Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Background/Aims: Despite the high efficacy of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), approximately 1–3% of hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients fail to achieve a sustained virological response. We conducted a nationwide study to investigate risk factors associated with DAA treatment failure. Machine-learning algorithms have been applied to discriminate subjects who may fail to respond to DAA therapy. Methods: We analyzed the Taiwan HCV Registry Program database to explore predictors of DAA failure in HCV patients. Fifty-five host and virological features were assessed using multivariate logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and artificial neural network. The primary outcome was undetectable HCV RNA at 12 weeks after the end of treatment. Results: The training (n=23,955) and validation (n=10,346) datasets had similar baseline demographics, with an overall DAA failure rate of 1.6% (n=538). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, poor DAA adherence, and higher hemoglobin A1c were significantly associated with virological failure. XGBoost outperformed the other algorithms and logistic regression models, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 1.000 in the training dataset and 0.803 in the validation dataset. The top five predictors of treatment failure were HCV RNA, body mass index, α-fetoprotein, platelets, and FIB-4 index. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the XGBoost model (cutoff value=0.5) were 99.5%, 69.7%, 99.9%, 97.4%, and 99.5%, respectively, for the entire dataset. Conclusions Machine learning algorithms effectively provide risk stratification for DAA failure and additional information on the factors associated with DAA failure.

Background/Aims: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients who failed antiviral therapy are at increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study assessed the potential role of metformin and statins, medications for diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperlipidemia (HLP), in reducing HCC risk among these patients. Methods: We included CHC patients from the T-COACH study who failed antiviral therapy. We tracked the onset of HCC 1.5 years post-therapy by linking to Taiwan’s cancer registry data from 2003 to 2019. We accounted for death and liver transplantation as competing risks and employed Gray’s cumulative incidence and Cox subdistribution hazards models to analyze HCC development. Results: Out of 2,779 patients, 480 (17.3%) developed HCC post-therapy. DM patients not using metformin had a 51% increased risk of HCC compared to non-DM patients, while HLP patients on statins had a 50% reduced risk compared to those without HLP. The 5-year HCC incidence was significantly higher for metformin non-users (16.5%) versus non-DM patients (11.3%; adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [aSHR]=1.51; P=0.007) and metformin users (3.1%; aSHR=1.59; P=0.022). Statin use in HLP patients correlated with a lower HCC risk (3.8%) compared to non-HLP patients (12.5%; aSHR=0.50; P<0.001). Notably, the increased HCC risk associated with non-use of metformin was primarily seen in non-cirrhotic patients, whereas statins decreased HCC risk in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients. Conclusions Metformin and statins may have a chemopreventive effect against HCC in CHC patients who failed antiviral therapy. These results support the need for personalized preventive strategies in managing HCC risk.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract and is characterized by alternating periods of inflammation and remission. Although UC incidence is lower in Taiwan than in Western countries, its impact remains considerable, demanding updated guidelines for addressing local healthcare challenges and patient needs. The revised guidelines employ international standards and recent research, emphasizing practical implementation within the Taiwanese healthcare system. Since the inception of the guidelines in 2017, the Taiwan Society of Inflammatory Bowel Disease has acknowledged the need for ongoing revisions to incorporate emerging therapeutic options and evolving disease management practices. This updated guideline aims to align UC management with local contexts, ensuring comprehensive and context-specific recommendations, thereby raising the standard of care for UC patients in Taiwan. By adapting and optimizing international protocols for local relevance, these efforts seek to enhance health outcomes for patients with UC.

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic, fluctuating inflammatory condition that primarily affects the gastrointestinal tract. Although the incidence of CD in Taiwan is lower than that in Western countries, the severity of CD presentation appears to be similar between Asia and the West. This observation indicates the urgency for devising revised guidelines tailored to the unique reimbursement system, and patient requirements in Taiwan. The core objectives of these updated guidelines include the updated treatment choices and the integration of the treat-to-target strategy into CD management, promoting the achievement of deep remission to mitigate complications and enhance the overall quality of life. Given the diversity in disease prevalence, severity, insurance policies, and access to medical treatments in Taiwan, a customized approach is imperative for formulating these guidelines. Such tailored strategies ensure that international standards are not only adapted but also optimized to local contexts. Since the inception of its initial guidelines in 2017, the Taiwan Society of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (TSIBD) has acknowledged the importance of continuous revisions for incorporating new therapeutic options and evolving disease management practices. The latest update leverages international standards and recent research findings focused on practical implementation within the Taiwanese healthcare system.

Purpose: The global fight against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has led to widespread vaccination efforts, yet the optimal dosing schedule for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines remains a subject of ongoing research. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of administering two booster doses as the third and fourth doses at different intervals to enhance vaccine protection. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted at a military regional hospital operated by the Ministry of National Defense in Taiwan. A cohort of vaccinated individuals was selected, and their vaccine potency was assessed at various time intervals following their initial vaccine administration. The study participants received booster doses as the third and fourth doses, with differing time intervals between them. The study monitored neutralizing antibody titers and other relevant parameters to assess vaccine efficacy. Results: Our findings revealed that the potency of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine exhibited a significant decline 80 days after the initial vaccine administration. However, a longer interval of 175 days between booster injections resulted in significantly higher neutralizing antibody titers. The individuals who received the extended interval boosters exhibited a more robust immune response, suggesting that a vaccine schedule with a 175-day interval between injections may provide superior protection against SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion This study underscores the importance of optimizing vaccine booster dosing schedules to maximize protection against SARS-CoV-2. The results indicate that a longer interval of 175 days between the third and fourth doses of the vaccine can significantly enhance the neutralizing antibody response, potentially offering improved protection against the virus. These findings have important implications for vaccine distribution and administration strategies in the ongoing battle against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Further research and large-scale trials are needed to confirm and extend these findings for broader public health implications.