Background/Aims: Treatment indications for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) remain contentious, particularly for patients with mild alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation. We aimed to evaluate treatment effects in this patient population. Methods: This rollover study extended a placebo-controlled trial that enrolled non-cirrhotic patients with CHB and ALT levels below two times the upper limit of normal. Following 3 years of randomized intervention with either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or placebo, participants were rolled over to open-label TDF for 3 years. Liver biopsies were performed before and after the treatment to evaluate histopathological changes. Virological, biochemical, and serological outcomes were also assessed (NCT02463019). Results: Of 146 enrolled patients (median age 47 years, 80.8% male), 123 completed the study with paired biopsies. Overall, the Ishak fibrosis score decreased in 74 (60.2%), remained unchanged in 32 (26.0%), and increased in 17 (13.8%) patients (p<0.0001). The Knodell necroinflammation score decreased in 58 (47.2%), remained unchanged in 29 (23.6%), and increased in 36 (29.3%) patients (p=0.0038). The proportion of patients with an Ishak score ≥ 3 significantly decreased from 26.8% (n=33) to 9.8% (n=12) (p=0.0002). Histological improvements were more pronounced in patients switching from placebo. Virological and biochemical outcomes also improved in placebo switchers and remained stable in patients who continued TDF. However, serum HBsAg levels did not change and no patient cleared HBsAg. Conclusions In CHB patients with minimally raised ALT, favorable histopathological, biochemical, and virological outcomes were observed following 3-year TDF treatment, for both treatment-naïve patients and those already on therapy.

Background/Aims: Treatment indications for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) remain contentious, particularly for patients with mild alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation. We aimed to evaluate treatment effects in this patient population. Methods: This rollover study extended a placebo-controlled trial that enrolled non-cirrhotic patients with CHB and ALT levels below two times the upper limit of normal. Following 3 years of randomized intervention with either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or placebo, participants were rolled over to open-label TDF for 3 years. Liver biopsies were performed before and after the treatment to evaluate histopathological changes. Virological, biochemical, and serological outcomes were also assessed (NCT02463019). Results: Of 146 enrolled patients (median age 47 years, 80.8% male), 123 completed the study with paired biopsies. Overall, the Ishak fibrosis score decreased in 74 (60.2%), remained unchanged in 32 (26.0%), and increased in 17 (13.8%) patients (p<0.0001). The Knodell necroinflammation score decreased in 58 (47.2%), remained unchanged in 29 (23.6%), and increased in 36 (29.3%) patients (p=0.0038). The proportion of patients with an Ishak score ≥ 3 significantly decreased from 26.8% (n=33) to 9.8% (n=12) (p=0.0002). Histological improvements were more pronounced in patients switching from placebo. Virological and biochemical outcomes also improved in placebo switchers and remained stable in patients who continued TDF. However, serum HBsAg levels did not change and no patient cleared HBsAg. Conclusions In CHB patients with minimally raised ALT, favorable histopathological, biochemical, and virological outcomes were observed following 3-year TDF treatment, for both treatment-naïve patients and those already on therapy.

Background/Aims: Treatment indications for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) remain contentious, particularly for patients with mild alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation. We aimed to evaluate treatment effects in this patient population. Methods: This rollover study extended a placebo-controlled trial that enrolled non-cirrhotic patients with CHB and ALT levels below two times the upper limit of normal. Following 3 years of randomized intervention with either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or placebo, participants were rolled over to open-label TDF for 3 years. Liver biopsies were performed before and after the treatment to evaluate histopathological changes. Virological, biochemical, and serological outcomes were also assessed (NCT02463019). Results: Of 146 enrolled patients (median age 47 years, 80.8% male), 123 completed the study with paired biopsies. Overall, the Ishak fibrosis score decreased in 74 (60.2%), remained unchanged in 32 (26.0%), and increased in 17 (13.8%) patients (p<0.0001). The Knodell necroinflammation score decreased in 58 (47.2%), remained unchanged in 29 (23.6%), and increased in 36 (29.3%) patients (p=0.0038). The proportion of patients with an Ishak score ≥ 3 significantly decreased from 26.8% (n=33) to 9.8% (n=12) (p=0.0002). Histological improvements were more pronounced in patients switching from placebo. Virological and biochemical outcomes also improved in placebo switchers and remained stable in patients who continued TDF. However, serum HBsAg levels did not change and no patient cleared HBsAg. Conclusions In CHB patients with minimally raised ALT, favorable histopathological, biochemical, and virological outcomes were observed following 3-year TDF treatment, for both treatment-naïve patients and those already on therapy.

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: Finite nucleos(t)ide analog (NA) therapy has been proposed as an alternative treatment strategy for chronic hepatitis B (CHB), but biomarkers for post-treatment monitoring are limited. We investigated whether measuring hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) after NA cessation may stratify the risk of subsequent clinical relapse (CR). Methods: This retrospective multicenter analysis enrolled adults with CHB who were prospectively monitored after discontinuing entecavir or tenofovir with negative HBeAg and undetectable HBV DNA at the end of treatment (EOT). Patients with cirrhosis or malignancy were excluded. CR was defined as serum alanine aminotransferase > two times the upper limit of normal with recurrent viremia. We applied time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models to clarify the association between HBcrAg levels and subsequent CR. Results: The cohort included 203 patients (median age, 49.8 years; 76.8% male; 60.6% entecavir) who had been treated for a median of 36.9 months (interquartile range [IQR], 36.5–40.1). During a median post-treatment follow-up of 31.7 months (IQR, 16.7–67.1), CR occurred in 104 patients with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 54.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.1–62.4%). Time-varying HBcrAg level was a significant risk factor for subsequent CR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.53 per log U/mL; 95% CI, 1.12–2.08) with adjustment for EOT HBsAg, EOT anti-HBe, EOT HBcrAg and time-varying HBsAg. During follow-up, HBcrAg <1,000 U/mL predicted a lower risk of CR (aHR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21–0.81). Conclusions Dynamic measurement of HBcrAg after NA cessation is predictive of subsequent CR and may be useful to guide post-treatment monitoring.

Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is an increasingly common liver disease worldwide. MAFLD is diagnosed based on the presence of steatosis on images, histological findings, or serum marker levels as well as the presence of at least one of the three metabolic features: overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and metabolic risk factors. MAFLD is not only a liver disease but also a factor contributing to or related to cardiovascular diseases (CVD), which is the major etiology responsible for morbidity and mortality in patients with MAFLD. Hence, understanding the association between MAFLD and CVD, surveillance and risk stratification of MAFLD in patients with CVD, and assessment of the current status of MAFLD management are urgent requirements for both hepatologists and cardiologists. This Taiwan position statement reviews the literature and provides suggestions regarding the epidemiology, etiology, risk factors, risk stratification, nonpharmacological interventions, and potential drug treatments of MAFLD, focusing on its association with CVD.