Chronic liver disease encompasses diseases that have various causes, such as alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Gut microbiota dysregulation plays a key role in the pathogenesis of ALD and NAFLD through the gut–liver axis. The gut microbiota consists of various microorganisms that play a role in maintaining the homeostasis of the host and release a wide number of metabolites, including short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), peptides, and hormones, continually shaping the host’s immunity and metabolism. The integrity of the intestinal mucosal and vascular barriers is crucial to protect liver cells from exposure to harmful metabolites and pathogen-associated molecular pattern molecules. Dysbiosis and increased intestinal permeability may allow the liver to be exposed to abundant harmful metabolites that promote liver inflammation and fibrosis. In this review, we introduce the metabolites and components derived from the gut microbiota and discuss their pathologic effect in the liver alongside recent advances in molecular-based therapeutics and novel mechanistic findings associated with the gut–liver axis in ALD and NAFLD.

Cholangiopathies encompass various biliary diseases affecting the biliary epithelium, resulting in cholestasis, inflammation, fibrosis, and ultimately liver cirrhosis. Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) are the most important progressive cholangiopathies in adults. Much research has broadened the scope of disease biology to genetic risk, epigenetic changes, dysregulated mucosal immunity, altered biliary epithelial cell function, and dysbiosis, all of which interact and arise in the context of ill-defined environmental triggers. An in-depth understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of these cholestatic diseases will help clinicians better prevent and treat diseases. In this review, we focus on the main underlying mechanisms of disease initiation and progression, and novel targeted therapeutics beyond currently approved treatments.

There have been limited studies directly comparing the long-term efficacy between entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). This study was aimed to compare the long-term efficacy between them in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Out of 345 CHB patients who received first line therapy with ETV (n = 200) or TDF (n = 145) in a cohort, 210 patients were analyzed using propensity score matching, at a ratio of 1:1. Two groups showed no difference in baseline characteristics. During the follow-up of 12 months, HBV DNA levels were similarly suppressed in both groups (ETV vs. TDF; −5.01 vs. -5.242 log10IU/mL, P = 0.559). At month 12, both groups showed no difference in terms of the serologic, biochemical and virologic (VR) response. In multivariate analysis, the initial virologic response at 3 months (IVR-3) was independent factor for VR at 1 year. During the long-term follow-up, HBV DNA levels were more strongly suppressed by TDF than ETV in hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive patients (P = 0.035), especially with high viral load (P = 0.012), although there was no significant difference in overall VR between two groups. The type of antivirals was not an independent factor for long-term VR. Although either ETV or TDF, overall, may show a comparable long-term antiviral efficacy in treatment-naïve CHB, TDF might be better regimen than ETV in the subgroup of HBeAg-positive CHB, especially with a higher HBV DNA levels.