4.7 Review

MAFLD and CKD: An Updated Narrative Review

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23137007

关键词

non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NAFLD; non-alcoholic steatohepatitis; NASH; metabolic associated fatty liver disease; MAFLD; chronic kidney disease; CKD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accumulating evidence suggests that NAFLD is independently associated with an increased risk of CKD, and further studies are needed to determine whether the name change to MAFLD improves the accuracy of detecting CKD patients.
Accumulating evidence now indicates that non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which is the most common chronic liver disease observed in clinical practice worldwide, is independently associated with an increased risk of incident chronic kidney disease (CKD). Given that NAFLD is linked to insulin resistance, obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, an international panel of experts have recently proposed a name change from NAFLD to metabolic associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD). Since the diagnostic criteria for NAFLD and MAFLD are different, observational studies assessing the potential concordance (or even superiority) of MAFLD, compared with NAFLD, in detecting patients at increased risk of hepatic and extra-hepatic complications (including CKD) are required. Hence, in the last two years, some observational studies have investigated the potential relationship between MAFLD and CKD. The result is that, at present, evidence regarding the concordance or even superiority of MAFLD, compared with NAFLD, in detecting patients at higher risk of CKD is still preliminary, although some data indicate that MAFLD identifies patients with CKD as accurately as NAFLD. In this narrative review, we will discuss: (a) the epidemiological evidence assessing the association between NAFLD and risk of incident CKD, (b) the epidemiological data investigating the association between MAFLD and risk of CKD and (c) the biological mechanisms underlying the association between NAFLD/MAFLD and CKD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据