The first edition of the clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis was published in 2010, and the second edition was published in 2015 by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE). The revised third edition was recently published in 2020. This version has become a joint guideline by the JSGE and the Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH). In addition to the clinical questions (CQs), background questions (BQs) are new items for basic clinical knowledge, and future research questions (FRQs) are newly added clinically important items. Concerning the clinical treatment of liver cirrhosis, new findings have been reported over the past 5 years since the second edition. In this revision, we decided to match the international standards as much as possible by referring to the latest international guidelines. Newly developed agents for various complications have also made great progress. In comparison with the latest global guidelines, such as the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), we are introducing data based on the evidence for clinical practice in Japan. The flowchart for nutrition therapy was reviewed to be useful for daily medical care by referring to overseas guidelines. We also explain several clinically important items that have recently received focus and were not mentioned in the last editions. This digest version describes the issues related to the management of liver cirrhosis and several complications in clinical practice. The content begins with a diagnostic algorithm, the revised flowchart for nutritional therapy, and refracted ascites, which are of great importance to patients with cirrhosis. In addition to the updated antiviral therapy for hepatitis B and C liver cirrhosis, the latest treatments for non-viral cirrhosis, such as alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (ASH/NASH) and autoimmune-related cirrhosis, are also described. It also covers the latest evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of liver cirrhosis complications, namely gastrointestinal bleeding, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, portal thrombus, sarcopenia, muscle cramp, thrombocytopenia, pruritus, hepatopulmonary syndrome, portopulmonary hypertension, and vitamin D deficiency, including BQ, CQ and FRQ. Finally, this guideline covers prognosis prediction and liver transplantation, especially focusing on several new findings since the last version. Since this revision is a joint guideline by both societies, the same content is published simultaneously in the official English journal of JSGE and JSH.

Background: It has been shown that expression of the potent angiogenic factor, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and its receptors, flt-1 (VEGFR-1) and KDR/Flk-1 (VEGFR-2), increased during the development of liver fibrosis. Aims: To elucidate the in vivo role of interaction between VEGF and its receptors in liver fibrogenesis. Methods: A model of CCl ₄ induced hepatic fibrosis was used to assess the role of VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2 by means of specific neutralising monoclonal antibodies (R-1mAb and R-2mAb, respectively). R-1mAb and R-2mAb were administered after two weeks of treatment with CCl ₄ , and indices of fibrosis were assessed at eight weeks. Results: Hepatic VEGF mRNA expression significantly increased during the development of liver fibrosis. Both R-1mAb and R-2mAb treatments significantly attenuated the development of fibrosis associated with suppression of neovascularisation in the liver. Hepatic hydroxyproline and serum fibrosis markers were also suppressed. Furthermore, the number of α-smooth muscle actin positive cells and α1(I)-procollagen mRNA expression were significantly suppressed by R-1mAb and R-2mAb treatment. The inhibitory effect of R-2mAb was more potent than that of R-1mAb, and combination treatment with both mAbs almost completely attenuated fibrosis development. Our in vitro study showed that VEGF treatment significantly stimulated proliferation of both activated hepatic stellate cells (HSC) and sinusoidal endothelial cells (SEC). VEGF also significantly increased α1(I)-procollagen mRNA expression in activated HSC. Conclusions: These results suggest that the interaction of VEGF and its receptor, which reflected the combined effects of both on HSC and SEC, was a prerequisite for liver fibrosis development.

Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases–1 (TIMP–1) has been shown to be increased in liver fibrosis development both in murine experimental models and human samples. However, the direct role of TIMP–1 during liver fibrosis development has not been defined. To address this issue, we developed transgenic mice overexpressing human TIMP–1 (hTIMP–1) in the liver under control of the albumin promoter/enhancer. A model of CCl₄–induced hepatic fibrosis was used to assess the extent of fibrosis development in TIMP–1 transgenic (TIMP–Tg) mice and control hybrid (Cont) mice. Without any treatment, overexpression of TIMP–1 itself did not induce liver fibrosis. There were no significant differences of pro–(α1)–collagen–I, (α2)–collagen–IV, and α–smooth muscle actin (α–SMA) mRNA expression in the liver between TIMP–Tg and Cont–mice, suggesting that overexpression of TIMP–1 itself did not cause hepatic stellate cell (HSC) activation. After 4–week treatment with CCl₄, however, densitometric analysis revealed that TIMP–Tg–mice had a seven–fold increase in liver fibrosis compared with the Cont–mice. The hepatic hydroxyproline content and serum hyaluronic acid were also significantly increased in TIMP–Tg–mice, whereas CCl₄–induced liver dysfunction was not altered. An active form of matrix metalloproteinases–2 (MMP–2) level in the liver of TIMP–Tg–mice was decreased relative to that in Cont–mice because of the transgenic TIMP–1. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed that collagen–I and collagen–IV accumulation was markedly increased in the liver of CCl₄–treated TIMP–Tg–mice with a pattern similar to that of α–SMA positive cells. These results suggest that TIMP–1 does not by itself result in liver fibrosis, but strongly promotes liver fibrosis development.

The first edition of the clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis was published in 2010, and the second edition was published in 2015 by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE). The revised third edition was recently published in 2020. This version has become a joint guideline by the JSGE and the Japanese Society of Hepatology (JSH). In addition to the clinical questions (CQs), background questions (BQs) are new items for basic clinical knowledge, and future research questions (FRQs) are newly added clinically important items. Concerning the clinical treatment of liver cirrhosis, new findings have been reported over the past 5 years since the second edition. In this revision, we decided to match the international standards as much as possible by referring to the latest international guidelines. Newly developed agents for various complications have also made great progress. In comparison with the latest global guidelines, such as the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), we are introducing data based on the evidence for clinical practice in Japan. The flowchart for nutrition therapy was reviewed to be useful for daily medical care by referring to overseas guidelines. We also explain several clinically important items that have recently received focus and were not mentioned in the last editions. This digest version describes the issues related to the management of liver cirrhosis and several complications in clinical practice. The content begins with a diagnostic algorithm, the revised flowchart for nutritional therapy, and refracted ascites, which are of great importance to patients with cirrhosis. In addition to the updated antiviral therapy for hepatitis B and C liver cirrhosis, the latest treatments for non‐viral cirrhosis, such as alcoholic steatohepatitis/non‐alcoholic steatohepatitis (ASH/NASH) and autoimmune‐related cirrhosis, are also described. It also covers the latest evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of liver cirrhosis complications, namely gastrointestinal bleeding, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury, hepatic encephalopathy, portal thrombus, sarcopenia, muscle cramp, thrombocytopenia, pruritus, hepatopulmonary syndrome, portopulmonary hypertension, and vitamin D deficiency, including BQ, CQ and FRQ. Finally, this guideline covers prognosis prediction and liver transplantation, especially focusing on several new findings since the last version. Since this revision is a joint guideline by both societies, the same content is published simultaneously in the official English journal of JSGE and JSH.

It has been suggested that the tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 (TIMP-1) is involved in spontaneous resolution of liver fibrosis. The aim of this study was to investigate whether TIMP-1 altered spontaneous resolution of liver fibrosis in conjunction with matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) inhibition and hepatic stellate cell (HSC) activation. The livers of liver-targeted TIMP-1 transgenic (TIMP-Tg) and control hybrid (Cont) mice were harvested at 0, 3, 7, and 28 days following spontaneous recovery from CCl₄-induced liver fibrosis. The extent of fibrosis resolution, MMP expression, α-smooth-muscle actin (α-SMA) positive cells, and procollagen-(I) messenger RNA (mRNA) in the liver were assessed at the respective periods in both groups. We also examined the effect of TIMP-1 on HSC apoptosis. The TIMP-Tg mice showed significantly attenuated resolution of spontaneous liver fibrosis compared with the Cont mice. The hydroxyproline content, number of α-SMA positive cells, and procollagen-(I) mRNA rapidly decreased with time in the Cont mice, whereas these markers were little changed in TIMP-Tg mice. The level of the active form of metalloproteinases-2 (MMP-2) in the TIMP-Tg mice was less than that in the Cont mice. TIMP-1 markedly decreased the nonparenchyma apoptotic cells in the liver fibrosis resolution model, and it also inhibited HSC apoptosis associated with suppression of caspase-3 activity in vitro. In conclusion, TIMP-1 significantly attenuated spontaneous resolution of liver fibrosis by the combination of a net reduction of the MMP activity and suppression of apoptosis in HSC.

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) may cause fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, the exact mechanism of disease progression is not fully understood. Angiogenesis has been shown to play an important role in the progression of chronic liver disease. The aim of this study was to elucidate the role of angiogenesis in the development of liver fibrosis and hepatocarcinogenesis in NASH. Zucker rats, which naturally develop leptin receptor mutations, and their lean littermate rats were fed a choline-deficient, amino acid–defined diet. Both Zucker and littermate rats showed marked steatohepatitis and elevation of oxidative stress markers (e.g., thiobarbital acid reactive substances and 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine). In sharp contrast, liver fibrosis, glutathione-S-transferase placental form (GST-P)-positive preneoplastic lesions, and HCC developed in littermate rats but not in Zucker rats. Hepatic neovascularization and the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a potent angiogenic factor, only increased in littermate rats, almost in parallel with fibrogenesis and carcinogenesis. The CD31-immunopositive neovessels were mainly localized either along the fibrotic septa or in the GST-P–positive lesions. Our in vitro study revealed that leptin exerted a proangiogenic activity in the presence of VEGF. In conclusion, these results suggest that leptin-mediated neovascularization coordinated with VEGF plays an important role in the development of liver fibrosis and hepatocarcinogenesis in NASH. (HEPATOLOGY 2006;44:983–991.)