metricas
covid
Buscar en
Annals of Hepatology
Toda la web
Inicio Annals of Hepatology Type 2 diabetes mellitus in metabolic-associated fatty liver disease vs. type 2 ...
Journal Information
Vol. 28. Issue 1.
(January - February 2023)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
2373
Vol. 28. Issue 1.
(January - February 2023)
Original article
Open Access
Type 2 diabetes mellitus in metabolic-associated fatty liver disease vs. type 2 diabetes mellitus non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a longitudinal cohort analysis
Visits
2373
Mark Muthiaha,b,g,1, Cheng Han Nga,1,
Corresponding author
chenhanng@gmail.com

Corresponding author. N. C. Han and M. Noureddin
, Kai En Chana,1, Clarissa Elysia Fua,1, Wen Hui Lima, Darren Jun Hao Tana, Benjamin Nahb, Gwyneth Konga, Jieling Xiaoa, Jie Ning Yonga, Bryan Tana, Nicholas Syna, Jiong-Wei Wangc,d, Nilofer Sayedc,d, Eunice Tana,b,g, Nicholas WS Chewa,e, Yock Young Dana,b,g, Mohammad Shadab Siddiquif, Arun J. Sanyalf, Mazen Noureddinh,
Corresponding author
noureddinmd@gmail.com

Corresponding author. N. C. Han and M. Noureddin
a MBBS Programme, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore
b Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
c Department of Surgery, Cardiovascular Research Institute (CVRI), National University Heart Centre Singapore
d Nanomedicine Translational Research Programme, Centre for Nanomedicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
e Department of Cardiology, National University Heart Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore
f Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
g National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Health System, Singapore
h Houston Liver Institute, Houston, Texas
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (5)
Show moreShow less
Additional material (1)
Graphical Abstract

Keywords:
MACE
Advanced fibrosis
Mortality
Cardiovascular mortality
Fatty liver
Abbreviations:
MAFLD
NAFLD
T2DM
ChREBP
SREBP1c
MACE
FIB-4
Full Text
1Introduction

Fatty liver disease is the commonest liver condition globally [1]. Traditionally, the term "non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)" is used to describe a diagnosis of exclusion and absence of significant alcohol use. NAFLD is estimated to affect 25-33% of the global population [2, 3] and is a major cause of complications including but not limited to cardiovascular disease (CVD) [4], hepatocellular carcinoma [5] and extrahepatic malignancy. However, an international call was recently made to propose “metabolic associated fatty liver disease” (MAFLD) as a replacement definition for NAFLD [6]. Briefly, MAFLD describes a diagnosis of inclusion when hepatic steatosis occurs in (1) overweight or (2) Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) or (3) ≥2 factors of metabolic dysregulation [6]. As such, the newer criteria allow any individual with T2DM and hepatic steatosis to be included in MAFLD, while NAFLD can only be made with the exclusion of other chronic liver diseases and the absence of significant alcohol use. As a result, MAFLD is significantly more prevalent than NAFLD, and a recent meta-analysis estimates up to 36% of the global population has MAFLD [3]. A recent meta-analysis of 12,620,736 individuals found a significant association of MAFLD with systemic commodities and mortality [7]. While initially thought to serve as a direct replacement for the older definition, the term MAFLD has since sparked international debates due to the different clinical characteristics and outcomes of NAFLD.

Amongst the risk factors of fatty liver, T2DM is a known common factor affecting both diseases' definition [8,9]. With the distinct presence of insulin resistance as a major pathway in the pathogenesis of NAFLD, T2DM has been closely linked to NAFLD. A recently updated meta-analysis shows that T2DM is significantly prevalent amongst NAFLD [10] and up to half of T2DM patients have NAFLD [11]. T2DM has additionally been associated with an increased risk of end-organ damage relative to NAFLD patients without T2DM. Yet, due to differing definitions between MAFLD and NAFLD, current estimates have shown a higher prevalence of T2DM in MAFLD [3,12]. The current definition of MAFLD allows any patient with hepatic steatosis and T2DM to be included regardless of alcohol use and despite the significantly high prevalence and the association between the T2DM with fatty liver, the impact of this change remains elusive. Thus, we sought to examine the differences in clinical characteristics and longitudinal outcomes of patients with T2DM and MAFLD relative to patients with T2DM that are excluded from NAFLD within the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999 to 2018.

2Methods2.1Study Population

The NHANES study [13] examines aggregated health-related data from a clustered sampled national survey involving general and noninstitutionalized individuals in the United States between 1999-2018. The study involved participants undergoing a comprehensive interview, medical examinations, and laboratory assessments. Data on mortality were obtained by linking the NHANES data to death certificates from the National Death Index. Baseline characteristics such as but are not limited to age, gender, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglyceride, fasting blood glucose, glycohemoglobin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and past medical history (diabetes, hypertension) were collected. [14,15] Information on the outcomes of MAFLD and NAFLD, including Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE), stroke, chronic kidney disease (CKD), advanced fibrosis by Fibrosis-4 Index (FIB-4), all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) related mortality were also collected.

2.2Definitions

The definition of NAFLD was adapted based on the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) guidelines for NAFLD. We defined NAFLD as the presence of steatosis in the absence of substantial alcohol use (≥2 drinks a day in men, ≥3 drinks a day in women). MAFLD was defined as the presence of hepatic steatosis with metabolic dysregulation as proposed by experts from the international expert panel [16,17]. The proposed criteria defined MAFLD as the presence of fatty liver with concomitant type 2 diabetes, overweight or obesity (i.e., BMI 23 kg/m2), or two or more of the following metabolic conditions: (1) waist circumference ≥ 90 cm in men and ≥ 80 cm in women (central obesity), (2) blood pressure ≥ 130/85 mm Hg or receiving antihypertensives, (3) plasma triglycerides ≥ 1.7 mmol/L or receiving specific drug treatment, (4) plasma high-density lipoprotein < 1.03mmol/L in men and < 1.29mmol/L in women. Overweight patients were defined with BMI≥25.0 kg/m2 for Caucasians and BMI≥23.0 kg/m2 for Asians. Obese patients were defined as BMI≥30.0 kg/m2 for Caucasians and BMI≥27.5 kg/m2 for Asians. [18,19] A Fatty Liver Index (FLI) ≥ 6024 or US-FLI ≥ 30 [20] indicates the presence of hepatic steatosis. Diabetes was defined as glycohemoglobin ≥ 6.5%, fasting plasma glucose ≥ 7mmol/l, self-reported diabetes, or the use of anti-diabetic medications. Prediabetes was defined as glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) between 5.7% - 6.5% or fasting plasma glucose between 5.6mmol/l - 7mmol/l [21]. Hypertension was defined as a systolic or diastolic blood pressure ≥140/90 or the use of antihypertensive [22]. Viral hepatitis was defined as the presence of hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis C RNA or Anti-HCV. Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) include the occurrence of heart failure, stroke, myocardial infarction and mortality. Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) was defined as the presence of kidney damage or an estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≤60 mL/min/1.73 m2 under the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation. [23] Quantification of fibrosis in the liver was examined using the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) Index Score, where a score of ≥2.67 was defined as advanced fibrosis. [24]

2.3Statistical analysis

The study population was divided into three groups. Firstly, T2DM patients without fatty liver were classified as MAFLD(-)/NAFLD(-). T2DM patients with fatty liver without substantial alcohol use set forth by the definition of NAFLD were classified as MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). Lastly, T2DM patients with a fatty liver that fulfilled the definition of MAFLD but not NAFLD were MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-). All statistical analysis was performed using STATA (16.1). Continuous variables were examined with Wilcoxon ranked sum test and Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance, while binary variables were examined with chi-square test and fisher exact where appropriate. Post-hoc analysis was conducted with Dunn's test as an appropriate nonparametric pairwise multiple-comparison procedure in examining the differences in baseline characteristics between MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to obtain odds ratios (OR) for the estimation of comment events and clinical interpretability in the two study groups. Mortality outcomes were examined with a Cox proportional model for hazard ratios (HR) and a separate competing risk analysis was used to examine the risk of CVD-related mortality with the fine grey substruction hazard ratios (SHR). A cluster analysis was also included in OR, HR and SHR analyses based on the year of study to account for heterogeneity introduced by the year of study. The multivariable models in logistic regression and survival analysis were constructed with important traditional confounders that include age, gender, race, smoking and BMI.

2.4Ethical statements

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics approval by the Institutional Review Board and written informed consent from patients were exempted due to the anonymous nature of the data made publicly available by the National Centre for Health Statistics (NCHS).

3Results3.1Baseline characteristics of included population

A total of 46,544 individuals were included. 25,868 were non-DM, 13,949 patients were prediabetic and a total of 6727 patients had T2DM. The prevalence of T2DM was 24.6% (95% CI: 23.8% to 25.4%) in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and 24.1% (95% CI: 23.2% to 25.0%) in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). Amongst patients with T2DM, a total of 2032 patients had a diagnosis of MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-), 2950 patients were MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+) and 1745 patients with T2DM were MAFLD(-)/NAFLD(-). In turn, there was a 68.89% (n = 2032) increase in the diagnosis of fatty liver amongst individuals with T2DM in the transition to MAFLD (Fig. 1). A total of 117 individuals had a diagnosis of viral hepatitis in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-). The baseline characteristics of the population with T2DM are summarized in Table 1 and there were significant differences between MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-), MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+) and MAFLD(-)/NAFLD(-). A post-hoc analysis was conducted to examine the differences between MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+) using the Dunn test. Individuals who were MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) were more likely to be older (p < 0.001) and females (p < 0.001) gender. By and large, there was no difference in the lipids measures aside from HDL, which was significantly higher in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-). Liver enzymes (AST and ALT) were also higher in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+) relative to MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-).

Fig. 1.

Summary of included patients.

(0.12MB).
Fig. 2.

Summary of included patients with T2DM.

(0.16MB).
Table 1.

Baseline demographics of patients with T2DM and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-), MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+) or MAFLD(-)/NAFLD(-).

  MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-)  MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+)  MAFLD(-)/NAFLD(-)  P-Value^  P-Value$ 
Sample Size  n = 2032  n = 2950  n = 1745     
Age (years)  62 (IQR: 52 to 70)  61 (IQR: 50 to 69)  65 (IQR: 55 to 75)  <0.001*  <0.001* 
Gender (male)  46.5 (95%CI: 44.7 to 48.3)  59.9 (95%CI: 57.8 to 62.1)  52.7 (95%CI: 50.3 to 55.0)  <0.001*  <0.001* 
BMI (kg/m233.1 (IQR: 29.9 to 37.7)  32.7 (IQR: 29.2 to 37.7)  25.2 (IQR: 23.2 to 27.3)  <0.001*  0.005 
Hypertension (%)  83.0 (95%CI: 81.6 to 84.4)  82.4 (95%CI: 80.7 to 84.1)  76.6 (95%CI: 74.5 to 78.6)  <0.001*  0.607 
Waist Circumference (cm)  112 (IQR: 105 to 122)  112 (IQR: 104 to 122)  93.1 (IQR: 87.2 to 98.2)  <0.001*  0.195 
Past Smoker (%)  31.5 (95%CI: 29.8 to 33.2)  41.7 (95%CI: 39.6 to 43.9)  29.0 (95%CI: 26.9 to 31.2)  <0.001*  <0.001* 
Current Smoker (%)  12.2 (95%CI: 11.0 to 13.4)  21.8 (95%CI: 20.0 to 23.6)  16.4 (95%CI: 14.8 to 18.3)  <0.001*  <0.001* 
Viral hepatitis (%)  5.75 (95%CI: 4.82 to 6.86)  NA  2.17 (95%CI: 15.8 to 2.98)  <0.001*  NA 
Platelet count (1000 cells/uL)  243 (IQR: 202 to 293)  236 (IQR: 197 to 288)  233 (IQR: 194 to 278)  <0.001*  <0.001* 
Glycohemoglobin (%)  6.9 (IQR: 6.2 to 8.0)  7.0 (IQR: 6.3 to 8.3)  6.7 (IQR: 6.0 to 7.7)  <0.001*  0.005 
FBG (mmol/L)  7.88 (IQR: 6.83 to 9.94)  7.94 (IQR: 6.83 to 10.5)  7.30 (IQR: 6.33 to 8.94)  <0.001*  0.167 
Total bilirubin (umol/L)  10.3 (IQR: 6.84 to 13.7)  10.3 (6.84 to 13.7)  10.3 (IQR: 8.55 to 13.7)  0.003  0.254 
Total Cholesterol (mg/dL)  188 (IQR: 161 to 220)  187 (IQR: 159 to 219)  178 (IQR: 151 to 211)  <0.001*  0.131 
LDL-Cholesterol (mg/dL)  105 (IQR: 82 to 131)  104 (IQR: 80 to 130)  99 (IQR: 75 to 127)  0.005*  0.279 
Direct HDL-Cholesterol (mg/dL)  45 (IQR: 38 to 54)  42 (IQR: 37 to 51)  52 (IQR: 44 to 64)  <0.001*  <0.001* 
Triglycerides (mg/dL)  170 (IQR: 119 to 251)  173 (IQR: 119 to 259)  108 (IQR: 78 to 152)  <0.001*  0.181 
AST (IU/L)  23 (IQR: 19 to 28)  23 (IQR: 19 to 30)  21 (IQR: 18 to 26)  <0.001*  0.071 
ALT (IU/L)  23 (IQR: 17 to 31)  23 (IQR: 18 to 34)  19 (IQR: 15 to 24)  <0.001*  <0.001* 
GGT (IU/L)  27 (IQR: 19 to 41)  30 (IQR: 21 to 50)  18 (IQR: 13 to 26)  <0.001*  <0.001* 
Income (%)        <0.001*  <0.001* 
0 to 10,000  8.28 (95%CI: 7.27 to 9.42)  10.8 (95%CI: 9.47 to 12.4)  8.66 (95%CI: 7.34 to 10.2)     
10,000 to 25,000  29.1 (95%CI: 27.3 to 30.9)  35.4 (95%CI: 33.2 to 37.7)  32.6 (95%CI: 30.2 to 35.0)     
25,000 to 45,000  26.7 (95%CI: 25.0 to 28.5)  26.0 (95%CI: 24.0 to 28.1)  24.6 (95%CI: 22.5 to 26.8)     
45,000 to 75,000  19.5 (95%CI: 18.0 to 21.1)  18.3 (95%CI: 16.6 to 20.2)  19.4 (95%CI: 17.5 to 21.5)     
>75,000  16.4 (95%CI: 15.1 to 17.9)  9.42 (95%CI: 8.14 to 10.9)  14.8 (95%CI: 13.1 to 16.7)     
Ethnicity (%)        <0.001*  <0.001* 
Caucasian  38.5 (95%CI: 36.7 to 40.2)  32.1 (95%CI: 30.1 to 34.1)  33.0 (95%CI: 30.8 to 35.2)     
African American  24.9 (95%CI: 23.4 to 26.5)  25.2 (95%CI: 23.4 to 27.2)  24.6 (95%CI: 22.7 to 26.7)     
Mexican American  21.1 (95%CI: 19.7 to 22.6)  26.6 (95%CI: 24.7 to 28.6)  14.3 (95%CI: 12.7 to 16.0)     
Hispanic  9.22 to (95%CI: 8.23 to 10.3)  9.25 (95%CI: 8.07 to 10.6)  10.1 (95%CI: 8.76 to 11.6)     
Others  6.31 (95%CI: 5.48 to 7.24)  6.79 (95%CI: 5.78 to 7.97)  18.1 (95%CI: 16.3 to 19.9)     

T2DM, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus; MAFLD, Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease; NAFLD, Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; BMI, Body Mass Index; FBG, Fasting Blood Glucose; LDL, Low-density lipoprotein; HDL, High-density lipoprotein; AST, Aspartate Aminotransferase; ALT, Alanine Aminotransferase; GGT, Gamma Glutamyl Transferase; IQR, Interquartile range; 95%CI, 95% Confidence Interval; * bolded p-value ≤0.05 denotes statistical significance.

^

Kruskal-Wallis Comparison between 3 groups.

$

Post-Hoc Dunn test between MAFLD (+)/NAFLD (-) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+).

3.2Adverse events between MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+)

The summary of events is tabulated in Table 2. An unadjusted logistic regression analysis clustered on the study year was conducted to examine the difference between MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis clustered on the year of study, MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) was associated with a higher odds of MACE events (OR: 1.34, CI: 1.18 to 1.54, p < 0.001) but not CKD (OR: 2.00, CI: 0.870 to 1.14, p = 0.936) relative to MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). There was no associated increased risk of stroke (OR: 1.26, CI: 0.96 to 1.63, p = 0.093) between MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) relative to MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). There was, however, an associated increase odds of advanced fibrosis by FIB-4 (OR: 1.61, CI: 1.31 to 1.97, p < 0.001) in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) compared to MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). In the assessment of mortality, there was an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.27, CI: 1.11 to 1.48, p < 0.001, Fig. 3) and CVD mortality (SHR: 1.26, CI: 1.05 to 1.52, p = 0.015, Fig. 3). A marginal model was conducted as a post-hoc analysis to evaluate the impact of age and gender on the predicted probabilities of MACE (Fig. 4a), advanced fibrosis by FIB-4 (Fig. 4b), all-cause mortality (Fig. 4c), and CVD related mortality (Fig. 4d). Significantly, age and gender resulted in a non-linear change in events of MACE, advanced fibrosis by FIB-4, all-cause mortality, and CVD related mortality.

Table 2.

Effect size of adverse events in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) with reference to MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+).

  Unadjusted Logistic RegressionMultivariate Logistic Regression
  Effect Size (95%CI)  p value  Effect Size (95%CI)  p value 
All-cause Mortality  1.20 (1.08 to 1.33)  0.001*  1.27 (1.11 to 1.48)  <0.001* 
CVD Mortality  1.25 (1.00 to 1.56)  0.023*  1.26 (1.05 to 1.52)  0.015* 
MACE  1.30 (1.16 to 1.45)  <0.001*  1.34 (1.18 to 1.54)  <0.001* 
CKD  0.890 (0.743 to 1.07)  0.211  2.00 (0.870 to 1.14)  0.936 
Stroke  1.23 (0.920 to 1.64)  0.162  1.26 (0.96 to 1.63)  0.093 
Advanced Fibrosis  1.50 (1.24 to 1.81)  <0.001*  1.61 (1.31 to 1.97)  <0.001* 

MAFLD, Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease; NAFLD, Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; 95%CI, 95% Confidence Interval; CVD, Cardiovascular Disease; MACE, Major Adverse Cardiac Events; CKD, Chronic Kidney Disease; VCTE, Vibration-Controlled Transient Elastography; BMI, Body Mass Index.

adjusted for age, gender, race, smoking, BMI.

* bolded p-value ≤0.05 denotes statistical significance

Fig. 3.

Graph comparing all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-), MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+) according to time from screening.

(0.1MB).
Fig. 4.

Summary of graphs comparing MACE, advanced fibrosis, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-), MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+) according to age at the time of screening.

(0.18MB).
3.3Predictors of adverse events in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+)

A multivariate analysis adjusted for age, gender, race, smoking, BMI clustered on the year of study was conducted to examine for associated factors of advanced fibrosis, all-cause mortality and CVD related mortality in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). Supplementary table 1 summarizes the findings of MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). An older age was a significant factor for advanced fibrosis in both MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) (OR 1.08, CI: 1.06 to 1.10, p < 0.001) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+) (OR: 1.09, CI: 1.06 to 1.11, p < 0.001). However, the female gender was associated with a decrease odd of advanced fibrosis only in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) but not observed in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+) with T2DM (Supplementary table 1). Patients with viral hepatitis were associated with a 6.77 (CI: 3.92 to 11.7, p < 0.001) times increase odds of advanced fibrosis.

Supplementary Table 1.

Adjusted effect size of risk factors associated with adverse events in patients with MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+)

  MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-)MAFLD (+)/NAFLD(+)
  Effect Size (95%CI)  p value  Effect Size (95%CI)  p value 
Advanced Fibrosis         
Age  1.08 (1.06 to 1.10)  <0.001*  1.09 (1.06 to 1.11)  <0.001* 
Female gender  0.688 (0.555 to 0.854)  0.001*  0.749 (0.529 to 1.06)  0.104 
BMI  0.997 (0.962 to 1.03)  0.871  1.00 (0.946 to 1.07)  0.884 
Past Smokers  0.999 (0.636 to 1.57)  0.998  0.667 (0.480 to 0.926)  0.016* 
Current Smokers  1.71 (0.968 to 3.01)  0.064  0.568 (0.269 to 1.20)  0.139 
Hba1c  0.953 (0.804 to 1.13)  0.583  0.918 (0.841 to 1.01)  0.060 
HOMA-IR  1.01 (1.00 to 1.02)  0.003*  1.01 (1.00 to 1.02)  0.041* 
Alcoholic Liver Disease  0.966 (0.822 to 1.14)  0.682  1.02 (0.620 to 1.67)  0.946 
Viral Hepatitis  6.77 (3.92 to 11.7)  <0.001* 
Race         
Mexican American  Ref.  Ref.  Ref.  Ref. 
Other Hispanic  1.32 (0.726 to 2.40)  0.362  0.915 (0.539 to 1.55)  0.741 
Caucasians  0.986 (0.591 to 1.64)  0.957  0.944 (0.662 to 1.35)  0.753 
African American  0.858 (0.600 to 1.23)  0.403  0.814 (0.454 to 1.46)  0.493 
Others  1.27 (0.760 to 2.11)  0.365  1.03 (0.478 to 2.22)  0.937 
         
All-Cause Mortality     
Age  1.07 (1.06 to 1.08)  <0.001*  1.09 (1.08 to 1.10)  <0.001* 
Female gender  0.711 (0.547 to 0.922)  0.010*  0.873 (0.774 to 0.985)  0.028* 
BMI  1.007 (0.984 to 1.03)  0.553  0.993 (0.977 to 1.01)  0.364 
Waist Circumference  1.01 (0.997 to 1.02)  0.153  1.01 (0.998 to 1.01)  0.158 
Past Smokers  0.977 (0.760 to 1.26)  0.858  0.990 (0.811 to 1.21)  0.923 
Current Smokers  1.49 (1.13 to 1.97)  0.005*  1.88 (1.53 to 2.31)  <0.001* 
Hba1c  1.06 (1.00 to 1.12)  0.037*  1.10 (0.984 to 1.24)  0.010* 
FIB-4 (2.67)  1.98 (1.51 to 2.60)  <0.001*  1.65 (1.36 to 2.01)  <0.001* 
HOMA  1.01 (1.00 to 1.02)  <0.001*  1.01 (1.01 to 1.02)  <0.001* 
Alcohol Consumption  0.975 (0.889 to 1.07)  0.597  1.12 (0.797 to 1.58)  0.511 
Viral Hepatitis  1.75 (1.29 to 2.40)  <0.001* 
Alcoholic Liver Disease  1.04 (0.783 to 1.40)  0.767 
Race         
Mexican American  Ref.  Ref.  Ref.  Ref. 
Other Hispanic  0.842 (0.508 to 1.39)  0.503  0.788 (0.492 to 1.26)  0.322 
Caucasians  1.38 (1.02 to 1.87)  0.037*  1.10 (0.860 to 1.40)  0.458 
African American  1.21 (0.843 to 1.75)  0.297  1.29 (0.876 to 1.89)  0.200 
Others  1.77 (1.09 to 2.88)  0.022*  0.877 (0.494 to 1.56)  0.656 
         
Cardiovascular Mortality         
Age  1.04 (1.03 to 1.05)  <0.001*  1.09 (1.08 to 1.10)  <0.001* 
Female gender  0.465 (0.344 to 0.631)  <0.001*  0.927 (0.647 to 1.33)  0.682 
BMI  0.991 (0.940 to 1.05)  0.742  0.999 (0.953 to 1.05)  0.992 
Waist Circumference  0.991 (0.968 to 1.02)  0.487  0.998 (0.981 to 1.02)  0.804 
Past Smokers  0.908 (0.587 to 1.40)  0.664  1.30 (0.969 to 1.74)  0.08 
Current Smokers  1.14 (0.605 to 2.14)  0.690  1.67 (0.833 to 3.36)  0.148 
Hba1c  1.16 (1.08 to 1.24)  <0.001*  1.06 (0.933 to 1.20)  0.373 
FIB-4 (2.67)  1.13 (0.602 to 2.12)  0.704  0.685 (0.377 to 1.24)  0.213 
HOMA-IR  1.01 (0.992 to 1.02)  0.340  1.01 (0.998 to 1.02)  0.131 
Alcohol Consumption  1.04 (0.931 to 1.16)  0.490  0.921 (0.652 to 1.30)  0.645 
Viral Hepatitis  0.944 (0.286 to 3.12)  0.925 
Race         
Mexican American  Ref.  Ref.  Ref.  Ref. 
Other Hispanic  0.004 (0.001 to 0.005)  <0.001*  0.646 (0.121 to 3.45)  0.609 
Caucasians  1.37 (0.958 to 1.96)  0.084  1.05 (0.659 to 1.67)  0.839 
African American  1.17 (0.744 to 1.84)  0.497  1.71 (1.26 to 2.30)  0.001 
Others  0.857 (0.365 to 2.01)  0.722  0.601 (0.103 to 3.50)  0.571 

MAFLD, Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease; NAFLD, Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Hba1c, Hemoglobin A1C; BMI, Body Mass Index; HOMA-IR, Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance; FIB-4, Fibrosis-4 score; IQR, Interquartile range; 95%CI, 95% Confidence Interval; * bolded p-value ≤0.05 denotes statistical significance.

In all-cause mortality, there were shared risk factors between the two diseases, including age, gender, and smoking history (supplementary table 1) between MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). However, ethnicity influence MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) differently from MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). Additionally, a higher Hba1c level was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.06, CI: 1.00 to 1.12, p = 0.037) and CVD mortality (SHR: 1.16, CI: 1.08 to 1.24, p < 0.001) in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) but not in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). While alcohol consumption did not increase the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, a diagnosis of viral hepatitis significantly increases the risk of all-cause mortality in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) (HR: 1.75, CI: 1.29 to 2.40, p < 0.001).

4Discussion

The debate on the most appropriate definition of fatty liver has resulted in significant divides in the international community [25,26]. While previous studies have compared outcomes between MAFLD and NAFLD, there has yet to be a specific analysis within the population with T2DM despite the prevalent nature of fatty liver amongst patients with T2DM. T2DM and fatty liver share commonalities in pathogenesis and are predisposed to developing hepatic steatosis. De-novo hepatic de-novo lipogenesis is a major pathway in fatty liver development and hyperglycaemia induces transcription factor carbohydrate response element binding protein while hyperinsulinemia increases transcription factor Sterol regulatory element-binding protein 1 activity, resulting in hepatic lipogenesis from the increased abundance of fatty acyl-CoAs [8,27]. The MAFLD criteria allow for any individual with T2DM and hepatic steatosis to be included in MAFLD, while NAFLD can only be made with the exclusion of other chronic liver diseases and the absence of significant alcohol use. As a result, our study shows that the change in criteria had a 68.89% (n = 2032) increase in fatty liver diagnosis in T2DM.

Previous estimates have suggested a hepatic steatosis prevalence upwards of 75% in the population with T2DM [28,29]. However, a recent study conducted to differentiate subtypes of MAFLD also found significant variance within MAFLD where metabolically healthy individuals made up 68% of MAFLD in the general population [30]. Our study supports the notion and shows that even in individuals with T2DM who are categorized as metabolically unhealthy, there were distinct differences in patients who were MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and were at a higher risk of MACE, advanced fibrosis, all-cause and cardiovascular-related mortality compared to MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+) [31,32]. While NAFLD focuses on the liver [3], MAFLD, in turn, seeks to capture systemic factors associated with hepatic steatosis, with T2DM forming a major factor for inclusion [25,31,33,34]. In turn, the increased risk of adverse events might not be an accurate representation of a derivative risk from fatty liver but a result of systemic commodities associated with the condition. The two conditions also differ in predictors of adverse events where a higher Hba1c was associated with MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) for all-cause and cardiovascular-related mortality, but the same was not observed in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+).

The presence of viral hepatitis amongst patients with T2DM was additionally found to significantly increase the risk of advanced fibrosis and all-cause mortality. This is unsurprising given the presence of dual liver aetiology resulting in higher mortality. A major point against the change of definition relates to the inclusion of hepatic steatosis from viral hepatitis, which has been linked to a higher prevalence of fibrosis in liver biopsy [35]. The presence of hepatic steatosis in viral hepatitis is also associated with a higher risk of overall mortality, HCC and decompensation compared to non-MAFLD viral hepatitis [36–38] and the inclusion of viral hepatitis into MAFLD may omit important differentiating factors of chronic liver disease. Additionally, male patients in MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) were found to be at an increased odds of advanced fibrosis. This finding is interesting given the notion that females have conventionally been linked to a higher risk of advanced fibrosis in NAFLD. The finding may be explained by the inclusion criteria where MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) patients are more likely to be males with increased rates of metabolic dysfunction, which influences the risk of advanced fibrosis.

MAFLD is not without its benefits and allows for the inclusion of all hepatic steatosis in individuals with T2DM without the nuisance of ruling out other chronic liver disease causes, which might be beneficial to non-hepatologist [39]. Nevertheless, classifying all T2DM patients with liver steatosis under an umbrella term may result in significant heterogeneity between different subcategories of patients and increase the hurdle in the ongoing effort for NAFLD drug development. These individuals may respond to treatment differently from what has been proposed in traditional NAFLD [40–42] and may benefit from a focus on the reduction of systemic events rather than liver fibrosis. Additionally, the change should be conducted with caution as it results in a 68.89% increase in fatty liver diagnosis amongst individuals with T2DM and would, in turn, require better risk stratification to prevent an over-inclusion of fatty liver.

4.1Limitations

This paper explores the differences in clinical characteristics and longitudinal outcomes in T2DM patients who have MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(-) and MAFLD(+)/NAFLD(+). However, there are several limitations to the current study. Even though an imaging-based diagnosis of fatty liver is preferred in the setting of population studies, blood-based non-invasive tests were employed for the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis in this study due to its practicality in data availability. While imperfect, the fatty liver index is commonly used in population-based studies [43–45] for identifying hepatic steatosis and has an AUROC of 0.83 relative to biopsy [46]. We could also not explore the effect of post-menopausal women in the dataset, given the lack of coding in the primary data frame.

Additionally, the low rates of CKD at a population level may limit the power of the study to detect statistical significance. Furthermore, quantifying alcohol intake through self-report questionnaires rather than monitor-based measures invites room for misclassification, recall and social desirability biases. Finally, to improve the rigors of the study, results of cancers were omitted as the relevant data in NHANES is based on an interview-based recollection by patients rather than a formal diagnosis of cancer, hence subjecting the data to potential bias.

5Conclusions

The change from NAFLD to MAFLD significantly affects the population with T2DM with a 68.89% increase of fatty liver diagnosis amongst patients and results in an over-diagnosis and exaggerated end-organ complications with MAFLD. In turn, the change in definition creates much heterogeneity in fatty liver and may also require a refocus on the prevention of systemic events, given the significant comorbidities amongst patients with T2DM.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data Availability

Data were retrieved from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Registry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and Design: Cheng Han Ng, Mark Muthiah; Acquisition of Data: Cheng Han Ng, Wen Hui Lim, Kai En Chan, Clarissa Elysia Fu; Analysis and Interpretation of Data: Cheng Han Ng, Wen Hui Lim, Darren Jun Hao Tan, Kai En Chan, Clarissa Elysia Fu, Bryan Tan; Writing – original draft: Cheng Han Ng, Wen Hui Lim, Kai En Chan, Darren Jun Hao Tan, Clarissa Elysia Fu; Writing – review & editing: Benjamin Nah, Eunice Tan, Yock Young Dan, Nicholas WS Chew, Nicholas Syn, Jiong-Wei Wang, Nilofer Sayed, Mohammad Shadab Siddiqui, Arun J. Sanyal, Mazen Noureddin, Mark Muthiah, Gwyneth Kong, Jieling Xiao, Jie Ning Yong. All authors approve the final version of the manuscript, including the authorship list and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

References
[1]
TG Cotter, M. Rinella.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease 2020: the state of the disease.
Gastroenterology, 158 (2020), pp. 1851-1864
[2]
ZM Younossi, AB Koenig, D Abdelatif, Y Fazel, L Henry, M. Wymer.
Global epidemiology of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes.
Hepatology, 64 (2016), pp. 73-84
[3]
GEH Lim, A Tang, CH Ng, YH Chin, WH Lim, DJH Tan, et al.
An observational data meta-analysis on the differences in prevalence and risk factors between MAFLD vs NAFLD.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, (2021),
[4]
NWS Chew, CH Ng, MD Muthiah, AJ. Sanyal.
Comprehensive review and updates on holistic approach towards non-alcoholic fatty liver disease management with cardiovascular disease.
Curr Atheroscler Rep, (2022),
[5]
DJH Tan, CH Ng, SY Lin, XH Pan, P Tay, WH Lim, et al.
Clinical characteristics, surveillance, treatment allocation, and outcomes of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lancet Oncol, 23 (2022), pp. 521-530
[6]
M Eslam, AJ Sanyal, J George.
International Consensus P. MAFLD: a consensus-driven proposed nomenclature for metabolic associated fatty liver disease.
Gastroenterology, 158 (2020), pp. 1999-2014
[7]
J Quek, CH Ng, ASP Tang, N Chew, M Chan, CM Khoo, et al.
Metabolic associated fatty liver disease increases the risk of systemic complications and mortality. a meta-analysis and systematic review of 12 620 736 individuals.
[8]
N Stefan, K. Cusi.
A global view of the interplay between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and diabetes.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 10 (2022), pp. 284-296
[9]
CH Ng, KE Chan, C Yip Han, R Zeng, P Tsai, WH Lim, et al.
The effect of diabetes and prediabetes on the prevalence, complications and mortality in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
Clinic Mol Hepatol, (2022),
[10]
MH Le, YH Yeo, X Li, J Li, B Zou, Y Wu, et al.
Global NAFLD prevalence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021, (2019),
[11]
ZM Younossi, P Golabi, L de Avila, JM Paik, M Srishord, N Fukui, et al.
The global epidemiology of NAFLD and NASH in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Hepatol, 71 (2019), pp. 793-801
[12]
KE Chan, T Koh, A Tang, J Quek, JN Yong, P Tay, et al.
Global prevalence and clinical characteristics of metabolic associated fatty liver disease. a meta-analysis and systematic review of 10,739,607 individuals.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab, (2022),
[13]
CDC. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). 2017;2020, https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/default.aspx?BeginYear=2017.
[14]
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) MEC LaboratoryProcedures Manual.
[15]
Noureddin M, Ntanios F, Malhotra D, Hoover K, Emir B, McLeod E, et al. Predicting NAFLD prevalence in the United States using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017-2018 transient elastography data and application of machine learning. Hepatol Commun 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep4.1935.
[16]
M Eslam, PN Newsome, SK Sarin, QM Anstee, G Targher, M Romero-Gomez, et al.
A new definition for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: An international expert consensus statement.
J Hepatol, 73 (2020), pp. 202-209
[17]
M Eslam, AJ Sanyal, J George, A Sanyal, B Neuschwander-Tetri, C Tiribelli, et al.
MAFLD: a consensus-driven proposed nomenclature for metabolic associated fatty liver disease.
Gastroenterology, 158 (2020), pp. 1999-2014.e1
[18]
Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies.
[19]
E Truong, YH Yeo, G Cook-Wiens, M Muthiah, JD Yang, V Sundaram, et al.
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease prevalence and severity in Asian Americans from the national health and nutrition examination surveys 2017-2018.
Hepatol Commun, (2022),
[20]
G Bedogni, S Bellentani, L Miglioli, F Masutti, M Passalacqua, A Castiglione, et al.
The Fatty Liver Index: a simple and accurate predictor of hepatic steatosis in the general population.
BMC Gastroenterol, 6 (2006), pp. 33
[21]
Standards of medical care in diabetes–2015: summary of revisions.
Diabetes Care, (2015), pp. S4
[22]
B Williams, G Mancia, W Spiering, E Agabiti Rosei, M Azizi, M Burnier, et al.
2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension.
Eur Heart J, 39 (2018), pp. 3021-3104
[23]
AS Levey, J. Coresh.
Chronic kidney disease.
[24]
MD Muthiah, N Cheng Han, AJ Sanyal.
A clinical overview of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A guide to diagnosis, the clinical features, and complications—What the non-specialist needs to know.
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 24 (2022), pp. 3-14
[25]
CH Ng, DQ Huang, MH. Nguyen.
NAFLD versus MAFLD: prevalence, outcomes and implications of a change in name.
Clin Mol Hepatol, (2022),
[26]
G. Targher.
Concordance between MAFLD and NAFLD diagnostic criteria in 'real-world' data.
Liver Int, 40 (2020), pp. 2879-2880
[27]
G Targher, KE Corey, CD Byrne, M. Roden.
The complex link between NAFLD and type 2 diabetes mellitus - mechanisms and treatments.
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 18 (2021), pp. 599-612
[28]
P. Angulo.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
N Engl J Med, 346 (2002), pp. 1221-1231
[29]
J Richard, I. Lingvay.
Hepatic steatosis and Type 2 diabetes: current and future treatment considerations.
Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther, 9 (2011), pp. 321-328
[30]
X Chen, S Chen, J Pang, Y Tang, W. Ling.
Are the different MAFLD subtypes based on the inclusion criteria correlated with all-cause mortality?.
J Hepatol, 75 (2021), pp. 987-989
[31]
S Lim, JW Kim, G. Targher.
Links between metabolic syndrome and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease.
Trends Endocrinol Metab, 32 (2021), pp. 500-514
[32]
Q Huang, X Zou, X Wen, X Zhou, L Ji.
NAFLD or MAFLD: which has closer association with all-cause and cause-specific mortality?-Results From NHANES III.
[33]
AP Thrift, TH Nguyen, C Pham, M Balakrishnan, F Kanwal, R Loomba, et al.
The prevalence and determinants of NAFLD and MAFLD and their severity in the va primary care setting.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, (2022),
[34]
L Miao, L Yang, LS Guo, QQ Shi, TF Zhou, Y Chen, et al.
Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease is associated with greater impairment of lung function than nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
J Clin Transl Hepatol, 10 (2022), pp. 230-237
[35]
KI Zheng, DQ Sun, Y Jin, PW Zhu, MH. Zheng.
Clinical utility of the MAFLD definition.
J Hepatol, 74 (2021), pp. 989-991
[36]
LA van Kleef, HSJ Choi, WP Brouwer, BE Hansen, K Patel, RA de Man, et al.
Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease increases risk of adverse outcomes in patients with chronic hepatitis B.
[37]
MN Kim, K Han, J Yoo, SG Hwang, SH. Ahn.
Increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and mortality in chronic viral hepatitis with concurrent fatty liver.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 55 (2022), pp. 97-107
[38]
ZM Younossi, JM Paik, R Al Shabeeb, P Golabi, I Younossi, L Henry.
Are there outcome differences between NAFLD and metabolic-associated fatty liver disease?.
[39]
N Mendez-Sanchez, E Bugianesi, RG Gish, F Lammert, H Tilg, MH Nguyen, et al.
Global multi-stakeholder endorsement of the MAFLD definition.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 7 (2022), pp. 388-390
[40]
C Wong, CYL Yaow, CH Ng, YH Chin, YF Low, AYL Lim, et al.
Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in asian patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis.
Front Endocrinol, 11 (2020),
[41]
A Mantovani, G Petracca, G Beatrice, A Csermely, A Lonardo, G. Targher.
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
[42]
CH Ng, SY Lin, YH Chin, MH Lee, N Syn, XL Goh, et al.
Anti-diabetic medications for type 2 diabetics with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: evidence from a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Endocr Pract, 28 (2022), pp. 223-230
[43]
S Ciardullo, T Monti, I Sala, G Grassi, G Mancia, G. Perseghin.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and advanced fibrosis in us adults across blood pressure categories.
Hypertension, 76 (2020), pp. 562-568
[44]
D Barb, EM Repetto, ME Stokes, SS Shankar, K. Cusi.
Type 2 diabetes mellitus increases the risk of hepatic fibrosis in individuals with obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
Obesity, 29 (2021), pp. 1950-1960
[45]
D Kim, S Murag, G Cholankeril, A Cheung, SA Harrison, ZM Younossi, et al.
Physical activity, measured objectively, is associated with lower mortality in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 19 (2021),
[46]
L Fedchuk, F Nascimbeni, R Pais, F Charlotte, C Housset, V Ratziu, et al.
Performance and limitations of steatosis biomarkers in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 40 (2014), pp. 1209-1222

These authors contributed equally to this work and shared first authorship.

Copyright © 2022. 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