editor@jprims.in
9343055451
e-ISSN: 3049-1681
logo

Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Integrated Medical Sciences

LoginTrack
Published

Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in the Era of MAFLD: Emerging Insights into Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Personalized Management Global Burden and Economic Impact

Jampala Raghu Ram
,
Obaid Alhilali
,
Mohammed Ashfaq Hussain
,
Mohammed Abdul Farhan
doi_icon
10.64063/3049-1681.vol3.issue7.000282

Published in JPRIMS, Vol-3, Issue-07, July-2026 (Vol. 3, Issue 7, 2026)

Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in the Era of MAFLD: Emerging Insights into Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Personalized Management Global Burden and Economic Impact - Issue cover

Keywords

NAFLDMAFLDNASHfibrosismetabolic syndromegut–liver axisgenomicsnon-invasive diagnosticsbiomarkersartificial intelligenceprecision hepatologyglobal healt

Abstract

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has become the most prevalent chronic liver disorder globally, affecting over 30% of adults. It is increasingly recognized as a multisystem disease with significant cardiometabolic and oncologic consequences. Recent advances between 2021 and 2025 have substantially transformed its conceptual understanding, diagnosis, and clinical management. Objective: This review aims to critically evaluate global progress in NAFLD research and management from 2021 to 2025, with emphasis on epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnostic innovations, therapeutic developments, and the emergence of precision hepatology, while addressing the transition toward metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, covering studies published between June 2021 and December 2025. Relevant clinical trials, guidelines, and high-impact research articles were systematically analyzed across key domains including epidemiology, molecular mechanisms, diagnostics, therapeutics, and public health strategies. Results: The global prevalence of NAFLD has increased across diverse populations, including pediatric, elderly, lean, and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. The MAFLD terminology has gained traction for better reflecting metabolic dysfunction, although debates persist. Mechanistic insights highlight the roles of insulin resistance, lipotoxicity, mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired autophagy, and gut microbiota dysbiosis. Advances in genomics and epigenetics have identified key variants such as PNPLA3 and TM6SF2, along with circulating biomarkers including miR-122 and Pro-C3. Non-invasive diagnostic tools, particularly imaging modalities and artificial intelligence-based systems, are increasingly replacing liver biopsy. Although no pharmacological therapy has yet received full regulatory approval, several agents, including obeticholic acid, resmetirom, lanifibranor, and semaglutide, are in advanced stages of clinical development. Lifestyle modification remains the cornerstone of management. NAFLD is strongly associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and malignancies. Emerging precision hepatology approaches integrating multi-omics, artificial intelligence, and digital health technologies are enabling personalized disease management. Conclusion: NAFLD is evolving from a liver-specific disorder into a global multisystem health challenge. Despite significant advances, key challenges remain in standardizing diagnostic criteria, ensuring equitable access to therapies, and addressing global health disparities. The integration of precision medicine, digital technologies, and public health strategies holds promise for reducing the burden of NAFLD in the coming decade.

References

  1. [1]1. Chalasani, N., Younossi, Z., Lavine, J. E., Charlton, M., Cusi, K., Rinella, M., et al. (2018). The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Practice guidance from the AASLD. Hepatology, 67(1), 328–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29367
  2. [2]2. Younossi, Z. M., Koenig, A. B., Abdelatif, D., Fazel, Y., Henry, L., & Wymer, M. (2016). Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology, 64(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.28431
  3. [3]3. Targher, G., Byrne, C. D., & Tilg, H. (2021). NAFLD as a multisystem disease: A new paradigm in understanding fatty liver. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 8(4), 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30349-8
  4. [4]4. Estes, C., Anstee, Q. M., Arias-Loste, M. T., Bantel, H., Bellentani, S., Caballeria, J., et al. (2018). Modeling NAFLD disease burden in four countries. Hepatology, 67(1), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29368
  5. [5]5. Wong, R. J., Aguilar, M., Cheung, R., Perumpail, R. B., Harrison, S. A., Younossi, Z. M., et al. (2019). Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is the second leading etiology of liver disease among adults awaiting liver transplantation in the United States. Gastroenterology, 156(4), 1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.020
  6. [6]6. Younossi, Z. M., Anstee, Q. M., Marietti, M., Hardy, T., Henry, L., Eslam, M., et al. (2017). Economic and clinical burden of NAFLD in the United States and Europe. Hepatology, 65(5), 1236–1245. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.28914
  7. [7]7. Eslam, M., Sanyal, A. J., & George, J. (2021). A new definition for metabolic dysfunction associated fatty liver disease: An international expert consensus statement. Journal of Hepatology, 73(1), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2021.03.039
  8. [8]8. Tilg, H., Effenberger, M., & Moschen, A. R. (2021). MAFLD vs NAFLD: How is the definition changing our approach to fatty liver disease? Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 18(2), 81–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-020-00381-0
  9. [9]9. Fouad, Y., Kamal, M., & Eslam, M. (2021). What’s in a name? Renaming “NAFLD” to “MAFLD”. Liver International, 41(1), 101–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.14645
  10. [10]10. Riazi, K., Charlton, M. R., Sanyal, A. J., Loomba, R., Schattenberg, J. M., Rinella, M. E., et al. (2022). Global prevalence of NAFLD and NASH: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology, 76(6), 1234–1248. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.32235
  11. [11]11. Cotter, T. G., & Rinella, M. (2021). NAFLD 2021: The state of the disease. Gastroenterology, 158(7), 1851–1864. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2021.01.052
  12. [12]12. Vos, M. B., Abrams, S. H., Barlow, S. E., Caprio, S., Daniels, S. R., Kohli, R., et al. (2017). NASPGHAN clinical practice guideline for pediatric NAFLD. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 64(2), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000001454
  13. [13]13. Kim, D., Yuan, X., Liu, Y., & Loomba, R. (2021). Age and NAFLD: Epidemiologic trends and clinical implications. Liver International, 41(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.14703
  14. [14]14. Yasutake, K., Yoneda, M., Han, N., Tamaki, N., Yamamoto, N., Enomoto, M., et al. (2021). Characteristics of lean NAFLD: Clinical and genetic insights. Journal of Hepatology, 72(1), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2019.07.030
  15. [15]15. Rich, N. E., Oji, S., Mufti, A. R., Browning, J. D., Parikh, N. D., Odewole, M., et al. (2018). Racial and ethnic disparities in NAFLD. Hepatology, 67(2), 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29569
  16. [16]16. Powell, E. E., Wong, V. W. S., & Rinella, M. (2021). The socioeconomic burden of NAFLD: Challenges and opportunities. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 6(8), 684–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00131-6
  17. [17]17. Samuel, V. T., & Shulman, G. I. (2012). Mechanisms for insulin resistance: Common threads and missing links. Cell, 148(5), 852–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.017
  18. [18]18. Begriche, K., Massart, J., Robin, M. A., Bonnet, F., & Fromenty, B. (2019). Mitochondrial dysfunction in NAFLD: A pathophysiological hallmark. Journal of Hepatology, 70(4), 665–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2018.11.022
  19. [19]19. Lebeaupin, C., Vallée, D., Hazari, Y., Hetz, C., Chevet, E., & Bailly-Maitre, B. (2018). ER stress signaling and the pathogenesis of NAFLD. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, 29(5), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2018.02.009
  20. [20]20. Lin, C. W., Zhang, H., Li, M., Xiong, X., Chen, X., Chen, X., et al. (2021). Role of autophagy in NAFLD and NASH: Pathogenesis and therapeutic implications. Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 107768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2021.107768
  21. [21]21. Li X, Li Z, Zhang Y, et al. Evaluation of fibrosis markers and renal injury biomarkers in patients with chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nephrol. 2022;23(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-022-02743-6
  22. [22]22. Jha V, Garcia-Garcia G, Iseki K, et al. Chronic kidney disease: global dimension and perspectives. Lancet. 2013;382(9888):260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60687-X
  23. [23]23. GBD Chronic Kidney Disease Collaboration. Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2021;395(10225):709–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30045-3
  24. [24]24. Drawz PE, Rosenberg ME. Slowing progression of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl (2011). 2013;3(4):372–376. https://doi.org/10.1038/kisup.2013.75
  25. [25]25. Stevens PE, Levin A. Evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease: synopsis of the kidney disease: improving global outcomes 2012 clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(11):825–830. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00007
  26. [26]26. Inker LA, Heerspink HJL, Tighiouart H, et al. GFR slope as a surrogate endpoint for kidney disease progression in clinical trials: a meta-analysis of treatment effects of randomized controlled trials. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(9):1735–1745. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2019030264
  27. [27]27. Rysz J, Gluba-Brzózka A, Franczyk B, et al. Novel biomarkers in the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease and the prediction of its outcome. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(8):1702. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18081702
  28. [28]28. Lopez-Giacoman S, Madero M. Biomarkers in chronic kidney disease, from kidney function to kidney damage. World J Nephrol. 2015;4(1):57–73. https://doi.org/10.5527/wjn.v4.i1.57
  29. [29]29. Doi K, Ishizu T, Fujita T, et al. Use of biomarkers in assessing drug-induced kidney injury. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2011;7(7):803–817. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425255.2011.583939
  30. [30]30. Bolignano D, Donato V, Coppolino G, et al. Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) as a marker of kidney damage. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;52(3):595–605. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.01.020
  31. [31]31. Jung K, Kashani K. Biomarkers in acute and chronic kidney diseases. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2016;25(3):230–235. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNH.0000000000000214
  32. [32]32. Vanmassenhove J, Vanholder R, Nagler E, Van Biesen W. Urinary and serum biomarkers for the diagnosis of acute kidney injury: an in-depth review of the literature. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(2):254–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfs380
  33. [33]33. Guzzi F, Cirillo L, Roperto RM, et al. NGAL and kidney injury: a new marker opens new perspectives. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2019;44(5):639–652. https://doi.org/10.1159/000501961
  34. [34]34. Donadio C. Serum and urinary neutrophil gelatinase–associated lipocalin in chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. Clin Chim Acta. 2014;428:100–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2013.11.012
  35. [35]35. Paragas N, Qiu A, Zhang Q, et al. The Ngal reporter mouse detects the response of the kidney to injury in real time. Nat Med. 2011;17(2):216–222. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2290
  36. [36]36. Mori K, Lee HT, Rapoport D, et al. Endocytic delivery of lipocalin-siderophore-iron complex rescues the kidney from ischemia-reperfusion injury. J Clin Invest. 2005;115(3):610–621. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI23056
  37. [37]37. Haase M, Bellomo R, Devarajan P, et al. Accuracy of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) in diagnosis and prognosis in acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;54(6):1012–1024. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.07.020

Authors (4)

Jampala Raghu Ram

Sultan Ul Uloom College of Pha...

View all publications →

Obaid Alhilali

Sultan Ul Uloom College of Pha...

View all publications →

Mohammed Ashfaq Hussain

Sultan Ul Uloom College of Pha...

View all publications →

Mohammed Abdul Farhan

Sultan Ul Uloom College of Pha...

View all publications →

Download Article

PDF

Best for printing and citation

File size: 1.3 MB
Format: PDF

Summarise this paper with AI:

GoogleGooglePerplexityPerplexityGrokGrokChatGPTChatGPTClaudeClaude

Article Information

Published in:

JPRIMS, Vol-3, Issue-07, July-2026 (Vol. 3, Issue 7, 2026)

JPRIMS730003

JPRIMS-01-000282

33-50

2026-07-09

JATS XML

Article Impact

Views:5,258
Downloads:1,348
scite_
PlumX Metrics Badge

How to Cite

Raghu, J., & Alhilali & Ashfaq, M. & Abdul, M. (2026). Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in the Era of MAFLD: Emerging Insights into Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Personalized Management Global Burden and Economic Impact. Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Integrated Medical Sciences, 3(7), 33-50. DOI:https://doi.org/10.64063/3049-1681.vol3.issue7.000282

Article Actions