Introduction Cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension can suffer from variceal bleeding or refractory ascites and can benefit from a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a common (20%–54%) and often severe complication. A prophylactic strategy is lacking. Methods and analysis The Prevention of hepatic Encephalopathy by Administration of Rifaximin and Lactulose in patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing placement of a TIPS (PEARL) trial, is a multicentre randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Patients undergoing covered TIPS placement are prescribed either rifaximin 550 mg two times per day and lactulose 25 mL two times per day (starting dose) or placebo 550 mg two times per day and lactulose 25 mL two times per day from 72 hours before and until 3 months after TIPS placement. Primary endpoint is the development of overt HE (OHE) within 3 months (according to West Haven criteria). Secondary endpoints include 90-day mortality; development of a second episode of OHE; time to development of episode(s) of OHE; development of minimal HE; molecular changes in peripheral and portal blood samples; quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The total sample size is 238 patients and recruitment period is 3 years in six hospitals in the Netherlands and one in Belgium. Ethics and dissemination This study protocol was approved in the Netherlands by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam (2018-332), in Belgium by the Ethics Committee Research UZ/KU Leuven (S62577) and competent authorities. This study will be conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Study results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration numbers ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04073290) and EudraCT database (2018-004323-37).

Summary: Background: Evidence for the efficacy of TIPSS in ectopic variceal bleeding (EctVB) is largely based on relatively small series.Aim: To define the efficacy of TIPSS in EctVB.Methods: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with chronic liver disease who presented with EctVB and received TIPSS in three tertiary centres in 1992‐2016.Results: The study included 53 patients (70% male, median age 61 years, median model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD) score 11). The ectopic varices were located around the insertion of stomas (40%), duodenum (23%), rectum (17%) and at other sites (20%). Three‐quarters of the patients had previously received unsuccessful medical, endoscopic or surgical therapy. The median follow‐up was 14.0 months. Following TIPSS, bleeding recurred in 12 patients: 6 of 12 (50%) with duodenal varices, 2 of 9 (22%) with rectal varices and one each with stomal (1/21), intraperitoneal (1/3), hepaticojejunostomy (1/2) and ascending colon varices (1/2). The risk factors for re‐bleeding were MELD score at TIPSS placement (HR: 1.081 per point; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.012‐1.153; P = 0.034), varices located at site other than an enterostomy (HR: 9.770; 95%CI: 1.241‐76.917; P = 0.030) and previous local therapy (HR: 5.710; 95%CI: 1.211‐26.922; P = 0.028). The estimated cumulative re‐bleeding rate was 23% at 1 year, 26% at 3 years and 32% at 5 years. Post‐TIPSS hepatic encephalopathy manifested or worsened in 16 of 53 patients (30%).Conclusion: TIPSS provides long‐term control of bleeding in most cirrhotic patients with EctVB. TIPSS is particularly effective in stomal EctVB, the most frequent cause of EctVB, but might not be as effective in duodenal EctVB.

Background: The ‘Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib‐treated HCC’ (PROSASH) model addressed the heterogeneous survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib in clinical trials but requires validation in daily clinical practice. This study aimed to validate, compare and optimize this model for survival prediction.Methods: Patients treated with sorafenib for HCC at five tertiary European centres were retrospectively staged according to the PROSASH model. In addition, the optimized PROSASH‐II model was developed using the data of four centres (training set) and tested in an independent dataset. These models for overall survival (OS) were then compared with existing prognostic models.Results: The PROSASH model was validated in 445 patients, showing clear differences between the four risk groups (OS 16.9‐4.6 months). A total of 920 patients (n = 615 in training set, n = 305 in validation set) were available to develop PROSASH‐II. This optimized model incorporated fewer and less subjective parameters: the serum albumin, bilirubin and alpha‐foetoprotein, and macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread and largest tumour size on imaging. Both PROSASH and PROSASH‐II showed improved discrimination (C‐index 0.62 and 0.63, respectively) compared with existing prognostic scores (C‐index ≤0.59). Conclusions: In HCC patients treated with sorafenib, individualized prediction of survival and risk group stratification using baseline prognostic and predictive parameters with the PROSASH model was validated. The refined PROSASH‐II model performed at least as good with fewer and more objective parameters. PROSASH‐II can be used as a tool for tailored treatment of HCC in daily practice and to define pre‐planned subgroups for future studies.

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) face a common type of cancer, which is amongst the most deadly types of cancer worldwide. The therapeutic options range from curative resection or ablation to loco regional therapies in palliative setting and last but not least, systemic treatment. The latter group underwent major changes in the last decade and a half. Since the introduction of sorafenib in 2007, many other systemic treatments have been investigated. Most without success. It took more than ten years before lenvatinib could be added as alternative first-line treatment option. Just recently a new form of systemic treatment, immunotherapy, entered the field of therapeutic options in patients with HCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are becoming the new standard of care in patients with HCC. Several reviews reported on the latest phase 1/2 studies and discussed the higher response rates and better tolerability when compared to current standard of care therapies. This review will focus on elaborating the working mechanism of these checkpoint inhibitors, give an elaborate update of the therapeutic agents that are currently available or under research, and will give an overview of the latest trials, as well as ongoing and upcoming trials.

Covalently closed circular (ccc)DNA acts as a viral reservoir in the liver of patients with a chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection and can only be quantified in liver biopsies. Hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) levels in plasma/serum have been proposed to reflect intrahepatic cccDNA-levels and may therefore monitor treatment efficacy. This study aimed to validate the relationship between HBcrAg and other intrahepatic and circulating viral markers in CHB patients with high viral load, before and after combination treatment. Plasma/serum levels of HBcrAg, HBsAg, HBV-DNA, and HBV pregenomic RNA (HBV-pgRNA), and intrahepatic cccDNA and HBV-DNA levels and fibrosis scores were measured in 89 CHB patients with HBV-DNA levels of >100,000 copies/mL (17,182 IU/mL). Measurements were done before and after a 48-week treatment with pegylated interferon alfa-2a and adefovir in a prospective study (ISRCTN77073364). Baseline HBcrAg-values correlated strongly with intrahepatic cccDNA (ρ 0.77, p < 0.001), intrahepatic HBV-DNA (ρ 0.73, p < 0.001) and plasma/serum HBV-DNA (ρ 0.80, p < 0.001), HBV-pgRNA (ρ 0.80, p < 0.001), and to lesser extend HBsAg (ρ 0.56, p < 0.001). Baseline HBcrAg-levels could not predict functional cure (FC) but HBcrAg-levels declined more strongly in patients who developed FC or HBeAg-loss. Furthermore, most correlations persisted at the end of treatment and follow-up. HBcrAg reflects cccDNA transcription activity more accurately than HBsAg and may replace HBV-DNA as a marker during future treatment regimens, especially when cccDNA transcription is targeted or nucleot(s)ide analogues are included in the treatment regime.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the setting of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)-related cirrhosis and even in the pre-cirrhotic state is increasing in incidence. NAFLD-related HCC has a poor clinical outcome as it is often advanced at diagnosis due to late diagnosis and systemic treatment response is poor due to reduced immune surveillance. Much of the focus of molecular research has been on the pathological changes in hepatocytes; however, immune cells, hepatic stellate cells, liver sinusoidal endothelial cells and the extracellular matrix may play important roles in the pathogenesis of NAFLD-related HCC as well. Here, we review the role of non-parenchymal cells in the liver in the pathogenesis of HCC in the context of NAFLD-NASH, with a particular focus on the innate and the adaptive immune system, fibrogenesis and angiogenesis. We review the key roles of macrophages, hepatic stellate cells (HSCs), T cells, natural killer (NK) cells, NKT cells and liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs) and the role of the extracellular matrix in hepatocarcinogenesis within the steatotic milieu.