Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 21, 2023; 29(3): 549-560
Published online Jan 21, 2023. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i3.549
Table 1 Overall evaluation of the clinical profile and long-term outcome difference between the patients identified as metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (also see Supplementary Tables 1-4 for more details on individual study)
Main outcome
Number of studies
Sample
Conclusion
Hepatic steatosis and fibrosis identification in MAFLD terminology change
Steatosis and fibrosis1038686 subjectsMAFLD definition is able to capture more subjects with fatty liver disease
MAFLD group showed either no difference or higher in fibrosis or liver stiffness compared to NAFLD group
Long-term outcome differences in MAFLD terminology change
All cause mortality risks and cause specific mortality4183380 subjectsMAFLD is associated with an increased risk of mortality compared to NAFLD
MAFLD mortality is largely contributed by the presence of metabolic disorders
All cause mortality risks112878 subjectsMAFLD and NAFLD share similar all-cause mortality risk
MAFLD mortality is hence likely caused by ALD, while NAFLD mortality seems to be caused by metabolic abnormalities
MAFLD and correlation to non-liver diseases
CVD, ASCVD, cardiovascular events32458240 subjectsThe risk of CVD is higher in MAFLD compared to NAFLD
MAFLD is superior over NAFLD in predicting ASCVD risk, contributed by the presence of metabolic risk factors
Clinical and histopathological features of MAFLD
Risk factors, steatosis, advanced fibrosis9237679 subjectsT2DM and obesity are significant drivers of MAFLD pathogenesis
MAFLD patients had higher BMI, LDL-C and prevalence of T2DM as compared to NAFLD patients
Older age, females and menopausal status are risks factors for developing MAFLD
Table 2 Studies included for study of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease pathophysiology
Ref.
Type of study
Sample
Main outcomes
Results
Conclusion
Taheri et al[29]Case-control study968 subjects from IranDIS, LISRisks of MAFLD (OR): High LIS and DIS > high LIS > high DIS (2.56 vs 1.96 vs 1.84; P < 0.001)Pro-inflammatory dietary and lifestyle exposures are associated with higher risk of MAFLD regardless of gender. Inflammation may be a primary pathogenic mechanism behind dietary risks of MAFLD development
Mu et al[30]Case-control study564 subjects from Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, ChinaSNPRisks of MAFLD (OR): PNPLA3 rs738409 CC genotype > MBOAT7 rs64173 TT genotype > STAT3 rs74416 AA genotype (1.402 vs 1.299 vs 0.738; P < 0.005)The CC genotype of PNPLA3 rs738409 and TT genotype of MBOAT7 rs64173 genes are associated with higher risks of MAFLD. The AA genotype of STAT3 rs744166 gene is associated with lower risks of MAFLD. The genes TM6SF2 rs58542926 and GATAD2A rs4808199 show no significant correlation with MAFLD
Panera et al[31]Cohort study-retrospective1111 subjects from Milan, ItalyHepatic fibrosisAssociations of KLB rs17618244 variant (OR): Hepatic fibrosis (1.23; P = 0.04)The KLB rs17618244 variant was associated with hepatic fibrosis (P = 0.04) but showed no statistical significance in the correlation with steatosis, inflammation and ballooning (P = 0.37, 0.12, 0.16 respectively)
Oses et al[32]Cross-sectional study115 children (8-12 years old)Fasting blood biochemical parameters, SNPTG, insulin, HOMA-IR, ALT, AST, GGT, ferritin: MAFLD > non-MAFLD (P < 0.05). Percentage of risk of allele carriers: PNPLA3 rs4823173 > PPARG rs1801282 > PPARG rs13081389, HFE rs1800562 (46% vs 33% vs 21%; P < 0.05)The genetic risk score based on 4 SNPs associated with MAFLD showed limited discriminatory capacity (67% sensitivity and 65% specificity) and did not improve the accuracy of the prediction protocol for MAFLD developed in the study