Sharma, Ashish

Background: Liver transplantation (LT) remains the definitive treatment for end-stage liver disease; however, post-LT outcomes may differ depending on underlying disease etiology. Our study aimed to compare post-LT outcomes between alcoholic and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-related liver transplant recipients in the United States. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the TriNetX Research Network. Adult liver transplant recipients (≥18 years) were categorized into two mutually exclusive cohorts: alcoholic liver disease and NASH-related liver disease. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to balance baseline characteristics. Clinical outcomes were assessed. Comparative analyses included risk ratios, risk differences, odds ratios, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, and hazard ratios with log-rank testing. Results: Compared with NASH recipients, alcoholic LT recipients had a significantly higher risk of rejection (14.5% vs. 12.1%; RR 1.195, 95% CI 1.076–1.327; p = 0.001) and hepatic encephalopathy (14.3% vs. 8.3%; RR 1.720, 95% CI 1.526–1.938; p < 0.001). Acute kidney injury was also more frequent in the alcoholic cohort (47.3% vs. 43.6%; RR 1.084, 95% CI 1.036–1.133; p < 0.001). In contrast, sepsis (15.6% vs. 18.0%; RR 0.869, 95% CI 0.794–0.952; p = 0.003) and CKD (46.1% vs. 51.1%; RR 0.901, 95% CI 0.863–0.939; p < 0.001) occurred less frequently in alcoholic LT patients. No significant differences were observed for liver transplant failure or ascites. Kaplan–Meier analyses demonstrated significantly lower rejection-free survival (HR 1.241, p < 0.001), higher hepatic encephalopathy (HR 1.808, p < 0.001), increased AKI risk (HR 1.150, p < 0.001) and higher all-cause mortality in the alcoholic cohort (HR 1.106, p = 0.031). Conclusions: In this large real-world matched cohort study, alcoholic LT recipients demonstrated higher risks of complications and all-cause mortality compared with NASH LT recipients.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is responsible for a high cancer burden and a high number of deaths all over the world, although effective screening can make it preventable to a significant extent. Stool-based tests, such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) testing, are gaining considerable popularity as non-invasive procedures that can be a replacement for colonoscopies for people at an average risk for colon cancer. Despite evidence from several randomized controlled trials supporting the use of these tests for colorectal cancer screening, their external validity in a real-world setting is influenced by many factors such as adherence, timely follow-up post testing, the healthcare cost burden, accessibility and the capacity of the health system. In this article, we have performed an extensive narrative literature review of research published between 2020 and 2025 comparing FIT and the mt-sDNA test with reference to diagnostic accuracy, cost-effectiveness, adherence and outcomes of implementation. We discuss the issues of sensitivity and specificity, look at post-test requirements for colonoscopy and check if there is any discrimination in healthcare. These findings suggest that FIT and mt-sDNA tests should not be considered competing technologies but rather complementary screening methods, with their overall effectiveness contingent upon appropriate patient selection and widespread system-level implementation. It is crucial to combine strategic test selection with a robust follow-up infrastructure to ensure that the entire population benefits from the CRC prevention program.