Background and Aims: In patients with non-severe acute or chronic autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) without cirrhosis, clinical practice guidelines recommend indistinct use of prednisone or budesonide. However, budesonide is infrequently used in clinical practice. We aimed to describe its use and compare its efficacy and safety with prednisone as first-line options. Approach and Results: This was a retrospective, multicenter study of 105 naive AIH patients treated with budesonide as the first-line drug. The control group included 276 patients treated with prednisone. Efficacy was assessed using logistic regression and validated using inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score. The median time to biochemical response (BR) was 3.1 months in patients treated with budesonide and 4.9 months in those with prednisone. The BR rate was significantly higher in patients treated with prednisone (87% vs. 49% of patients with budesonide, p < 0.001). The probability of achieving BR, assessed using the inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score, was significantly lower in the budesonide group (OR = 0.20; 95% CI: 0.11–0.38) at any time during follow-up, and at 6 (OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.29–0.89) and 12 months after starting treatment (0.41; 95% CI: 0.23–0.73). In patients with transaminases <2 × upper limit of normal, BR was similar in both treatment groups. Prednisone treatment was significantly associated with a higher risk of adverse events (24.2% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.047). Conclusions: In the real-life setting, the use of budesonide as first-line treatment is low, and it is generally prescribed to patients with perceived less disease activity. Budesonide was inferior to prednisone as a first-line drug but was associated with fewer side effects.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, and its incidence has been increasing in recent years because of the high prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome in the Western population. Alcohol-related liver disease (ArLD) is the most common cause of cirrhosis and constitutes the leading cause of cirrhosis-related deaths worldwide. Both NAFLD and ArLD constitute well-known causes of liver damage, with some similarities in their pathophysiology. For this reason, they can lead to the progression of liver disease, being responsible for a high proportion of liver-related events and liver-related deaths. Whether ArLD impacts the prognosis and progression of liver damage in patients with NAFLD is still a matter of debate. Nowadays, the synergistic deleterious effect of obesity and diabetes is clearly established in patients with ArLD and heavy alcohol consumption. However, it is still unknown whether low to moderate amounts of alcohol are good or bad for liver health. The measurement and identification of the possible synergistic deleterious effect of alcohol consumption in the assessment of patients with NAFLD is crucial for clinicians, since early intervention, advising abstinence and controlling cardiovascular risk factors would improve the prognosis of patients with both comorbidities. This article seeks to perform a comprehensive review of the pathophysiology of both disorders and measure the impact of alcohol consumption in patients with NAFLD.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is currently the most prevalent cause of chronic liver disease (CLD). Currently, the only therapeutic recommendation available is a lifestyle change. However, adherence to this approach is often difficult to guarantee. Alteration of the microbiota and an increase in intestinal permeability seem to be key in the development and progression of NAFLD. Therefore, the manipulation of microbiota seems to provide a promising therapeutic strategy. One way to do so is through faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). Here, we summarize the key aspects of FMT, detail its current indications and highlight the most recent advances in NAFLD.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) encompasses a spectrum of disorders ranging from simple steatosis to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Hepatic steatosis may result from the dysfunction of multiple pathways and thus multiple molecular triggers involved in the disease have been described. The development of NASH entails the activation of inflammatory and fibrotic processes. Furthermore, NAFLD is also strongly associated with several extra-hepatic comorbidities, i.e., metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease. Due to the heterogeneity of NAFLD presentations and the multifactorial etiology of the disease, clinical trials for NAFLD treatment are testing a wide range of interventions and drugs, with little success. Here, we propose a narrative review of the different phenotypic characteristics of NAFLD patients, whose disease may be triggered by different agents and driven along different pathophysiological pathways. Thus, correct phenotyping of NAFLD patients and personalized treatment is an innovative therapeutic approach that may lead to better therapeutic outcomes.

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic, immune-mediated liver disease characterized by progressive destruction of the small intrahepatic bile ducts, leading to cholestasis, inflammation, and ultimately fibrosis and cirrhosis. This review emphasizes the central role of bile acids in PBC pathogenesis, exploring how disruptions in their synthesis, transport, and detoxification contribute to cholangiocyte damage and disease progression. In addition to discussing the autoimmune features of PBC, including the presence of specific autoantibodies and cellular immune responses, we examine how bile acid dysregulation exacerbates cholestasis and promotes lipid metabolic disturbances. Particular attention is given to the “bicarbonate umbrella” hypothesis, which describes a protective mechanism by which cholangiocytes resist bile acid–induced injury—an essential factor disrupted in PBC. The aim of this review is to summarize current knowledge gaps in the pathophysiology of PBC, with a focus on the role of bile acids not only as key drivers of disease mechanisms, but also as potential biomarkers of disease progression and treatment response.

Different reports have shown the clinical and serologic response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in the general population, but few studies have examined these responses in transplant recipients. We assessed the vaccine immunogenicity of two doses (100 μg) of the mRNA‐1273 vaccine (Moderna) administered with a 28‐day interval in liver transplant recipients (LTRs) at follow‐up at the Marques de Valdecilla University Hospital. LTRs without a history of COVID‐19 infection were tested for SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies directed against the spike protein (S) a median of 43 days after receiving the second Moderna vaccine dose. Clinical data, including immunosuppressive regimen and routine laboratory data, were obtained from the medical record of each patient up to 3 months before the date of the first vaccination. Factors associated with serologic response were evaluated through logistic regression. In total, 129 LTRs who had anti‐S results were included. Most patients were men (n = 99; 76.7%) with a median age of 63 years (interquartile range, 56–68). Alcohol (43.4%) and chronic hepatitis C (18.6%) were the most frequent causes of liver transplantation. A positive anti‐S IgG response was observed in 113 LTRs (87.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 80.8–92.2). A strong inverse relationship between mycophenolate mofetil use and serologic response was found (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02–0.26; p = 0.001). Conclusion: Most LTRs develop an immunological response to the Moderna SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA‐based vaccine. An immunosuppressive regimen that includes mycophenolate predicts a weak serologic response.