Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has become one of the most common chronic liver diseases worldwide. A strong relationship exists between NAFLD and diabetes mellitus. There is growing evidence of a mechanistically complex and strong association between the two diseases. Current data also shows that one disease actually leads to worsening of the other and vice versa . Understanding of the various pathophysiological mechanisms involved, natural history and spectrum of these two diseases is essential not only for early diagnosis and management but also for prevention of severe disease forms. Despite the tremendous progress made in recent times in acquiring knowledge about these highly prevalent diseases, the guidelines and recommendations for screening and management of diabetics with NAFLD remain ambiguous. An interdisciplinary approach is required to not only raise awareness of the prevalence of NAFLD in diabetics but also for better patient management. This can help attenuate the development of significant complications, such as cirrhosis, decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma in these patients, thereby halting NAFLD in its tracks. This review focuses on the pivotal role of primary care physicians and endocrinologists in identification of NAFLD in diabetics in early stages and the role of proactive screening for prompt referral to hepatologist.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) affects about a quarter of the world's population and poses a major health and economic burden globally. Recently, there have been hasty attempts to rename NAFLD to metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) despite the fact that there is no scientific rationale for this. Quest for a "positive criterion" to diagnose the disease and destigmatizing the disease have been the main reasons put forth for the name change. A close scrutiny of the pathogenesis of NAFLD would make it clear that NAFLD is a heterogeneous disorder, involving different pathogenic mechanisms of which metabolic dysfunction-driven hepatic steatosis is only one. Replacing NAFLD with MAFLD would neither enhance the legitimacy of clinical practice and clinical trials, nor improve clinical care or move NAFLD research forward. Rather than changing the nomenclature without a strong scientific backing to support such a change, efforts should be directed at understanding NAFLD pathogenesis across diverse populations and ethnicities which could potentially help develop newer therapeutic options.

No abstract

No abstract