Dahiya, Dushyant Singh

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.

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are reshaping the therapeutic approach to advanced gastrointestinal cancers by integrating tumor-specific monoclonal antibodies with potent cytotoxic payloads to improve targeted tumor cell destruction while minimizing systemic exposure. Compared to traditional chemotherapy, trastuzumab deruxtecan has significantly improved objective response rates and overall survival in HER2-positive gastric and gastroesophageal junction tumors after trastuzumab-based therapy. This supports its role as an important second-line or later treatment option. The ongoing advancement of ADCs targeting CLDN18.2, TROP2, and CEACAM5 indicates that this therapeutic category will continue to expand across gastrointestinal neoplasms. Nonetheless, these advancements are accompanied by a specific and clinically significant toxicity profile. Hematologic suppression, gastrointestinal side effects, hepatotoxicity, and notably interstitial lung disease (ILD) are essential consequences that may need inpatient assessment and care. Interstitial lung disease (ILD), although uncommon, may be severe or lethal if not identified immediately and treated swiftly with medication cessation and corticosteroids. In hospitalized patients, distinguishing ADC-related toxicity from infection or disease progression is often difficult owing to overlapping clinical manifestations, requiring meticulous evaluation and interdisciplinary cooperation. As ADCs are integrated into earlier treatment lines and across a broader patient population, hospital systems must evolve to ensure prompt identification, consistent management protocols, and efficient collaboration between oncology and inpatient teams. This study analyzes the mechanisms, clinical effectiveness, and safety profile of ADCs in gastrointestinal oncology, pointing out the importance of institutional preparedness to safely incorporate these medicines into standard clinical practice. These features also align ADC therapy with personalized medicine by emphasizing biomarker-guided patient selection and individualized toxicity monitoring.

Motility disorders, particularly gastroparesis, are prevalent complications following solid organ transplantation, significantly impacting quality of life, nutritional status, graft survival, and mortality. This comprehensive review synthesises evidence from PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, management, and prognostic factors across transplant types. Mechanisms include vagal nerve injury (highest in lung transplants, prevalence 40–91%), immunosuppressive effects (e.g., tacrolimus accelerates motility; mycophenolate impairs it), surgical trauma, microbiome dysbiosis (reduced Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio), and metabolic factors like post-transplant diabetes (OR 5.17 in kidney recipients). Pediatric and thoracic recipients face the highest risks, with lung transplant gastroparesis conferring a 2.7-fold increased mortality/retransplantation hazard (p < 0.05). Diagnosis relies on gastric emptying scintigraphy (gold standard, sensitivity 85–95%) and wireless motility capsules (100% sensitivity for delay), while management encompasses prokinetics (60–80% response), endoscopic G-POEM (85% success), gastric electrical stimulation (100% quality-of-life improvement in series), and nutritional support. Prognostic factors include younger age (better intervention response), aetiology (anatomical worse than metabolic), and early therapy success. Outcomes vary: lung recipients experience severe impacts on chronic allograft dysfunction (83% oesophageal motility abnormalities correlate with 66–67% rejection). Future directions emphasise microbiome therapies, AI predictive models (AUC 0.85), and wearables for continuous monitoring. Multidisciplinary approaches are essential to balance immunosuppression with GI management, addressing ethical dilemmas like drug interactions and access disparities. Ultimately, early screening and personalised interventions can mitigate complications, enhancing long-term transplant success.

ABSTRACTObjectiveAlcohol‐related liver disease (ALD) has emerged as a significant public health concern, particularly among younger populations. ALD remains the leading cause of alcohol‐attributable deaths. This study aims to forecast ALD mortality trends up to 2030, focusing on individuals under 55 years.MethodsWe utilized data from the CDC WONDER database (1999–2022) to examine ALD‐related deaths, identified by ICD‐10 codes (K70.0–K70.9). Crude mortality rates (CMRs) per 100 000 were analyzed and temporal trends were assessed using annual and average annual percent changes (APC/AAPC) with empirical quantile confidence intervals. An Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model was employed to project mortality rates until 2030, validated through time series cross‐validation.ResultsFrom 1999 to 2022, there were 181 862 ALD‐related deaths among individuals under 55, with mortality rates increasing from 3.9 per 100 000 in 1999 to 9.7 per 100 000 in 2022 (AAPC 4.66%, 95% CI: 3.90%–5.86%). Projections suggest rates will continue to rise, reaching 14.4 per 100 000 by 2030. From 1999 to 2022, the 25–34 age group experienced the highest increase, with an AAPC of 10.27% (95% CI: 9.19%–11.35%), while the 35–44 and 45–54 age groups showed more moderate increases, with AAPCs of 5.03% and 4.38%, respectively. Projections indicate an AAPC of 3.86% for ages 25–34, 3.90% for ages 35–44, and 6.17% for ages 45–54 by 2030.ConclusionForecasts indicate a continued rise in ALD mortality among individuals under 55, necessitating immediate public health strategies to mitigate this trend.

Abstract Background Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the treatment of choice for medically refractory inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess outcomes and safety of endoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD) for IPAA strictures. Methods A systematic search of numerous databases was performed through June 2023 to identify studies reporting on the outcomes of EBD in pouch-related strictures. Outcomes included technical success, clinical success at index dilation and in pouch retention, recurrence of symptoms post-EBD, and adverse events of EBD. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and results were expressed in terms of pooled rates along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran Q statistical test with I2 statistics. Results Seven studies with 504 patients were included. The pooled rate of technical success and clinical success of index dilatation was 98.9% (95% CI, 94.8-99.8%; I20%) and 30.2% (95% CI, 7.1-71%; I20%), respectively. The pooled rate of clinical success in pouch retention without the need for additional surgery was 81.4% (95% CI, 69.6-89.3%; I272%). The pooled failure rate of EBD was 18.6% (95% CI, 10.7-30.4%, I272%). The pooled rate of recurrence of symptoms after index dilatation was 58.9% (95% CI, 33.3-80.5%; I213%). The pooled rate of serious adverse events was 1.8% (95% CI, 1-3.5%, I20%). No deaths related to EBD were reported. Conclusions Endoscopic balloon dilatation is safe and highly effective for management of IPAA strictures. Additional studies are needed to compare its efficacy with surgical interventions.

Summary Stag Beetle Knife (SB Knife) is increasingly being utilized for Zenker’s Diverticulectomy (ZD). Our study assessed the effectiveness and safety of the SB Knife for the management of ZD. Ovid EBM reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to identify studies that utilized SB knife for ZD. Pooled proportions (PP) were calculated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 statistics. A total of 7 studies with 268 patients were included in the final analysis. Dysphagia and regurgitation were the most common clinical symptoms. The mean size of the ZD was 2.8 ± 0.7 cm and 28 (of 148) patients had undergone previous treatments. The PP of technical success was 98% (95% CI: 92.3–99.5; I20) with a mean procedure duration of 26.2 ± 8.3 minutes. The PP of clinical response at first follow-up and relapse after index procedure was 87.9% (95% CI: 81.6–92.3; I219) and 13.5% (95% CI: 9.6–18.6; I22), respectively. At final follow-up, the PP of clinical remission was 96.2% (95% CI: 91–98.4; I230.6) while the PP of procedure failure was 3.6% (95% CI: 1.6–8.1; I20). No severe adverse events (AEs) were noted while using the SB Knife. However, the PP of intraprocedural and postprocedural AEs was 13.2% (95% CI: 9.6–17.8; I20) and 9.3% (95% CI: 5.7–14.9; I2 &lt; 20.9), respectively. SB Knife is highly safe and effective for Zenker’s Diverticulectomy with a failure rate of only 3.6%.

Background: There is limited data on Vedolizumab utilization in elderly patients. Our study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of Vedolizumab in this subset population. Materials and Methods: Databases including Cochrane Central, Embase, Medline (via Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched in August 2022 to identify studies that assessed Vedolizumab therapy in elderly patients. Pooled proportion and risk ratios (RR) were calculated. Results: Total 11 studies with 3546 IBD patients (1314 elderly and 2232 young) were included in the final analysis. Pooled rate of overall and serious infections in the elderly cohort was 8.45% (95% CI=6.27-11.29; I223%) and 2.59% (95% CI=0.78-8.29; I276%), respectively. However, there was no difference in overall infection rates between elderly and young patients. Pooled rate of endoscopic, clinical, and steroid-free remission for elderly IBD patients was 38.45% (95% CI=20.74-59.56; I293%), 37.95% (95% CI=33.08-43.06; I213%), and 38.8% (95% CI=31.6-46.4; I277%), respectively. Elderly patients had lower steroid-free remission rates [RR 0.85, 95% CI=0.74-0.99; I20%, P=0.03]; however, there was no difference in rates of clinical (RR 0.86, 95% CI=0.72-1.03; I20%, P=0.10) or endoscopic remission (RR 1.06, 95% CI=0.83-1.35; I20%, P=0.63) compared with younger patients. Pooled rate of IBD-related surgery and IBD-related hospitalizations was 9.76% (95% CI=5.81-15.92; I278%) and 10.54% (95% CI=8.37-13.2; I20%), respectively for the elderly cohort. There was no statistical difference in IBD-related surgeries between elderly and young IBD patients, RR 1.20 (95% CI=0.79-1.84; I216%), P=0.4. Conclusions: Vedolizumab is equally safe and effective for clinical and endoscopic remission in elderly and younger populations.

Abstract Background and study aims Hemospray (TC-325) is a mineral powder with adsorptive properties designed for use in various gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) scenarios. We conducted a systematic review & meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TC-325 to standard endoscopic therapy (SET) for non-variceal GIB (NVGIB). Methods Multiple databases were searched through October 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to determine pooled relative risk (RR) and proportions with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for primary hemostasis, hemostasis failure, 30-day rebleeding, length of stay (LOS), and need for rescue interventions. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2%. Results Five RCTs with 362 patients (TC-325 178, SET 184) – 123 females and 239 males with a mean age 65 ± 16 years). The most common etiologies were peptic ulcer disease (48 %), malignancies (35 %), and others (17 %). Bleeding was characterized as Forrest IA (7 %), IB (73 %), IIA (3 %), and IIB (1 %). SET included epinephrine injection, electrocautery, hemoclips, or a combination. No statistical difference in primary hemostasis between TC-325 compared to SET, RR 1.09 (CI 0.95–1.25; I2 43), P = 0.2, including patients with oozing/spurting hemorrhage, RR 1.13 (CI 0.98–1.3; I2 35), P = 0.08. Failure to achieve hemostasis was higher in SET compared to TC-325, RR 0.30 (CI 0.12–0.77, I2 0), P = 0.01, including patients with oozing/spurting hemorrhage, RR 0.24 (CI 0.09 – 0.63, I2 0), P = 0.004. We found no difference between the two interventions in terms of rebleeding, RR 1.13 (CI 0.62–2.07, I2 26), P = 0.8 and LOS, standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27 (CI, –0.20–0.74; I2 62), P = 0.3. Finally, pooled rate of rescue interventions (angiography) was statistically higher in SET compared to TC-325, RR 0.68 (CI 0.5–0.94; I2 0), P = 0.02. Conclusions Our analysis shows that for acute NV GIB, including oozing/spurting hemorrhage, TC-325 does not result in higher rates of primary hemostasis compared to SET. However, lower rates of failures were seen with TC-325 than SET. In addition, there was no difference in the two modalities when comparing rates of rebleeding and LOS.