Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a growing epidemic that encompasses three distinct clinical phenotypes: uncomplicated fatty liver, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and NASH‐related cirrhosis with its complications, including hepatocellular carcinoma. To date, no pharmacological treatments have been approved and lifestyle modifications including reduced caloric intake targeting a 7%‐10% weight loss from baseline assessment represent the standard approach. Mediterranean diet has been recommended as the best dietary pattern since it is easy to follow and, independently of caloric intake its nutritional components have beneficial metabolic effects that not only improve steatosis but also risk factors for cardiovascular events, the leading cause of morbidity/mortality in individuals with NAFLD. Other dietary patterns such as ketogenic diet and Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet can be used in patients with NAFLD. Recently, intermittent fasting diets have gained popularity among healthy individuals and have been proposed as a safe and effective treatment for the metabolic syndrome in experimental and in a few human studies. In this narrative review, we aim to summarize the evidence for the available dietary approaches for patients with NAFLD.

Background and aims: Treatment of de novo malignancies and recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in liver transplant recipients (LT) is an attractive strategy that is infrequently pursued because of the lack of strong evidence regarding their safety and efficacy. In this systematic review with pooled analysis, we aimed to assess safety and efficacy of ICI therapy following LT. Methods: We performed a systematic search of case reports and series published until January 2022. We included 31 publications reporting a total of 52 patients treated with ICIs after LT and assessed in a pooled analysis the risk of graft rejection and the outcome of ICI therapy. Results: Acute graft rejection occurred in 15 patients (28.8%) and 7 patients (13.4% of the total cohort) died because of graft loss. Rejection was associated with shorter overall survival (OS) (17.2 months, confidence interval [CI] 12.1–22.2 vs. 3.5 months, CI 1.6–5.4, p < 0.001). Disease control rate was 44.2% ( n = 23), and in these patients, OS was longer than in non‐responders (26.4 months, CI 20.8–32.0 vs. 3.4 months, CI 2.1–4.7, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Observational, off‐label experience suggests that treatment with ICI for advanced malignancies in LT recipients might not be discarded a priori. This notwithstanding, ICI treatment in these patients is associated with a substantial risk of graft rejection and mortality. Prospective studies are needed to provide adequate safety and efficacy figures of ICI treatment in this fragile population.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most frequent primary liver cancer, is the sixth most common cancer, the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, and accounts globally for about 800,000 deaths/year. Early detection of HCC is of pivotal importance as it is associated with improved survival and the ability to apply curative treatments. Chronic liver diseases, and in particular cirrhosis, are the main risk factors for HCC, but the etiology of liver disease is rapidly changing due to improvements in the prevention and treatment of HBV (Hepatitis B virus) and HCV (Hepatitis C virus) infections and to the rising incidence of the metabolic syndrome, of which non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFLD) is a manifestation. NAFLD is now a recognized and rapidly increasing cause of cirrhosis and HCC. Indeed, the most recent guidelines for NAFLD management recommend screening for HCC in patients with established cirrhosis. Screening in NAFLD patients without cirrhosis is not recommended; however, the prevalence of HCC in this group of NAFLD patients has been reported to be as high as 38%, a proportion significantly higher than the one observed in the general population and in non-cirrhotic subjects with other causes of liver disease. Unfortunately, solid data regarding the risk stratification of patients with non-cirrhotic NAFLD who might best benefit from HCC surveillance are scarce, and specific recommendations in this field are urgently needed due to the increasing NAFLD epidemic, at least in Western countries. To further complicate matters, liver ultrasonography, which represents the current standard for HCC surveillance, has a decreased diagnostic accuracy in patients with NAFLD, and therefore disease-specific surveillance tools will be required for the early identification of HCC in this population. In this review, we summarize the most recent evidence on the epidemiology and risk factors for HCC in patients with NAFLD, with and without cirrhosis, and the evidence supporting surveillance for early HCC detection in these patients, reviewing the potential limitations of currently recommended surveillance strategies, and assessing data on the accuracy of potential new screening tools. At this stage it is difficult to propose general recommendations, and best clinical judgement should be exercised, based on the profile of risk factors specific to each patient.

The gut microbiota has emerged as a critical player in metabolic and liver health, with its influence extending to the pathogenesis and progression of steatotic liver diseases. This review delves into the gut-liver axis, a dynamic communication network linking the gut microbiome and liver through metabolic, immunological, and inflammatory pathways. Dysbiosis, characterized by altered microbial composition, contributes significantly to the development of hepatic steatosis, inflammation, and fibrosis via mechanisms such as gut barrier dysfunction, microbial metabolite production, and systemic inflammation. Dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet, are highlighted for their role in modulating the gut microbiota, improving gut-liver axis integrity, and attenuating liver injury. Additionally, emerging microbiota-based interventions, such as fecal microbiota transplantation and bacteriophage therapy, show promise as therapeutic strategies for steatotic liver disease. However, challenges such as population heterogeneity, methodological variability, and knowledge gaps hinder the translational application of current findings. Addressing these barriers through standardized approaches and integrative research will pave the way for microbiota-targeted therapies to mitigate the global burden of steatotic liver disease.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the new frontier for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the first trial with tremelimumab, a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, increasing evidence has confirmed that these drugs can significantly extend the survival of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). As a matter of fact, the overall survival and objective response rates reported in patients with advanced HCC treated with ICIs are the highest ever reported in the second-line setting and, most recently, the combination of the anti-programmed death ligand protein-1 atezolizumab with bevacizumab—an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody—demonstrated superiority to sorafenib in a Phase III randomized clinical trial. Therefore, this regimen has been approved in several countries as first-line treatment for advanced HCC and is soon expected to be widely used in clinical practice. However, despite the promising results of trials exploring ICIs alone or in combination with other agents, there are still some critical issues to deal with to optimize the prognosis of advanced HCC patients. For instance, the actual proportion of patients who are deemed eligible for ICIs in the real-life ranges from 10% to 20% in the first-line setting, and is even lower in the second-line scenario. Moreover, long-term data regarding the safety of ICIs in the population of patients with cirrhosis and impaired liver function are lacking. Lastly, no biomarkers have been identified to predict response, and thus to help clinicians to individually tailor treatment. This review aimed to summarize the state of the art immunotherapy in HCC and, by analyzing a large, multicenter cohort of Italian patients with HCC, to assess the potential applicability of the combination of atezolizumab/bevacizumab in the real-life setting.

Background & Aims: Approximately 40% of patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC) show incomplete response to ursodeoxycholic acid, thus needing second‐line treatment to prevent disease progression. As no head‐to‐head comparison study is available, we used a network meta‐analysis (NMA) to compare efficacy and safety of available second‐line therapies.Methods: We performed a systematic literature review including randomised, placebo‐controlled trials of patients with PBC and incomplete response, or intolerance, to ursodeoxycholic acid, and compared relative risks (RRs) for primary (biochemical response at 52‐week) and secondary outcomes [incidence of new‐onset pruritus and serious adverse events (SAEs)].Results: The NMA included three studies, each testing obeticholic acid (OCA), seladelpar or elafibranor versus placebo (active therapy/placebo: 379/191 patients). All treatments significantly increased the RR for biochemical response with an advantage of elafibranor versus seladelpar (RR: 4.37, 95% CI: 1.01–18.87). OCA 5–10 mg/10 mg was associated with a higher risk of new‐onset pruritus compared to placebo (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.09–1.88/RR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.37–2.33), while seladelpar decreased this risk (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12–0.80). Compared to placebo, OCA 5–10 mg/10 mg was associated with an increased risk of SAE (RR: 3.82; 95% CI: 1.46–10.02/RR 2.67; 95% CI: 1.00–7.08).Conclusions: Among second line therapies for patients with PBC, elafibranor is slightly more effective in obtaining biochemical response than seladelpar that, on the other hand, is the only drug associated with a lower incidence of pruritus. While of similar efficacy, OCA was associated with increased pruritus and SAEs. These findings may help personalise second‐line treatment in patients with PBC.