Shift in prevalence and systemic inflammation levels from NAFLD to MAFLD: a population-based cross-sectional study

• Published in: Lipids in health and disease 2023-10, Vol.22 (1), p.1-185, Article 185
• Main Authors: Liu, Qingdan, Han, Meilan, Li, Meilan, Huang, Xiaoyin, Feng, Ruimei, Li, Wanxin, Chen, Jun, He, Haiying, Zheng, Wenxin, Hu, Zhijian, Du, Shanshan, Ye, Weimin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdomen; Alcohol; Analysis; Blood platelets; Blood pressure; Body mass index; Demographics; Diabetes; Fatty liver; General population; Glucose; High density lipoprotein; Hyperlipidemia; Hypertension; Inflammation; Laboratories; Liver; Liver diseases; Lymph; Lymphocytes; MAFLD; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Metabolic disorders; NAFLD; Overweight; Population studies; Prevalence; Questionnaires; Regression analysis; Self report; Statistical analysis; Systemic inflammatory status; Type 2 diabetes; Ultrasonic imaging; Variance analysis
• ISSN: 1476-511X; 1476-511X
• DOI: 10.1186/s12944-023-01947-4

Background Variations in the prevalence and systemic inflammatory (SI) status between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and newly defined metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have only been reported by few studies. Hence, this study aimed to compile data on the prevalence and the systemic inflammation levels of MAFLD and NAFLD in a general population from Southeast China was summarized to explore the potential effect of the transformation of disease definition. Methods A total of 6718 general population participants aged 35-75 were enrolled. Logistic regression and restricted cubic spline (RCS) models were used to examine the relationship between 15 SI indicators and NAFLD and MAFLD. The predicted values of MAFLD and NAFLD were analyzed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results The prevalence of MAFLD and NAFLD was 34.7% and 32.4%, respectively. Their overlapping rate was 89.7%, while only 8.3% and 1.9% of participants were MAFLD-only and NAFLD-only. Among three FLD groups, the MAFLD-only group had the highest levels of 8 SI indicators, including CRP, WBC, LYMPH, NEUT, MONO, ALB, NLR, and SIRI. The non-FLD group had the lower levels of all 15 SI indicators compared with all FLD subgroups. The odds ratios (ORs) of 10 SI indicators were significant in both multivariable-adjusted logistic regression and RCS analyses of MAFLD or NAFLD, including CRP, WBC, LYMPH, NEUT, MONO, ALB, PLR, LMR, ALI and CA. ROC analysis showed that the AUC values of all SI were lower than 0.7 in both MAFLD and NAFLD. Conclusions MAFLD could cover more FLD than NAFLD, and the MAFLD-only group had a more severe inflammation status, whereas the NAFLD-only exhibited lower levels. Moreover, there was not a high AUC and a high sensitivity of SI indicators, suggesting that SI indicators are not good indicators to diagnose NAFLD/MAFLD. Keywords: MAFLD, NAFLD, Prevalence, Systemic inflammatory status, General population