You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 1, Issue 1
  • Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease increases risk of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Article Text

Article menu
Original research
Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease increases risk of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Jianghua Zhou1,
  2. Dan-Qin Sun2,
  3. Giovanni Targher3,
  4. Christopher D Byrne4,
  5. Byung-wan Lee5,
  6. Masahide Hamaguchi6,
  7. Seung Up Kim7,
  8. Xuhong Hou8,
  9. Gian Paolo Fadini9,
  10. Michio Shimabukuro10,
  11. Masato Furuhashi11,
  12. Ning-Jian Wang12,
  13. Herbert Tilg13 and
  14. Ming-Hua Zheng14,15,16
  1. 1Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China
  2. 2Department of Nephrology, The Affiliated Wuxi No. 2 People’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Affiliated Wuxi Clinical College of Nantong University, Wuxi, Jiangsu, China
  3. 3Section of Endocrinology, University and Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata of Verona, Verona, Italy
  4. 4Southampton National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK
  5. 5Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, The Republic of Korea
  6. 6Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
  7. 7Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University, Seoul, The Republic of Korea
  8. 8Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
  9. 9Department of Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  10. 10Department of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan
  11. 11Department of Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolic Medicine, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
  12. 12Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
  13. 13Department of Internal Medicine I, Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Endocrinology & Metabolism, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  14. 14MAFLD Research Center, Department of Hepatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China
  15. 15Institute of Hepatology, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
  16. 16Key Laboratory of Diagnosis and Treatment for the Development of Chronic Liver Disease in Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
  1. Correspondence to Professor Ming-Hua Zheng; zhengmh{at}wmu.edu.cn

Abstract

Background and aim Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is an alternative description and classification of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) that may have better utility than NAFLD in clinical practice. We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the magnitude of the association between MAFLD and risk of both prevalent and incident chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Web of Science and Cochrane Library from database inception until 29 May 2022. We included observational studies examining the association between MAFLD and risk of CKD, defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or presence of abnormal albuminuria. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to obtain summary HRs or ORs with 95% CIs.

Results Seventeen observational studies with aggregate data on 845 753 participants were included in meta-analysis. In the 7 cohort studies, the pooled random-effects HR for incident CKD in patients with MAFLD was 1.29 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.41, I2=87.0%). In the 10 cross-sectional studies, the pooled random-effects OR for prevalent CKD in patients with MAFLD was 1.35 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.64, I2=92.6%).

Conclusion MAFLD is significantly associated with an increased prevalence and incidence of CKD.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022352366.

  • non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
  • nephropathy, progressive tubulointerstitial, with cholestatic liver disease

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. All extracted and calculated data are available through emailing to the authors.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/egastro-2023-100005

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

    • Studies have shown that Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD) may progress to cirrhosis and contribute to the development of several important extrahepatic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease.

    • Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a progressive and permanent loss of kidney function that leads to significantly increased morbidity and mortality. According to global burden of disease data, CKD is projected to be the fifth leading cause of death worldwide by 2040.

    WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

    • In the 7 cohort studies, the pooled random-effects HR for incident CKD in MAFLD patients was 1.29 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.41, I2=87.0%).

    • In the 10 cross-sectional studies, the pooled random-effects OR for prevalent CKD in MAFLD patients was 1.35 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.64, I2=92.6%).

    HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

    • Healthcare professionals should be aware that risk of incident CKD is moderately increased in patients with MAFLD.

    • Earlier intervention for MAFLD could be a novel target for the prevention and treatment of CKD.

    Introduction

    Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has become the most common cause of chronic liver diseases worldwide, affecting up to ~30% of adults in the general population, up to ~55% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and >50% patients with moderate or severe obesity.1 2 The histological spectrum of NAFLD can be categorised into simple steatosis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) that may progress to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.3 The new definition of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) has been proposed by a consensus of international experts in 2020; notably, this newly proposed MAFLD definition does not require the exclusion of other aetiologies of hepatic steatosis, such as excessive alcohol intake, viral infections or use of hepatotoxic medications.4 As such, it has been suggested that MAFLD could replace the ‘old’ term NAFLD both in clinical practice and in research studies. The diagnosis of MAFLD requires the presence of hepatic steatosis plus at least one of the following three metabolic risk abnormalities: overweight/obesity, T2DM or evidence of metabolic dysregulation (defined as the presence of at least two of seven metabolic risk factors featuring the metabolic syndrome in lean individuals, including also increased homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance score and elevated plasma C reactive protein levels).5 A recent meta-analysis of about 10 million individuals reported a global prevalence of MAFLD of 38.8% in adults.6 In addition, it has been reported that MAFLD may progress to cirrhosis and promote the development of some important extrahepatic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD).7 8

    CKD is a progressive disease with permanent loss of the kidney function, which causes a significant increase in morbidity and mortality. In 2017, the global prevalence of CKD is estimated to be around 9%,9 resulting in about 1.2 million deaths and 35.8 million disability-adjusted life-years.9 Furthermore, based on global burden of disease data, CKD is predicted to become the fifth leading global cause of death by 2040.10 11 Consequently, the search for novel risk factors for CKD should improve strategies for identification of high-risk patient subgroups and potentially reduce the clinical adverse impact of CKD.12 In this setting, identification of MAFLD as a novel risk factor of CKD is attracting considerable scientific attention.7

    A nationwide cohort study of 268 946 middle-aged individuals who underwent National Health Insurance Service health examinations in Korea found that compared with non-MAFLD participants, those with MAFLD had a nearly 40% increase in risk of incident CKD.13 While these results have been consistent with other published studies,14–16 a retrospective cohort analysis of 143 210 patients with obesity from the Truven Health MarketScan Database reported that MAFLD was not significantly associated with an increased risk of incident CKD.17 In addition, in a cross-sectional analysis of the US Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the authors showed that patients with MAFLD had a significantly higher prevalence of CKD than those with NAFLD.18 In such study, MAFLD was associated with a higher risk of CKD stage ≥1 and abnormal albuminuria, but not CKD stage ≥3.18 That said, given the conflicting results on the association between MAFLD and CKD risk reported in previously published studies, there is a need to undertake review and pool the existing evidence to assess the association between MAFLD and risk of CKD.

    Therefore, our aim was to undertake a comprehensive meta-analysis of observational studies to quantify the magnitude of the association between MAFLD and the risk of both prevalent and incident CKD, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines19 20

    Methods

    Registration of review protocol

    The protocol for this systematic review was registered in advance with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, no. CRD42022352366).

    Search strategy and selection criteria

    We systematically searched potential publications in five large electronic databases (PubMed, Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Web of Science and Cochrane Library), from database inception until 29 May 2022. According to our search and selection procedures, all articles retrieved were first assessed by screening the titles and abstracts, and then the relevant full texts were evaluated. Study selection was conducted independently by two authors (JZ and D-QS).

    The inclusion criteria of the meta-analysis were as follows: (1) longitudinal cohort studies or cross-sectional studies, (2) studies investigating the association between MAFLD and risk for CKD, (3) adult (aged >18 years) individuals of any sex or ethnicity and (4) studies with a diagnosis of MAFLD and CKD. Hepatic steatosis had to be diagnosed by one of the following approaches: (1) liver histology, (2) imaging methods (ultrasonography, CT or magnetic resonance-based techniques) and (3) biomarker panels. The exclusion criteria of the meta-analysis were as follows: (1) animal studies, (2) reviews, conference proceedings, letters, case reports or comments, (3) studies in children/adolescents or pregnant women, (4) studies in patients with type 1 diabetes and (5) non-English language studies. In cases of disagreement on the inclusion or exclusion of a given study, the third author (M-HZ) was brought in to discuss the issue until a consensus was reached.

    Data extraction and bias assessment

    Data were extracted independently by two authors (JZ and D-QS). The detail of the data extraction is described in online supplemental methods. In cases of disagreement on data extraction from each included study, the issues were discussed with a third author (M-HZ) and a consensus was reached. An assessment of study quality was performed independently by the two aforementioned authors on the basis of either the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Scale for cross-sectional studies, respectively21 (online supplemental tables S1 and S2).

    Data analysis

    Data analyses were performed by statistical software (STATA, V.14.0, StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA). For dichotomous data, the random-effects ORs for cross-sectional studies, and the random-effects HRs for cohort studies and 95% CIs were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using the χ2 test for Cochran’s Q statistic and calculating I2 statistics. The random-effects model was conducted when there was a significant heterogeneity with I2 statistic >50% or p value <0.10. We further conducted subgroup analyses. We also conducted sensitivity analysis to assess the stability of the pooled results. The effect on the combined effect size was explored by excluding some low quality studies or using different efficacy evaluation criteria and statistical methods. The effect on the combined effect size was explored by excluding some low quality studies or using different efficacy evaluation criteria and statistical methods.

    Results

    The results of study selection

    Overall, 3400 published articles were initially retrieved by our search strategy. After removing duplicate studies, 2381 publications were screened. Excluding records based on the title/abstracts, 32 articles remained for further investigation. Of these articles, 12 further publications were removed, including conference studies, a review and studies involving patients with type 1 diabetes. A total of 17 observational studies were then included in final analysis. Figure 1 summarises the PRISMA flow diagram for search and selection processes of the meta-analysis.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart of the meta-analysis.

    Characteristics of included studies

    Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the included observational studies with a total of 845 753 participants, including 10 cross-sectional studies18 22–31 and 7 retrospective cohort studies.13–17 32 33 Hepatic steatosis was diagnosed by ultrasonography (eight studies),8 14–16 18 31–33 FibroScan (four studies)23 25 30 34 biomarker panels (fatty liver index, hepatic steatosis index, NAFLD liver fat score or ultrasound fatty liver index) (four studies),13 26 28 liver histology (one study)29 or International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (one study).17 In seven studies, MAFLD was defined by the presence of hepatic steatosis plus at least one of the three metabolic risk abnormalities, including T2DM, overweight/obesity or metabolic dysregulation.13–16 18 28 30 In 10 studies, MAFLD was defined exclusively by the coexistence of hepatic steatosis and T2DM,17 22 23 25 26 29 31–33 35 whereas in one study MAFLD was diagnosed by the coexistence of hepatic steatosis and obesity.17 In all studies, CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and/or abnormal albuminuria (ie, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g). The NOS and AHRQ scores were used for assessing the quality of cohort studies and cross-sectional studies, respectively (online supplemental tables S1 and S2).

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Main characteristics of included studies

    Association of MAFLD with risk of incident CKD

    In the seven cohort studies included, the presence of MAFLD was significantly associated with a higher risk of incident CKD (pooled random-effects HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41, I2=87.0%, p<0.001), over a median follow-up of 6 years (IQR 4.6–10 years) (figure 2A). In the 10 cross-sectional studies included, the presence of MAFLD was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of prevalent CKD (pooled random-effects OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.64, I2=92.6%, p<0.001) (figure 2B).

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Association between MAFLD and risk of incident CKD. (A) Association between MAFLD and risk of incident CKD in cohort studies. (B) Association between MAFLD and risk of prevalent CKD in cross-sectional studies. CKD, chronic kidney disease; MAFLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease.

    Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions

    To explore possible sources of heterogeneity across the eligible studies, we carried out some subgroup analyses. In cohort studies, the association between MAFLD and risk of incident CKD remained significant in patient subgroups, stratified by study country, modality of MAFLD diagnosis, CKD definition, study quality or severity of MAFLD-related fibrosis (figures 3–4, online supplemental figures S2 and S4 and table 2). MAFLD was also associated with an increased risk of CKD after stratification by participants’ characteristics (table 2).

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Subgroup analysis for MAFLD-related risk of incident CKD by modality of MAFLD diagnosis. (A) Subgroup analysis for MAFLD-related risk of incident CKD by modality of MAFLD diagnosis in cohort studies. (B) Subgroup analysis for MAFLD-related risk of prevalent CKD by modality of MAFLD diagnosis in cross-sectional studies. CKD, chronic kidney disease; ICD-9-CM, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification; MAFLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease.

    Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Subgroup analysis for MAFLD-related risk of incident CKD by CKD definition. (A) Subgroup analysis for MAFLD-related risk of incident CKD by CKD definition in cohort studies. (B) Subgroup analysis for MAFLD-related risk of prevalent CKD by CKD definition in cross-sectional studies. CKD, chronic kidney disease; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; MAFLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Subgroup analyses examining the associations between MAFLD and the risk of incident (by cohort studies) or prevalent (by cross-sectional studies) CKD

    The same subgroup analyses were also conducted in cross-sectional studies. We found that MAFLD was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of prevalent CKD in patient subgroups, stratified by CKD definition, MAFLD severity, study quality and degree of covariate adjustment (figures 3–4, online supplemental figures S3 and S5 and table 2). While MAFLD was not associated with risk of prevalent CKD in studies conducted in participants from America and Asia, in studies with hepatic steatosis defined by ultrasonography or histology and in studies with MAFLD diagnosed by the coexistence of hepatic steatosis with at least one of the following three metabolic risk abnormalities (namely overweight/obesity, T2DM or evidence of metabolic dysregulation).

    Meta-regression was also used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity, while no variables were found affecting the association of MAFLD with and increased CKD riskonline supplemental (online supplemental table S3).

    Association between severity of MAFLD and risk of CKD

    The severity of MAFLD was assessed non-invasively as hepatic steatosis alone or presence of both hepatic steatosis and advanced fibrosis (by using non-invasive fibrosis biomarkers). There were only two studies that have assessed the association between MAFLD-related fibrosis and risk of CKD, with a pooled random-effects HR of 1.54 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.07, p=0.004) for the risk of incident CKD in patients with MAFLD from one cohort study, and a random-effects OR of 3.28 (95% CI 1.21 to 8.86, p=0.019) for the risk of prevalent CKD in patients with MAFLD from one cross-sectional study (online supplemental figure S1).

    Sensitivity analyses

    To assess the impact of each study on the final outcome, we performed a sensitivity analysis. We use an impact test approach, which excludes each included study individually, to test whether excessive impact from individual studies would have a significant impact on the final results. Interestingly, we found that after excluding each eligibility study, the overall effect on MAFLD-associated CKD risk was not significant, as shown in figure 5. This indicates that our results have a certain robustness.

    Figure 5
    Figure 5

    Risk of incident CKD in MAFLD: sensitivity analysis. (A) Risk of incident CKD in MAFLD: sensitivity analysis in cohort studies. (B) Risk of prevalent CKD in MAFLD: sensitivity analysis in cross-sectional studies. CKD, chronic kidney disease; MAFLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease.

    Publication bias assessment

    The visual inspection and formal statistical tests (p values of 0.743 and 0.711 for the Egger’s test and Begg’s test in cohort studies; and p values of 0.092 and 0.474 for the Egger’s test and Begg’s test in cross-sectional studies, respectively) did not show any statistically significant asymmetry of the funnel plots, thus suggesting that publication bias was unlikely.

    Discussion

    To the best of our knowledge, the present meta-analysis assessing the association between MAFLD and the risk of prevalent and incident CKD is the largest and most comprehensive assessment of this association to date. In this meta-analysis of 20 observational studies with aggregate data on about 1 million middle-aged individuals from different countries, we found that MAFLD was significantly associated with an approximately 30% increased risk of both prevalent and incident CKD. In particular, the magnitude of the MAFLD-related risk of incident CKD remained essentially unchanged even after stratification by study country, modality of MAFLD diagnosis, CKD definition or study quality. The risk of incident CKD stage ≥3 remained significant also in those cohort studies where analyses were adjusted for common renal risk factors. Furthermore, the risk of CKD seemed to be higher among patients with MAFLD with greater severity of liver fibrosis (assessed by fibrosis biomarkers). However, additional larger studies are needed to better examine this issue. Thus, the results of our meta-analysis indirectly support the concept that interventions against MAFLD might be an effective target for the prevention and treatment of CKD.

    In this meta-analysis, we found that the newly proposed MAFLD definition was able to identify individuals at risk of developing CKD as effectively as the NAFLD definition, a finding which has been reported in some previous meta-analyses.34 36 A nationwide cohort study of 268 946 middle-aged individuals also suggested that MAFLD identified patients who developed CKD better than NAFLD, over a median follow-up of 5.1 years.13 That said, however, it is important to underline that the results of the present meta-analysis do not allow us to determine whether MAFLD predicts the risk of incident CKD better than NAFLD, because there are very few cohort studies that simultaneously examined the comparative effects of MAFLD and NAFLD definitions on the risk of developing CKD.

    The association between diabetes and CKD is well-known. Although MAFLD is an emerging definition, many studies have found a correlation between MAFLD and CKD, which is independent of diabetes. Park et al found that the incidence of CKD in patients with diabetes combined with NAFLD was 16.4 per 1000 person-years, and the incidence of CKD in patients with diabetes without NAFLD was 13.6 per 1000 person-years.17 The incidence of CKD in patients with NAFLD without diabetes was 5.3 per 1000 person-years. This indicated that the incidence of CKD is higher in patients with diabetes and NAFLD compared with patients with diabetes or NAFLD. Another study by Targher et al found that patients with diabetes with NAFLD had a 49% increased risk of CKD compared with patients with diabetes alone (adjusted HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.20).33 This work also further suggests that NAFLD can independently increase the risk of developing CKD. Meanwhile, the study by Lee et al also found that MAFLD was independently associated with CKD (adjusted OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.25), and that patients with diabetes with MAFLD had a higher risk of CKD than patients with diabetes without MAFLD.34 These findings also support the association between MAFLD and CKD from another side.

    To date, the possible mechanisms underpinning the observed association between MAFLD and increased risk of CKD are currently understood, but they can be explained by several factors. First, MAFLD and CKD share common pathophysiological pathways, for example, insulin resistance.37 38 The coexistence of hepatic lipid accumulation and metabolic dysfunction leads to the development of hepatic and systemic insulin resistance,3 which may further exacerbate the risk of CKD development and progression, possibly via activation of sympathetic nervous system, downregulation of natriuretic peptide system and exacerbation of sodium retention.39–41 Second, hepatic lipid accumulation can promote vascular dysfunction and atherosclerosis, which may induce intrarenal low-grade inflammation, increased oxidative stress and secretion of multiple profibrogenic cytokines, thereby resulting in atherosclerotic-nephropathy and CKD.39 42 Hepatic lipid accumulation is also typically accompanied by ectopic fat accumulation in other sites, such as increased perirenal fat thickness.43 In turn, increased perirenal fat is associated with higher risk of CKD among individuals with metabolic disorders, such as T2DM and hypertension.44 45 Moreover, hepatic lipid accumulation may contribute to hepatic fibrogenesis, possibly through some genetic variants (eg, the rs738409 C>G variant of the patatin-like phospholipase domain containing three genes) that may trigger specific fibrogenic pathways or promote hepatic steatosis and inflammation by creating an unfavourable microenvironment.46 47 In turn, hepatic fibrosis may contribute to CKD development, mainly through the production of a variety of pro-inflammatory and profibrogenic cytokines, such as interleukin-6, fibroblast growth factor-21 and transforming growth factor-beta.48 49

    We found that the presence of MAFLD (as detected by biomarker panels or ultrasonography) conferred a nearly 40% increased risk of incident CKD in cohort studies. In addition, we found that the risk of incident CKD appeared to increase further with greater severity of MAFLD. In fact, the presence of MAFLD-related fibrosis, as assessed by the fibrosis-4 score, was found to be associated with a nearly 55% increase in risk of incident CKD, even after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, drinking status, smoking, baseline eGFR, haemoglobin A1c, comorbidities and use of glucose-lowering medications.32 This latter result is also consistent with the findings of a previous meta-analysis of 33 observational studies showing that patients with NAFLD and advanced fibrosis had a higher risk of incident CKD compared with their counterparts without advanced fibrosis.48 To date, however, there are few longitudinal cohort studies that have diagnosed MAFLD by liver biopsy to evaluate the association between the histological severity of MAFLD and risk of CKD.

    Evidence from the US Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Physicians is currently insufficient to recommending a routine screening for CKD in asymptomatic adults without classical risk factors for CKD.50 51 However, the findings of our meta-analysis suggest that case finding for MAFLD may be worthwhile, especially in patients with CKD stage 3 or more (with or without coexisting abnormal albuminuria), even in the absence of classical risk factors for CKD, particularly in those individuals with MAFLD and suspected advanced fibrosis. It is important to note that early identification of decreased kidney function in individuals with MAFLD might provide support for adjusting drug dosages to avoid further renal injury induced by drug accumulation. In addition, the occurrence of CKD in individuals with MAFLD may further promote both the progression of MAFLD and the development of cardiovascular disease, which is the predominant cause of mortality in people with MAFLD.8 52

    Pharmacotherapies have become a major focus in the management of MAFLD and CKD. Evidence from randomised controlled trials shows that inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system, statins and certain glucose-lowering agents (such as glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) may exert beneficial effects by improving hepatic steatosis and decreasing urinary protein excretion in patients with MAFLD and CKD.7 53–56 In addition, pentoxifylline and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may improve plasma lipid profile and inflammatory biomarkers in patients with MAFLD and CKD.57–61 However, there are still no definitive curative treatments for patients with MAFLD and CKD. Lifestyle interventions (eg, hypocaloric diet, smoking cessation and increased physical activity) should also be advocated in most patients with MAFLD and CKD.7 62 63

    Our meta-analysis has some important limitations, which are strictly inherent to the design of the eligible studies. First, our meta-analysis cannot prove causality between MAFLD and risk of CKD, due to the observational study design of the included studies. Second, the heterogeneity is high in final analyses due to pooling crude estimates and adjusted estimates, which may affect the reliability of our results. Our subgroup analyses suggested that the high heterogeneity of the pooled analysis of cohort studies is partly explained by interstudy differences in study country, modalities of MAFLD diagnosis and degree of covariate adjustments. Conversely, the high heterogeneity of the pooled analysis of cross-sectional studies is partly explained by interstudy differences in study country, diagnostic methods for identifying MAFLD, CKD definition and study quality. Third, there is only one cohort study that used liver biopsy for diagnosing and staging MAFLD and the definition of MAFLD are heterogeneous in the included studies, which may have weakened the reliability and applicability of our results. Therefore, further well-designed cohort studies are required to prove whether the severity of liver disease in MAFLD further amplifies the increased risk of developing CKD. Fourth, the eGFR values in most of the included studies were estimated by either the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration or the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study equations, while the accuracy of these two creatinine-based GFR estimating equations is lower, especially in individuals with MAFLD and obesity.

    Despite these limitations, the present meta-analysis has important strengths. To our knowledge, our study is the first meta-analysis to examine the association between MAFLD and risk of both prevalent and incident CKD using data from large cross-sectional and cohort studies from different countries, and the included subjects are likely to be an accurate reflection of individuals with MAFLD, who are seen in routine clinical practice. In addition, the overall quality of both cohort and cross-sectional studies included in the meta-analysis was acceptable, according to the NOS and AHRQ scores. Finally, visual inspection of the funnel plots and formal statistical tests did not show any significant publication bias.

    In conclusion, the results of this updated meta-analysis provide evidence that the presence of MAFLD is significantly associated with an increased prevalence and incidence of CKD. Our findings suggest that MAFLD might become a target for the prevention and treatment of CKD. However, future well-designed studies are needed to evaluate strategies and interventions to prevent or slow the development and progression of CKD in individuals with MAFLD.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. All extracted and calculated data are available through emailing to the authors.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    Not applicable.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Riazi K,
      2. Azhari H,
      3. Charette JH, et al
      . The prevalence and incidence of NAFLD worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;7:851–61. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00165-0
      OpenUrlPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Younossi ZM,
      2. Golabi P,
      3. de Avila L, et al
      . The global epidemiology of NAFLD and NASH in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hepatol 2019;71:793–801. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2019.06.021
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Zhou J,
      2. Zhou F,
      3. Wang W, et al
      . Epidemiological features of NAFLD from 1999 to 2018 in China. Hepatology 2020;71:1851–64. doi:10.1002/hep.31150
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Eslam M,
      2. Sanyal AJ,
      3. George J, et al
      . MAFLD: a consensus-driven proposed nomenclature for metabolic associated fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2020;158:1999–2014. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.312
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Eslam M,
      2. Newsome PN,
      3. Sarin SK, et al
      . A new definition for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: an international expert consensus statement. J Hepatol 2020;73:202–9. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2020.03.039
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Chan KE,
      2. Koh TJL,
      3. Tang ASP, 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;107:2691–700. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgac321
      OpenUrl
    7. ↵
      1. Sun D-Q,
      2. Targher G,
      3. Byrne CD, et al
      . An international delphi consensus statement on metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and risk of chronic kidney disease. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2023;12:386–403. doi:10.21037/hbsn-22-421
      OpenUrl
    8. ↵
      1. Lee H,
      2. Lee Y-H,
      3. Kim SU, et al
      . Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and incident cardiovascular disease risk: a nationwide cohort study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;19:2138–47. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2020.12.022
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Bikbov B,
      2. Purcell CA,
      3. Levey AS
      . Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet 2020;395:709–33. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30045-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Luyckx VA,
      2. Al-Aly Z,
      3. Bello AK, et al
      . Sustainable development goals relevant to kidney health: an update on progress. Nat Rev Nephrol 2021;17:15–32. doi:10.1038/s41581-020-00363-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Foreman KJ,
      2. Marquez N,
      3. Dolgert A, et al
      . Forecasting life expectancy, years of life lost, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 250 causes of death: reference and alternative scenarios for 2016-40 for 195 countries and territories. Lancet 2018;392:2052–90. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31694-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Anderson AH,
      2. Xie D,
      3. Wang X, et al
      . Novel risk factors for progression of diabetic and nondiabetic CKD: findings from the chronic renal insufficiency cohort (CRIC) study. Am J Kidney Dis 2021;77:56–73. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.07.011
      OpenUrl
    13. ↵
      1. Jung C-Y,
      2. Koh HB,
      3. Park KH, et al
      . Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and risk of incident chronic kidney disease: a nationwide cohort study. Diabetes Metab 2022;48:101344. doi:10.1016/j.diabet.2022.101344
      OpenUrl
    14. ↵
      1. Hashimoto Y,
      2. Hamaguchi M,
      3. Okamura T, et al
      . Metabolic associated fatty liver disease is a risk factor for chronic kidney disease. J Diabetes Investig 2022;13:308–16. doi:10.1111/jdi.13678
      OpenUrl
    15. ↵
      1. Tanaka M,
      2. Mori K,
      3. Takahashi S, et al
      . Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease predicts new onset of chronic kidney disease better than does fatty liver or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2023;38:700–11. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfac188
      OpenUrl
    16. ↵
      1. Liang Y,
      2. Chen H,
      3. Liu Y, et al
      . Association of MAFLD with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease: A 4.6-year cohort study in China. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2022;107:88–97. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgab641
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Park H,
      2. Dawwas GK,
      3. Liu X, et al
      . Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increases risk of incident advanced chronic kidney disease: a propensity-matched cohort study. J Intern Med 2019;286:711–22. doi:10.1111/joim.12964
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Sun D-Q,
      2. Jin Y,
      3. Wang T-Y, et al
      . MAFLD and risk of CKD. Metabolism 2021;115:154433. doi:10.1016/j.metabol.2020.154433
      OpenUrl
    19. ↵
      1. Page MJ,
      2. McKenzie JE,
      3. Bossuyt PM, et al
      . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2021;18:e1003583. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583
    20. ↵
      1. Page MJ,
      2. McKenzie JE,
      3. Bossuyt PM, et al
      . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
    21. ↵
      1. Zhou F,
      2. Zhou J,
      3. Wang W, et al
      . Unexpected rapid increase in the burden of NAFLD in China from 2008 to 2018: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology 2019;70:1119–33. doi:10.1002/hep.30702
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Lee Y-J,
      2. Wang C-P,
      3. Hung W-C, et al
      . Common and unique factors and the bidirectional relationship between chronic kidney disease and nonalcoholic fatty liver in type 2 diabetes patients. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2020;13:1203–14. doi:10.2147/DMSO.S237700
      OpenUrl
    23. ↵
      1. Lombardi R,
      2. Airaghi L,
      3. Targher G, et al
      . Liver fibrosis by fibroscan® independently of established cardiovascular risk parameters associates with macrovascular and microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Liver Int 2020;40:347–54. doi:10.1111/liv.14274
      OpenUrlPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Mantovani A,
      2. Turino T,
      3. Lando MG, et al
      . Screening for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease using liver stiffness measurement and its association with chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab 2020;46:296–303. doi:10.1016/j.diabet.2019.11.004
      OpenUrlPubMed
    25. ↵
      1. Mikolasevic I,
      2. Rahelic D,
      3. Turk-Wensween T, et al
      . Significant liver fibrosis, as assessed by fibroscan, is independently associated with chronic vascular complications of type 2 diabetes: a multicenter study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2021;177:108884. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2021.108884
      OpenUrl
    26. ↵
      1. Morieri ML,
      2. Vitturi N,
      3. Avogaro A, et al
      . Prevalence of hepatic steatosis in patients with type 2 diabetes and response to glucose-lowering treatments. A multicenter retrospective study in Italian specialist care. J Endocrinol Invest 2021;44:1879–89. doi:10.1007/s40618-021-01501-y
      OpenUrl
    27. ↵
      1. Dinu IR,
      2. Popa S,
      3. Bîcu M, et al
      . The implication of Cnr1 gene's polymorphisms in the modulation of endocannabinoid system effects. Rom J Intern Med 2009;47:9–18.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Zhang H-J,
      2. Wang Y-Y,
      3. Chen C, et al
      . Cardiovascular and renal burdens of metabolic associated fatty liver disease from serial US national surveys, 1999-2016. Chin Med J (Engl) 2021;134:1593–601. doi:10.1097/CM9.0000000000001513
      OpenUrl
    29. ↵
      1. Heidari Z,
      2. Gharebaghi A
      . Prevalence of non alcoholic fatty liver disease and its association with diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:C04–7. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/25931.9823
      OpenUrl
    30. ↵
      1. Deng Y,
      2. Zhao Q,
      3. Gong R
      . Association between metabolic associated fatty liver disease and chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional study from NHANES 2017-2018. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2021;14:1751–61. doi:10.2147/DMSO.S292926
      OpenUrl
    31. ↵
      1. Sirota JC,
      2. McFann K,
      3. Targher G, et al
      . Association between nonalcoholic liver disease and chronic kidney disease: an ultrasound analysis from NHANES 1988-1994. Am J Nephrol 2012;36:466–71. doi:10.1159/000343885
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Saito H,
      2. Tanabe H,
      3. Kudo A, et al
      . High FIB4 index is an independent risk factor of diabetic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes. Sci Rep 2021;11:11753. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-88285-6
      OpenUrl
    33. ↵
      1. Targher G,
      2. Chonchol M,
      3. Bertolini L, et al
      . Increased risk of CKD among type 2 diabetics with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;19:1564–70. doi:10.1681/ASN.2007101155
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Mantovani A,
      2. Zaza G,
      3. Byrne CD, et al
      . Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increases risk of incident chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Metabolism 2018;79:64–76. doi:10.1016/j.metabol.2017.11.003
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Jia G,
      2. Di F,
      3. Wang Q, et al
      . Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is a risk factor for the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. PLoS One 2015;10:e0142808. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142808
    36. ↵
      1. Mantovani A,
      2. Petracca G,
      3. Beatrice G, et al
      . Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and risk of incident chronic kidney disease: an updated meta-analysis. Gut 2022;71:156–62. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323082
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    37. ↵
      1. Wong V-S,
      2. Wong G-H,
      3. Choi P-L, et al
      . Disease progression of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective study with paired liver biopsies at 3 years. Gut 2010;59:969–74. doi:10.1136/gut.2009.205088
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    38. ↵
      1. James MT,
      2. Hemmelgarn BR,
      3. Tonelli M
      . Early recognition and prevention of chronic kidney disease. Lancet 2010;375:1296–309. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62004-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      1. Targher G,
      2. Byrne CD
      . Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: an emerging driving force in chronic kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol 2017;13:297–310. doi:10.1038/nrneph.2017.16
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Meex RCR,
      2. Watt MJ
      . Hepatokines: linking nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and insulin resistance. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2017;13:509–20. doi:10.1038/nrendo.2017.56
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Byrne CD,
      2. Targher G
      . NAFLD as a driver of chronic kidney disease. J Hepatol 2020;72:785–801. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2020.01.013
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Simeoni M,
      2. Borrelli S,
      3. Garofalo C, et al
      . Atherosclerotic-nephropathy: an updated narrative review. J Nephrol 2021;34:125–36. doi:10.1007/s40620-020-00733-0
      OpenUrl
    43. ↵
      1. Mende CW,
      2. Einhorn D
      . FATTY kidney disease: a new renal and endocrine clinical entity? Describing the role of the kidney in obesity, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes. Endocr Pract 2019;25:854–8. doi:10.4158/EP-2018-0568
      OpenUrl
    44. ↵
      1. Chen X,
      2. Mao Y,
      3. Hu J, et al
      . Perirenal fat thickness is significantly associated with the risk for development of chronic kidney disease in patients with diabetes. Diabetes 2021;70:2322–32. doi:10.2337/db20-1031
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    45. ↵
      1. Geraci G,
      2. Zammuto MM,
      3. Mattina A, et al
      . Para-perirenal distribution of body fat is associated with reduced glomerular filtration rate regardless of other indices of adiposity in hypertensive patients. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2018;20:1438–46. doi:10.1111/jch.13366
      OpenUrl
    46. ↵
      1. Goyal NP,
      2. Rosenthal SB,
      3. Nasamran C, et al
      . Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease risk and histologic severity are associated with genetic polymorphisms in children. Hepatology 2023;77:197–212. doi:10.1002/hep.32570
      OpenUrl
    47. ↵
      1. Rotman Y,
      2. Koh C,
      3. Zmuda JM, et al
      . The Association of genetic variability in patatin-like phospholipase domain-containing protein 3 (Pnpla3) with histological severity of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2010;52:894–903. doi:10.1002/hep.23759
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. Musso G,
      2. Gambino R,
      3. Tabibian JH, et al
      . Association of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2014;11:e1001680. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001680
    49. ↵
      1. Jung CY,
      2. Ryu GW,
      3. Kim HW, et al
      . Advanced liver fibrosis measured by transient elastography predicts chronic kidney disease development in individuals with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Diabetologia 2022;65:518–27. doi:10.1007/s00125-021-05627-9
      OpenUrl
    50. ↵
      1. Moyer VA, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
      . Screening for chronic kidney disease: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:567–70. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-8-201210160-00533
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    51. ↵
      1. Qaseem A,
      2. Hopkins RH,
      3. Sweet DE, et al
      . Screening, monitoring, and treatment of stage 1 to 3 chronic kidney disease: a clinical practice guideline from the American college of physicians. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:835–47. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00726
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Bonora E,
      2. Targher G
      . Increased risk of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in NAFLD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;9:372–81. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2012.79
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    53. ↵
      1. Chen TK,
      2. Knicely DH,
      3. Grams ME
      . Chronic kidney disease diagnosis and management: a review. JAMA 2019;322:1294–304. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.14745
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Cho Y,
      2. Rhee H,
      3. Kim Y-E, et al
      . Ezetimibe combination therapy with statin for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: an open-label randomized controlled trial (ESSENTIAL study). BMC Med 2022;20:93. doi:10.1186/s12916-022-02288-2
    55. ↵
      1. Hirata T,
      2. Tomita K,
      3. Kawai T, et al
      . Effect of telmisartan or Losartan for treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: fatty liver protection trial by telmisartan or losartan study (FANTASY). Int J Endocrinol 2013;2013:587140. doi:10.1155/2013/587140
    56. ↵
      1. Lee JI,
      2. Lee HW,
      3. Lee KS, et al
      . Effects of Statin use on the development and progression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a nationwide nested case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol 2021;116:116–24. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000845
      OpenUrl
    57. ↵
      1. Ferro CJ,
      2. Mark PB,
      3. Kanbay M, et al
      . Lipid management in patients with chronic kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol 2018;14:727–49. doi:10.1038/s41581-018-0072-9
      OpenUrlPubMed
    58. ↵
      1. Miller ER,
      2. Juraschek SP,
      3. Anderson CA, et al
      . The effects of N-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation on biomarkers of kidney injury in adults with diabetes: results of the GO-FISH trial. Diabetes Care 2013;36:1462–9. doi:10.2337/dc12-1940
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    59. ↵
      1. Saglimbene VM,
      2. Wong G,
      3. van Zwieten A, et al
      . Effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid intake in patients with chronic kidney disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr 2020;39:358–68. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2019.02.041
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    60. ↵
      1. Wong V-S,
      2. Chitturi S,
      3. Wong G-H, et al
      . Pathogenesis and novel treatment options for non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;1:56–67. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30011-5
      OpenUrl
    61. ↵
      1. Chen Y-M,
      2. Chiang W-C,
      3. Lin S-L, et al
      . Therapeutic efficacy of Pentoxifylline on proteinuria and renal progression: an update. J Biomed Sci 2017;24:84.:84. doi:10.1186/s12929-017-0390-4
      OpenUrl
    62. ↵
      1. Kelly JT,
      2. Su G,
      3. Zhang L, et al
      . Modifiable lifestyle factors for primary prevention of CKD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2021;32:239–53. doi:10.1681/ASN.2020030384
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    63. ↵
      1. von Loeffelholz C,
      2. Roth J,
      3. Coldewey SM, et al
      . The role of physical activity in nonalcoholic and metabolic dysfunction associated fatty liver disease. Biomedicines 2021;9:1853. doi:10.3390/biomedicines9121853

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • Contributors M-HZ and D-QS designed the study. JZ and D-QS contributed to collection of literature, acquisition, analysis and management of data. JZ drafted the manuscript. GT, CDB, B-wL, MH, SUK, XH, GPF, MS, MF, N-JW and HT contributed to writing and proof reading the manuscript. All authors contributed to the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final submission of the manuscript.

    • Funding This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82070588 and 82000690), High Level Creative Talents from Department of Public Health in Zhejiang Province (S2032102600032) and Project of New Century 551 Talent Nurturing in Wenzhou. GT is supported in part by grants from the University School of Medicine of Verona, Verona, Italy. CDB is supported in part by the Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC-20004), UK.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.