatty liver disease.
J Hepatol, 79 (2023), pp. 618-634
Copyright © 2024. Fundación Clínica Médica Sur, A.C.
Download PDF
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos