Skip to main content
Download PDF

The impact of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and liver fibrosis on adverse clinical outcomes and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease: a prospective cohort study using the UK Biobank

BMC Medicine volume 21, Article number: 185 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) frequently co-exist. We assess the impact of having NAFLD on adverse clinical outcomes and all-cause mortality for people with CKD.

Methods

A total of 18,073 UK Biobank participants identified to have CKD (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or albuminuria > 3 mg/mmol) were prospectively followed up by electronic linkage to hospital and death records. Cox-regression estimated the hazard ratios (HR) associated with having NAFLD (elevated hepatic steatosis index or ICD-code) and NAFLD fibrosis (elevated fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score or NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS)) on cardiovascular events (CVE), progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and all-cause mortality.

Results

56.2% of individuals with CKD had NAFLD at baseline, and 3.0% and 7.7% had NAFLD fibrosis according to a FIB-4 > 2.67 and NFS ≥ 0.676, respectively. The median follow-up was 13 years. In univariate analysis, NAFLD was associated with an increased risk of CVE (HR 1.49 [1.38–1.60]), all-cause mortality (HR 1.22 [1.14–1.31]) and ESRD (HR 1.26 [1.02–1.54]). Following multivariable adjustment, NAFLD remained an independent risk factor for CVE overall (HR 1.20 [1.11–1.30], p < 0.0001), but not ACM or ESRD. In univariate analysis, elevated NFS and FIB-4 scores were associated with increased risk of CVE (HR 2.42 [2.09–2.80] and 1.64 [1.30–2.08]) and all-cause mortality (HR 2.82 [2.48–3.21] and 1.82 [1.47–2.24]); the NFS score was also associated with ESRD (HR 5.15 [3.52–7.52]). Following full adjustment, the NFS remained associated with an increased incidence of CVE (HR 1.19 [1.01–1.40]) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.31 [1.13–1.52]).

Conclusions

In people with CKD, NAFLD is associated with an increased risk of CVE, and the NAFLD fibrosis score is associated with an elevated risk of CVE and worse survival.

Peer Review reports

Background

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) refers to the accumulation of excess fat in the liver and affects 25% of adults [1]. It can progress to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), liver fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma [2]. NAFLD is also an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and death [3]. Indeed, CVD is the leading cause of mortality relating to NAFLD [4]. In addition, NAFLD is independently associated with an increased risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) [5, 6]; this risk is particularly high where individuals have more advanced liver disease, i.e. NASH or hepatic fibrosis.

CKD is associated with reduced quality of life and increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), CVD and premature death [7, 8]. It carries a huge burden in terms of health care costs largely due to renal replacement therapy. ESRD is estimated to be associated with a mean annual health care cost of $20–100,000 per patient in developed countries [8]. The global prevalence of CKD stages 3–5 is approximately 11% [9], with the prevalence increasing by nearly a third since 2007 [10]. CKD is itself an accelerator of CVD risk and an independent risk factor for cardiovascular events (CVEs) [11,12,13]. As with NAFLD, the leading cause of death for patients with CKD is CVD [14].

The implications of having both NAFLD and CKD are poorly understood. We performed a systematic review examining the impact of NAFLD on clinical outcomes and mortality for people with CKD [15]. Only three studies were included, which were diverse in design with conflicting results. The first reported a positive association of NAFLD with all-cause mortality (ACM); however, significance was lost following adjustment for metabolic risk [16]; the second study reported no effect on mortality in unadjusted or adjusted models [17]. The third study observed NAFLD to be an independent risk factor for non-fatal CVE [17]. Two papers examined CKD progression; in one, the adjusted rate of decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) per year was higher in those with NAFLD [18], whereas the other found no significant difference [17]. Liver fibrosis, detected using non-invasive scores, was found to be associated with CKD progression [18] but not ACM [16]. Observational data from Japan has also shown an association between non-invasive markers of liver fibrosis and incident diabetic kidney disease [19].

NAFLD and CKD share cardio-metabolic risk factors but also pathophysiological mechanisms that can lead to end-stage disease (e.g. CVE and ESRD), including insulin resistance and the activation of pro-inflammatory and pro-fibrinogenic pathways. Understanding if NAFLD accelerates the development of adverse health outcomes and increases ACM for patients with CKD is highly clinically relevant. This will inform the need for risk stratification, enhanced lifestyle intervention, targeted pharmacological management of common risk factors and clinical trial enrolment. We therefore aimed to determine whether and to what extent NAFLD and NAFLD with advanced liver fibrosis are independently associated with the risk of CVE, progression to ESRD and ACM in people with CKD.

Methods

Study population

The UK Biobank (UKBB) is a national prospective cohort study aimed at improving disease prevention (http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/about-biobank-uk). Over 500,000 individuals aged 40–69 agreed to participate and were recruited between 2006 and 2010. During baseline assessment visits, participants completed questionnaires about their demographics, medical history and lifestyle. Self-reported doctor-diagnosed medical conditions were verified and coded during a face-to-face interview (https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/field.cgi?id=20002). Volunteers underwent a physical examination and provided blood and urine samples. All participants gave consent to be followed up through linkage to electronic health records (death and cancer records held by the Office for National Statistics and the Registrar General’s Office; hospital records held by the Department of Health’s Hospital Episode Statistics; Scottish Morbidity Records). At the time of analysis, mortality and hospital admission data were available to January 2023. Ethical approval for the UKBB study was granted by the North West Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee (06/MRE08/65).

Inclusion criteria

We identified all participants within the UKBB who had evidence of CKD at their baseline visit determined by a single eGFR value (eGFR) < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or a random urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) ≥ 3 mg/mmol [20]. eGFR was calculated using single serum creatinine and cystatin C measurements, omitting race as per the most recent guidance [21]. We present the combined equation as this is a more valid measure [22] but undertake a sensitivity analysis using serum creatinine alone to calculate GFR [23], as is currently recommended for routine practice in UK [24]. Detailed information on how the urine samples were collected and the methods used to calculate the urine albumin creatinine ratio can be found in the supplementary material (Additional file 1: Supplementary methods).

Exclusion criteria

Participants were excluded if they had evidence of baseline ESRD (eGFR < 15 ml/min/1.73 m2 or anyone identified to have ESRD according to the UKBB algorithm (data field 42,026) [25]. Participants were also excluded if they had undergone a liver transplant and had a non-NAFLD cause of liver disease at baseline (Additional file 2: Table S1), evidence of alcohol abuse (Additional file 3: Table S2) or a baseline alcohol intake of ≥ 20 g per day for women and ≥ 30 g per day for men. Approximately 27% of participants had data on the frequency of alcohol consumption only (i.e. not weekly grams); in this case, we excluded individuals drinking daily or more than daily. Finally, we excluded all participants who did not have data available to calculate the following scores at baseline: hepatic steatosis index (HSI), fibrosis-4 score (FIB-4) and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS). These are validated algorithms comprising both clinical and biochemical parameters (calculations shown in Table 1).

Table 1 Algorithms used to calculate hepatic steatosis index and fibrosis scores
Full size table

Ascertainment of exposure

Individuals were identified as having NAFLD if they had either an ICD-9 (571.8) or ICD-10 (K75.8, K76.0) code indicating NAFLD or an HSI > 36 [26]. Individuals were defined as not having NAFLD if they had no ICD code for NAFLD and HSI < 36. The influence of advanced fibrosis was examined in patients with CKD and NAFLD using the NFS [27, 28] and FIB-4 score[28, 29]. Advanced fibrosis was defined as NFS ≥ 0.676 or FIB-4 score > 2.67 at baseline. Advanced fibrosis was excluded if there was a NFS <  − 1.455 (< 0.12 if ≥ 65 years) or FIB-4 score < 1.3 (< 2.0 if ≥ 65 years) [16]. Participants not falling into these groups were placed in an indeterminate fibrosis group. We selected NFS and FIB-4 to identify participants with liver fibrosis because they are superior to other scores that predict the presence of liver fibrosis [28] and could both be calculated from the data collected in UKBB participants. The positive predictive value of NFS ≥ 0.676 and FIB-4 > 2.67 in predicting liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD is 90% and 80%, respectively [28].

Primary outcomes

Primary outcomes included the risk of incident CVE, progression to ESRD and ACM:

Cardiovascular events

A CVE was defined as an ICD code for a new diagnosis of any one of the following: acute coronary syndrome (ACS), heart failure (HF), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic event) or peripheral arterial disease (PAD) (Additional file 4: Table S3). This event could have been fatal or non-fatal. Where a participant may have experienced multiple CVE, the first was included. For the outcome of all CVE, all patients with evidence of prior CVE were excluded; for subgroups of CVE, just participants who reported that specific CVE at baseline were excluded (Additional file 4: Table S3).

Development of ESRD

Incident ESRD was defined using the UKBB ESRD algorithm. This was devised to identify participants who have had or are undergoing renal replacement therapy (RRT) using ICD-10 and OPCS-4 codes [25]. The algorithm selects only people with other diagnoses or procedures that indicate CKD stage 5, aiming to exclude those receiving RRT for acute kidney injury. Algorithmically derived ESRD results can be used to look at baseline ESRD and incident ESRD. The principles utilised by the algorithm have previously been used successfully [30].

All-cause mortality

ACM included any cause of death within the study follow-up period. The primary cause of death was gathered from the linked datasets described above.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics are presented as percentages, and continuous data are presented using the median and interquartile range (IQR). Univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate the association of NAFLD and hepatic fibrosis (in people with NAFLD) on CVE, ESRD and ACM. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented. Statistical significance was taken as p < 0.05. Non-cases were censored at the date of loss to follow-up, date of death or end of follow-up. Individuals were also censored for a CVE if they developed ESRD first, as it was thought ESRD would alter the course and mechanisms of cardiovascular injury and outweigh the influence of NAFLD. People were not censored for other subtypes of CVE having developed a different subtype. Multivariable adjustment was informed using direct acrylic graphs (DAGitty) [31]. Model 1 adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity and Townsend Deprivation Index (a place-based metric of socioeconomic status based on car ownership, home ownership, employment and over-crowding) [32]. Model 2 additionally adjusted for smoking status (never, previous, current), baseline eGFR (G1-5) and baseline UACR (A1-3) (Additional file 5: Table S4). Model 3 adjusted for the above factors in addition to diabetes (see Additional file 1: Supplementary methods for definitions). There was at least 80% power to detect a 15% increase in the hazard of all outcomes [33]. The linearity of the effect of each continuous variable in the adjusted models was determined using univariate Cox hazard regression with penalised splines. Where a Wald-type test using the nonlinear coefficient estimates indicated significant non-linearity, flexible splines were used in further analyses. The validity of the proportional hazards assumption for each variable was determined by examining correlations between scaled Schoenfeld residuals and time. The statistical package used was R. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines were followed in reporting this study [34].

Results

Identification of a cohort of individuals with CKD within the UKBB

Overall 455,260 UKBB participants had recorded baseline data for eGFR or albuminuria; 32,801 (7.2%) had evidence of CKD (Additional file 5: Table S4, Fig. 1). Following exclusions, the final study sample consisted of 18,073 participants with CKD (Fig. 1). For the analyses of CVE outcomes, a further 1458 people who had experienced a baseline CVE were excluded. Baseline demographics are presented in Table 2. The baseline characteristics of individuals excluded due to insufficient data to calculate the HSI and serum fibrosis scores did not differ significantly from those included (Additional file 6: Table S5).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of participant recruitment

Full size image
Table 2 Comparison of baseline demographics between participants with and without NAFLD
Full size table

Prevalence of NAFLD and NAFLD fibrosis in the UKBB CKD cohort

In this CKD cohort, 56.2% (n = 10,152) of people were identified as having NAFLD. Those with NAFLD were more likely to be male and have a diagnosis of metabolic disease and lower baseline eGFR (Table 2). The prevalence of NAFLD risk-stratified according to CKD stage is presented in Additional file 7: Table S6. For people with CKD and NAFLD, 7.7% (n = 784) and 3.0% (n = 308) were identified as having advanced fibrosis according to NFS ≥ 0.676 or FIB-4 > 2.67, respectively. Individuals with advanced fibrosis were more likely to be male, have features of the metabolic syndrome, have experienced a prior CVE and have poorer baseline renal function (Additional file 8: Table S7).

Outcomes: CVE, ESRD and all-cause mortality

The median follow-up time was 13.2 years for a CVE and 13.6 years for the development of ESRD and ACM. In total, 1666 individuals with baseline CKD developed a CVE, 215 progressed to ESRD and there were 1942 deaths. The event rates for incident CVE (fatal and non-fatal events), ESRD and ACM were higher for individuals with NAFLD (Additional file 9: Fig. S1). Univariate analysis of factors associated with increased HR of CVE, ESRD and ACM is shown in Additional file 10: Table S8. The event rates for all primary outcomes increased with increasing severity of CKD at baseline according to both eGFR and albuminuria (Additional file 11: Table S9).

Association of NAFLD with CVE, ESRD and all-cause mortality

Univariate analysis revealed that NAFLD was associated with an increased risk of all CVE (HR 1.49 [1.38–1.60], p < 0.0001), ACM (HR 1.22 [1.14–1.31], p < 0.0001) and ESRD (HR 1.26 [1.02–1.54], p = 0.0298) (Table 3). Following multivariable adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, alcohol, smoking, baseline renal function and diabetes, NAFLD remained an independent risk factor for CVE overall (HR 1.20 [1.11–1.30], p < 0.0001), including ACS (HR 1.22 [1.06–1.41], p = 0.0057) and HF (HR 1.29 [1.15–1.45], p < 0.0001), but not ACM (HR 0.92 [0.85–1.00]) or ESRD (HR 0.77 [0.60–0.98]) (Table 3, Fig. 2). We examined the change in direction of the association between NAFLD and ACM after adjusting for diabetes, which is a component of HSI, by assessing for potential collinearity between NAFLD and diabetes. The Phi coefficient was 0.32, indicative of a moderate positive association. Although it is conceivable that collinearity played a role in the alteration of the association between NAFLD and ACM, the strength of collinearity was not sufficiently robust to draw definitive conclusions.

Table 3 Association of NAFLD with CVE, ESRD and all-cause mortality
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association of A NAFLD and B advanced liver fibrosis in people with NAFLD, with primary outcomes for people with CKD following full multivariable adjustment

Full size image

Association of NAFLD fibrosis with CVE, ESRD and all-cause mortality

NFS: Univariate analysis revealed that the NFS was associated with ACM, elevated risk of CVE and ESRD (Table 4). Following multivariable adjustment for demographics, smoking, baseline renal function and diabetes, an NFS ≥ score 0.676 remained associated with increased risk of all CVE (HR 1.19 [1.01–1.40], p = 0.0424), HF (HR 1.65 [1.36–2.01], p < 0.0001) and ACM (HR 1.31 [1.13–1.52], p = 0.0005) (Table 5, Fig. 2).

Table 4 Association of the NAFLD fibrosis score on CVE, ESRD and all-cause mortality for individuals with CKD and NAFLD
Full size table
Table 5 Association of the Fibrosis-4 score on CVE, ESRD and all-cause mortality for individuals with CKD and NAFLD
Full size table

FIB-4 score: A high FIB-4 score was associated with ACM and all CVE including HF and CVA in univariate analysis, but these associations lost statistical significance following full multivariable adjustment (Table 4, Fig. 2).

Sensitivity analyses

In a sensitivity analysis in which eGFR was defined using creatinine alone, the NAFLD fibrosis score was no longer associated with an increased risk of CVE following multivariable adjustment; however, the findings were otherwise comparable (Additional file 12: Table S10). A further sensitivity analysis was performed where CKD was defined according to eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 alone, albuminuria ≥ 3 mg/mmol alone, or both (Additional file 13: Table S11). In all analyses, NAFLD remained associated with an increased incidence of CVE.

Discussion

The prevalence of NAFLD is this CKD cohort is 56%. NAFLD is significantly associated with CVE, ACM and ESRD in univariate analysis and remained associated with elevated CVE incidence following full adjustment for covariates in people with CKD. Prevalence rates of advanced fibrosis are estimated to be 3.0–7.7% for people with CKD and NAFLD. In this setting, a raised NFS was independently associated with ACM and CVE, in particular, heart failure. While an elevated FIB-4 score demonstrated a similar trend for both these outcomes it failed to reach statistical significance.

Results from this study validate findings that NAFLD overall is not associated with increased ACM or ESRD following multivariable adjustment for people with CKD [16, 17]. In common with our results, the UK Salford group reported that NAFLD was associated with non-fatal CVE in a propensity-matched group [17]. A key finding of this paper is the influence of the NAFLD fibrosis score on CVE and ACM for people with CKD. While a high FIB-4 score demonstrated a similar direction for both outcomes, it failed to reach statistical significance perhaps due to lower numbers of included participants (n = 308) compared to the NFS score (n = 784). The differences seen may also be due to the fact that the NFS score identifies a cohort of patients with more metabolic disease which may be mechanistically significant. Liver fibrosis is predictive of the risk of end-stage liver events [35,36,37,38,39,40]. Non-invasive markers of liver fibrosis (designed to avoid liver biopsy) can also predict hepatic decompensation and liver-related deaths [41,42,43,44,45,46], in addition to non-liver-related events. Results from the third NHANES study show that NFS and FIB-4 are associated with increased ACM and death from CVD [47]. Large prospective studies have also shown NFS and FIB-4 to be independent predictors of CVE [48, 49]. In the CKD population, the NHANES dataset showed that fibrosis was not significantly associated with all-cause or cardiovascular-related mortality; overall, numbers were low however (n = 60) [16]. Data from South Korea showed a raised NFS ≥  − 1.455 to be associated with greater deterioration in eGFR in patients with CKD [18]. While we demonstrate a significant association between an NFS score ≥ 0.676 and ESRD in model 2, this relationship is lost following adjustment for diabetes status.

We found that raised serum fibrosis markers are strongly associated with heart failure. NAFLD has been linked to left ventricular diastolic dysfunction [50], heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [51], cardiomyopathy and arrhythmias [52]. Proposed mechanisms of injury include endothelial dysfunction, expansion of epicardial adipose tissue, coronary microcirculatory dysfunction, cardiac hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis [53]. A small percentage may have developed cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. These pathophysiological changes manifest in CKD too, so there may be an interaction between NAFLD fibrosis and CKD which increases heart failure risk. As far as we are aware, we are the first group to demonstrate a relationship between NAFLD fibrosis with heart failure prospectively and the first to examine this in the context of CKD.

This is the largest cohort of CKD patients in which the impact of having NAFLD on multimorbid clinical outcomes and ACM has been examined and is the first prospective study in this field. Consequently, we were able to examine the influence of NAFLD and NAFLD fibrosis and identify that this is a key determinant of adverse clinical outcomes in this cohort. The UKBB benefits from a robust methodology for baseline assessment and patients identified to have CKD were drawn from the general population so are more representative of people with CKD overall. Follow-up rates are high, as a result of linked routine data.

UKBB participants did not however undergo baseline ultrasound to look for hepatic steatosis; thus, our definition of NAFLD was predominantly based on the HSI. This score is endorsed for population screening of NAFLD [26]; however, there is limited evidence indicating how it performs in patients with CKD. A single study, consisting of two cohorts of patients with CKD, showed that the HSI was significantly associated with steatosis on liver ultrasound in one but not the other [54]. If this limitation introduced bias into our study, it would have reduced the significance of the associations we observed. The low number of people with NAFLD defined using ICD codes (n = 63) precluded any meaningful analysis of this group on its own. This number is low as most patients with NAFLD are managed in the community, or an outpatient setting or have undetected disease.

Neither the FIB-4 nor NFS score has been specifically validated in patients with CKD (although patients with CKD were not excluded from validation studies) [28]. This is potentially important as conceivably scores might be elevated due to fibrotic processes occurring in other organs including the kidneys and heart and different scores might be affected differently by these pathophysiological processes. Patented serum fibrosis markers and transient elastography may help clarify the association of liver fibrosis with clinical outcomes and improve the predictive value of non-invasive scores in this setting, but unfortunately, this data is not available in the UKBB. We had to base the diagnosis of CKD on a single measurement of eGFR or albuminuria, so we could not verify that selected participants had persistent changes consistent with a diagnosis of CKD for at least 3 months [20]. This may have resulted in a small number of false-positive diagnoses of CKD. Furthermore, our definition of CKD progression was limited to the development of ESRD as data on repeated eGFR measurements was not available. The majority of participants had early CKD at baseline, and follow-up was just over 10 years which may have been too short to capture all eventual progression to ESRD. Detection of ESRD may also have been confounded by the fact that a significant proportion of participants could have died prior to the development of ESRD.

The clinical consequences of having NAFLD for people with CKD were previously unclear [15]. Our findings suggest that in individuals with CKD, assessment for NAFLD and NAFLD fibrosis may guide risk stratification for end-organ complications. It is envisaged this group would benefit from more stringent control of cardiometabolic risk factors via lifestyle and pharmacological interventions. Any delay or prevention of the development of a CVE would lead to significant improvements in quality of life and substantial cost savings for the health service. While the adjusted HRs associated with having NAFLD and NAFLD fibrosis are modest, they are likely to be higher in targeted groups within the greatest cardiometabolic risk. It is beyond the remit of this paper to assess the predictive value of assessing liver fibrosis on top of existing risk stratification tools for patients with CKD and therefore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for NAFLD and fibrosis in this cohort; however, many individuals with CKD will have metabolic risk factors which should prompt consideration of an ultrasound for NAFLD [55, 56].

Conclusions

These findings highlight an important relationship between the kidneys and the liver that is under-researched. Further exploration of the mechanisms behind the observed association between liver steatosis and fibrosis and all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD is warranted. Our results have implications for enhanced recognition of the co-existence of NAFLD and NAFLD fibrosis in patients with CKD and inform the need for further work to examine the predictive power of more robust measures of liver fibrosis on major clinical events in this group.

Availability of data and materials

Data used for this project can be accessed by contacting the UK Biobank.

Abbreviations

ACM:

All-cause mortality

ACS:

Acute coronary syndrome

CI:

Confidence interval

CKD:

Chronic kidney disease

CVA:

Cerebrovascular accident

CVD:

Cardiovascular disease

CVE:

Cardiovascular event

eGFR:

Estimated glomerular filtration rate

ESRD:

End-stage renal disease

FIB-4:

Fibrosis-4 score

HF:

Heart failure

HR:

Hazard ratio

HSI:

Hepatic steatosis index

ICD:

International Classification of Disease

IQR:

Interquartile range

NAFLD:

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

NASH:

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

NFS:

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score

PAD:

Peripheral arterial disease

RRT:

Renal replacement therapy

STROBE:

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

UACR:

Urine albumin creatinine ratio

UKBB:

United Kingdom Biobank

References

  1. Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, Fazel Y, Henry L, Wymer M. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease—meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology. 2016;64(1):73–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vernon G, Baranova A, Younossi ZM. Systematic review: the epidemiology and natural history of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in adults. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34(3):274–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Targher G, Tilg H, Byrne CD. NAFLD: a multisystem disease requiring a multidisciplinary and holistic approach. Lancet Global Health. 2021;6(7):578–88.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Targher G, Byrne CD, Lonardo A, Zoppini G, Barbui C. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and risk of incident cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. J Hepatol. 2016;65(3):589–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Musso G, Gambino R, Tabibian JH, Ekstedt M, Kechagias S, Hamaguchi M, et al. Association of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11(7):e1001680.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Mantovani A, Zaza G, Byrne CD, Lonardo A, Zoppini G, Bonora E, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease increases risk of incident chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Metabolism. 2018;79:64–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. James MT, Hemmelgarn BR, Tonelli M. Early recognition and prevention of chronic kidney disease. The Lancet. 2010;375(9722):1296–309.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Elshahat S, Cockwell P, Maxwell AP, Griffin M, O’Brien T, O’Neill C. The impact of chronic kidney disease on developed countries from a health economics perspective: a systematic scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2020;5(3): e0230512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hill NR, Fatoba ST, Oke JL, Hirst JA, O’Callaghan CA, Lasserson DS, et al. Global prevalence of chronic kidney disease - a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(7): e0158765.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. James SL, Abate D, Abate KH, Abay SM, Abbafati C, Abbasi N, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1789–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Hsu C yuan. Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(13):1296–305.

  12. Fox CS, Matsushita K, Woodward M, Bilo HJ, Chalmers J, Heerspink HJL, et al. Associations of kidney disease measures with mortality and end-stage renal disease in individuals with and without diabetes: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;380(9854):1662–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Mahmoodi BK, Matsushita K, Woodward M, Blankestijn PJ, Cirillo M, Ohkubo T, et al. Associations of kidney disease measures with mortality and end-stage renal disease in individuals with and without hypertension: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;380(9854):1649–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dalrymple LS, Katz R, Kestenbaum B, Shlipak MG, Sarnak MJ, Stehman-Breen C, et al. Chronic kidney disease and the risk of end-stage renal disease versus death. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(4):379–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hydes T, Buchanan R, Kennedy OJ, Fraser S, Parkes J, Roderick P. Systematic review of the impact of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease on mortality and adverse clinical outcomes for individuals with chronic kidney disease. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9):e040970

  16. Paik J, Golabi P, Younoszai Z, Mishra A, Trimble G, Younossi ZM. Chronic kidney disease is independently associated with increased mortality in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Liver Int. 2019;39(2):342–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chinnadurai R, Ritchie J, Green D, Kalra PA. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and clinical outcomes in chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2019;34(3):449–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jang HR, Kang D, Sinn DH, Gu S, Cho SJ, Lee JE, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease accelerates kidney function decline in patients with chronic kidney disease: a cohort study. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):4718.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Saito H, Tanabe H, Kudo A, Machii N, Higa M. High FIB4 index is an independent risk factor of diabetic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):11753.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline. Kidney International. 2013;3(1):1–150.

  21. Inker LA, Eneanya ND, Coresh J, Tighiouart H, Wang D, Sang Y, et al. New creatinine- and cystatin c–based equations to estimate GFR without race. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(19):1737–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Inker L, Schmid C, Tighiouart H, Eckfeldt J, Feldman H, Greene T, et al. Estimating glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine and cystatin C. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(1):20–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Zhang YL, Castro AF, Feldman HI, et al. A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(9):604–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Chronic kidney disease: assessment and management. 2021.

  25. Bush K, Nolan J, Zhang Q, Herrington W, Sudlow C. Definitions of end stage renal disease for UK Biobank phase 1 outcomes adjudication. UK Biobank Outcome Adjudication Group. 2017.

  26. Lee JH, Kim D, Kim HJ, Lee CH, Yang JI, Kim W, et al. Hepatic steatosis index: a simple screening tool reflecting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Dig Liver Dis. 2010;42(7):503–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Angulo P, Hui JM, Marchesini G, Bugianesi E, George J, Farrell GC, et al. The NAFLD fibrosis score: a noninvasive system that identifies liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Hepatology. 2007;45(4):846–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shah AG, Lydecker A, Murray K, Tetri BN, Contos MJ, Sanyal AJ, et al. Comparison of noninvasive markers of fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(10):1104–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Sterling RK, Lissen E, Clumeck N, Sola R, Correa MC, Montaner J, et al. Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. Hepatology. 2006;43(6):1317–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Herrington W, Smith M, Bankhead C, Matsushita K, Stevens S, Holt T, et al. Body-mass index and risk of advanced chronic kidney disease: prospective analyses from a primary care cohort of 1.4 million adults in England. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173515.

  31. Textor J, van der Zander B, Gilthorpe MK, Liskiewicz M, Ellison GTH. Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: the R package “dagitty.” Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1887–94.

  32. Mackenbach JP. Health and deprivation. Inequality and the North: by P. Townsend, P. Phillimore and A. Beattie (eds.) Croom Helm Ltd, London, 1987 221 pp., ISBN 0–7099–4352–0. Health Policy (New York). 1988;10(2):207.

  33. Latouche A, Porcher R, Chevret S. Sample size formula for proportional hazards modelling of competing risks. Stat Med. 2004;23(21):3263–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gotzsche P, Vandenbroucke J. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335(7624):806–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Angulo P, Kleiner DE, Dam-Larsen S, Adams LA, Bjornsson ES, Charatcharoenwitthaya P, et al. Liver fibrosis, but no other histologic features, is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):389-397.e10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sanyal AJ, Harrison SA, Ratziu V, Abdelmalek MF, Diehl AM, Caldwell S, et al. The natural history of advanced fibrosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: data from the simtuzumab trials. Hepatology. 2019;70(6):1913–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ekstedt M, Hagström H, Nasr P, Fredrikson M, Stål P, Kechagias S, et al. Fibrosis stage is the strongest predictor for disease-specific mortality in NAFLD after up to 33 years of follow-up. Hepatology. 2015;61(5):1547–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dulai PS, Singh S, Patel J, Soni M, Prokop LJ, Younossi Z, et al. Increased risk of mortality by fibrosis stage in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology. 2017;65(5):1557–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hagström H, Nasr P, Ekstedt M, Hammar U, Stål P, Hultcrantz R, et al. Fibrosis stage but not NASH predicts mortality and time to development of severe liver disease in biopsy-proven NAFLD. J Hepatol. 2017;67(6):1265–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Taylor RS, Taylor RJ, Bayliss S, Hagström H, Nasr P, Schattenberg JM, et al. Association between fibrosis stage and outcomes of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(6):1611-1625.e12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sebastiani G, Alshaalan R, Wong P, Rubino M, Salman A, Metrakos P, et al. Prognostic value of non-invasive fibrosis and steatosis tools, hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and histology in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(6): e0128774.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Parkes J, Roderick P, Harris S, Day C, Mutimer D, Collier J, et al. Enhanced liver fibrosis test can predict clinical outcomes in patients with chronic liver disease. Gut. 2010;59(9):1245–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Irvine KM, Wockner LF, Shanker M, Fagan KJ, Horsfall LU, Fletcher LM, et al. The Enhanced liver fibrosis score is associated with clinical outcomes and disease progression in patients with chronic liver disease. Liver Int. 2016;36(3):370–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hagström H, Nasr P, Ekstedt M, Stål P, Hultcrantz R, Kechagias S. Accuracy of noninvasive scoring systems in assessing risk of death and liver-related endpoints in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17(6):1148–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Alexander M, Loomis K, van der Lei J, Duarte-Salles T, Prieto-Alhambra D, Ansell D, et al. Risks and clinical predictors of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma diagnoses in adults with diagnosed NAFLD: real-world study of 18 million patients in four European cohorts. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Unalp-Arida A, Ruhl CE. Liver fibrosis scores predict liver disease mortality in the United States population. Hepatology. 2017;66(1):84–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim D, Kim WR, Kim HJ, Therneau TM. Association between noninvasive fibrosis markers and mortality among adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the United States. Hepatology. 2013;57(4):1357–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Simon T, Corey K, Cannon C, Blazing M, Park J, O’Donoghue M, et al. The nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) fibrosis score, cardiovascular risk stratification and a strategy for secondary prevention with ezetimibe. Int J Cardiol. 2018;270:245–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Baratta F, Pastori D, Angelico F, Balla A, Paganini AM, Cocomello N, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and fibrosis associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events in a prospective study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18(10):2324-2331.e4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mantovani A, Pernigo M, Bergamini C, Bonapace S, Lipari P, Pichiri I, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is independently associated with early left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in patients with type 2 diabetes. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135329.

  51. Miller A, McNamara J, Hummel SL, Konerman MC, Tincopa MA. Prevalence and staging of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–9.

  52. Anstee QM, Mantovani A, Tilg H, Targher G. Risk of cardiomyopathy and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;15(7):425–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Packer M. Atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Am J Med. 2020;133(2):170–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Choe AR, Ryu DR, Kim HY, Lee HA, Lim J, Kim JS, et al. Noninvasive indices for predicting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with chronic kidney disease. BMC Nephrol. 2020;21(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO). EASL–EASD–EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016;64(6):1388–402.

  56. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): assessment and management. 2016.

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Theresa J. Hydes and Oliver J. Kennedy contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, 3Rd Floor Clinical Sciences Centre, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Liverpool, Longmoor Lane, Liverpool, L9 7AL, UK

    Theresa J. Hydes & Daniel J. Cuthbertson

  2. University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, L9 7AL, UK

    Theresa J. Hydes & Daniel J. Cuthbertson

  3. School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

    Oliver J. Kennedy, Ryan Buchanan, Julie Parkes, Simon D. S. Fraser & Paul Roderick

  4. Department of Hepatology, University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK

    Ryan Buchanan

  5. NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK

    Ryan Buchanan

Authors
  1. Theresa J. Hydes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oliver J. Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ryan Buchanan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel J. Cuthbertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Julie Parkes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Simon D. S. Fraser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paul Roderick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Research idea and study design: TJH, OJK, RB, JP, SDF and PR. Data acquisition: TJH and OJK. Data analysis/interpretation: TJH, OJK, RB, DJC, SDF, and PR. Statistical analysis: TJH, OJK, SDF and PJR. Supervision or mentorship: DJC, JP, SDF and PR. Each author contributed important intellectual content during manuscript drafting or revision and agrees to be personally accountable for the individual’s own contributions and to ensure that questions pertaining to the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work, even one in which the author was not directly involved, are appropriately investigated and resolved, including with documentation in the literature if appropriate.

Authors’ information

Twitter handles: @DrTHydes (Theresa Hydes); @ryanmbuch (Ryan Buchanan); @djrcuthbertson (Daniel Cuthbertson).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theresa J. Hydes.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for the UKBB study was granted by the North West Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee (06/MRE08/65). We also had approval from the University of Southampton faculty ethics committee (ERGO II 64318).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Supplementary methods.

Additional file 2: Table S1.

List of ICD-9, ICD-10 and self-reported AQUKBB codes to exclude participants with evidence of a non-NAFLD cause of liver disease at baseline.

Additional file 3: Table S2.

List of ICD-9, ICD-10 and self-reported UKBB codes to exclude participants with evidence of alcohol abuse.

Additional file 4: Table S3.

List of ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes used to define a cardiovascular event outcome and for the exclusion of a baseline cardiovascular event.

Additional file 5: Table S4.

Number and proportion of patients in each Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomecategory according to baseline albuminuria and eGFR results.

Additional file 6: Table S5.

Comparison of baseline demographics between participants excluded due to no data available to calculate HSI, FIB-4 and NFS and study cohort.

Additional file 7: Table S6.

Number and proportion of patients with NAFLD identified at baseline in each Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomecategory according to baseline albuminuria and eGFR results.

Additional file 8: Table S7.

Comparison of baseline demographics between participants with and without NAFLD fibrosis.

Additional file 9: Figure S1.

Primary outcome event rates for individuals with and without NAFLD.

Additional file 10: Table S8.

Univariate analysis of factors predictive of primary outcomes for people with CKD.

Additional file 11: Table S9.

Event ratesof primary outcome events according to baseline Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomecategory.

Additional file 12: Table S10.

Sensitivity analysis showing the association of NAFLD with CVEs, ESRD and all-cause mortality where eGFR was calculated using serum creatinine alone.

Additional file 13: Table S11.

Sensitivity analysis showing the association of NAFLD with CVEs, ESRD and all-cause mortality where CKD is defined according toeGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 alone,albuminuria > 3mg/mmol alone, andfor patients meeting both criteria.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hydes, T.J., Kennedy, O.J., Buchanan, R. et al. The impact of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and liver fibrosis on adverse clinical outcomes and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease: a prospective cohort study using the UK Biobank. BMC Med 21, 185 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02891-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02891-x

Keywords

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us