Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease improves detection of high liver stiffness: The Rotterdam Study

Abstract

Background and aims: Recently metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) has been introduced and was defined as hepatic steatosis with either overweight, diabetes, and/or a combination of other metabolic risk factors. We investigated the application of the MAFLD criteria as compared with NAFLD.

Approach and results: We performed a cross-sectional analysis within the Rotterdam Study, a large prospective population-based cohort. Participants who attended the liver ultrasound and transient elastography program between 2009 and 2014 were eligible for inclusion. Subsequently, individuals with viral hepatitis, alcohol intake >60 g/day, missing alcohol data, and/or missing body mass index were excluded. According to their NAFLD and MAFLD status based on metadata and ultrasound, participants were allocated in overlap fatty liver disease (FLD), NAFLD-only, MAFLD-only, or no FLD. Fibrosis was defined as liver stiffness ≥8.0 kPa. In our analysis, 5445 participants were included: 1866 (34.3%) had MAFLD and 1604 (29.5%) [Correction added on December 27, 2021 after first online publication: The preceding fragment was changed from "1623 (29.8%)"] had NAFLD. This resulted in 1547 (28.4%) [Correction added on December 27, 2021 after first online publication: The preceding fragment was changed from "1566 (28.8%)"] individuals with overlap FLD, 319 (5.9%) [Correction added on December 27, 2021 after first online publication: The preceding fragment was changed from "300 (5.5%)"] with MAFLD-only, 57 (1.0%) with NAFLD-only, and 3522 (64.7%) with no FLD. The MAFLD-only group was strongly associated with fibrosis (adjusted OR 5.30 [Correction added on December 27, 2021 after first online publication: The preceding fragment was changed from "OR 5.27"], p < 0.001) and log-transformed liver stiffness (adjusted beta 0.116, p < 0.001), as opposed to the NAFLD-only group, in which no cases of fibrosis were identified and no association with liver stiffness (adjusted beta 0.006, p = 0.90) was found.

Conclusions: FLD is highly prevalent in the general population. However, not the NAFLD-only, but the MAFLD-only group was associated with fibrosis and higher liver stiffness-independent of demographic and lifestyle factors. We believe that using the MAFLD criteria will help improve the identification and treatment of patients with FLD at risk for fibrosis.

FIGURE 1

Participant selection. Flowchart of exclusions, NAFLD, and metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) diagnosis. Participants can have multiple exclusion criteria or secondary causes for steatosis. Abbreviation: BMI, body mass index

FIGURE 2

NAFLD and MAFLD distribution. The inner circle represents MAFLD, and the outer circle NAFLD. Non‐overlapping groups are highlighted. The MAFLD‐only criteria were present in 319 (5.9%) and NAFLD‐only criteria in 57 (1.0%) participants. NAFLD‐exclusion criteria were excessive alcohol and steatogenic drug use