A SiftingSignal publication/ Edited by Simon Mathews, MD

The week in GI, filtered to what is worth knowing.

Every week, 100+ papers from 25+ top GI and medical journals, transparently scored and physician-vetted. The signal, not the noise.

This week, in numbers

Issue №6 · week of Aug 9, 2026See the trends →
Top journals this week: JAMA / Nat Rev Gastro Hep / Lancet GH / Gastroenterology
Selectivity
11.9%
18 in the issue of 151 screened
in the issue 18in depth 34held 8filtered out 91
88.1% of what published this week did not make the issue. That filter is the product. A further 34 cleared the bar and are carried in one line each, in full on the subspecialty pages.
How this week moves the standard
Changes practice 0
No paper this week forces an outright change to the standard. That is the usual, honest result.
Each paper is matched to the guideline that governs its question, then placed by how it moves it. 15 of the 18 cards in the issue are matched to a standard, and each of those quotes it with its source and review date. Click a segment to filter the issue.
The signal map
597388narrative reviewmeta-analysis →Clinical utilityEvidence strength
Each dot is a paper: evidence strength across, clinical utility up (what you can do with it, what rides on it, how many patients, how new), area = the journal's impact factor, colour = subspecialty. A dark ring marks a paper that refines or changes its standard of care. The vertical scale spans this week's cards and its numbers are the real scores out of 100. Click a dot to open its card.

What to know this week

the top-scored · the 5-minute version

AI keeps lifting adenoma detection, trial psyllium for IBS: response rate 52% vs 44%, and shear wave elastography matches transient elastography for MASLD risk prediction.

The 18 in the issue this week, ranked by signal score. Each anchored to the relevant standard of care. All in full below; 34 more, read and scored the same way, in one line each at the foot of the issue.

Your subspecialty, the takeaways
IBD9Hepatology14Pancreas/Biliary5Endoscopy16Motility3Colorectal5
Type

This week to know

the 6 strongest this week · each scored 0 to 100 on what it lets you do, who it touches, the stakes, and how well the evidence backs it
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=2,973 · Aug 13, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

Pragmatic real-world evaluation of computer-aided detection in colonoscopy: A within-endoscopist comparative study.

New evidencecomputer-aided detectioncolonoscopyadenomaendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider adopting computer-aided detection systems in routine colonoscopy as an adjunctive tool. CADe remains independently associated with improved adenoma detection (aOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.55, p=0.002) after adjustment for endoscopist variation, confirming incremental benefit beyond endoscopy technique alone.
What it foundComputer-aided detection improved adenoma detection rate from 30.7% to 34.4% (aOR 1.31, 95%CI 1.11-1.55, p=0.002) and adenoma+clinically significant serrated polyp detection from 35.8% to 40.3% in a pragmatic real-world study of 2973 colonoscopies with within-endoscopist comparison.
ContextRandomised trials had shown CADe improves adenoma detection, but real-world translation remained uncertain with inconsistent results across observational studies. This pragmatic multicentre study confirms CADe provides independent benefit (aOR 1.31 after accounting for endoscopist factors), though the effect attenuates with endoscopist adjustment, revealing endoscopist skill as a substantial driver of detection rate.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakewhether to incorporate computer-aided detection technology during colonoscopy screening

… Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. … The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. … The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Bernardes C … Pimentel-Nunes P · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Motility meta analysis · n=1,904 · Aug 14, 2026 · Gastroenterology · IF 25.1

Fiber supplementation in irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

New evidenceIBSmeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider psyllium for IBS patients as a trial therapy. Clinical response (endpoint varies by trial) occurred in 52% vs 44% with placebo, but this did not translate to significant improvement in overall symptom severity scores (SMD −0.25), suggesting the benefit may reside in patient perception or non-severity endpoints rather than objective symptom reduction. Beta-galacto-oligosaccharides (B-GOS) improved overall symptom scores in limited trials (n=2) but did not demonstrate clinical response benefit. Subtype-specific benefits (diarrhea-predominant, constipation-predominant, mixed) are unknown. Clinicians should clarify with patients what outcome they are pursuing before recommending.
What it foundFiber increased clinical response rates to 52% vs 44% with placebo (RR 1.21 [95% CI 1.03-1.41]); psyllium showed greater benefit (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.06-2.19]). Overall symptom severity scores did not improve significantly (SMD -0.25 [95% CI -0.67 to 0.17]).
ContextFiber is widely used and recommended for IBS, but this is the first recent evidence synthesis. The meta-analysis confirms benefit specifically for psyllium over other fiber types. However, the disconnect between improved 'clinical response' and unchanged symptom severity scores suggests the benefit may differ in nature from objective symptom reduction, refining the broad fiber recommendation to a more selective approach.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology (AGA-ACG), 'American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation' (Chang L, et al., Gastroenterology 2023;164(7):1086-1106), 2023

Decision at stakewhether fiber supplementation (and specifically psyllium) is effective for constipation-related symptoms in IBS-C

… The guideline attaches several qualifiers that must not be dropped: (1) among the fiber supplements the panel evaluated, psyllium (3 trials), bran (1 trial), inulin (2 trials), methylcellulose (no trials found), only psyllium appears to be effective, with 'very limited and uncertain' data on bran and inulin and no evidence base at all for methylcellulose; (2) there is no clear evidence that soluble or insoluble fiber is more effective for constipation specifically; (3) on implementation, 'fiber supplements can be used as first-line therapy for CIC, particularly for individuals with low dietary fiber intake,' and 'dietary assessment is important to determine total fiber intake from diet and supplements'; (4) 'a trial of fiber supplement can be considered for mild constipation before PEG use or in combination with PEG'; (5) the total daily fiber target cited by the guideline is 20-30 g/day from diet plus supplement, derived from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics figure of 14 g per 1,000 kcal; (6) flatulence is a commonly observed side effect and adequate hydration should be encouraged. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

In adults with chronic idiopathic constipation, the AGA-ACG panel suggests the use of fiber supplementation over management without fiber supplementation. This is a CONDITIONAL recommendation based on LOW certainty of evidence. The guideline attaches several qualifiers that must not be dropped: (1) among the fiber supplements the panel evaluated, psyllium (3 trials), bran (1 trial), inulin (2 trials), methylcellulose (no trials found), only psyllium appears to be effective, with 'very limited and uncertain' data on bran and inulin and no evidence base at all for methylcellulose; (2) there is no clear evidence that soluble or insoluble fiber is more effective for constipation specifically; (3) on implementation, 'fiber supplements can be used as first-line therapy for CIC, particularly for individuals with low dietary fiber intake,' and 'dietary assessment is important to determine total fiber intake from diet and supplements'; (4) 'a trial of fiber supplement can be considered for mild constipation before PEG use or in combination with PEG'; (5) the total daily fiber target cited by the guideline is 20-30 g/day from diet plus supplement, derived from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics figure of 14 g per 1,000 kcal; (6) flatulence is a commonly observed side effect and adequate hydration should be encouraged. Fiber's placement within the guideline's own hierarchy is itself part of the recommendation: polyethylene glycol, bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide and prucalopride carry STRONG recommendations, whereas fiber, magnesium oxide, lactulose, senna and lubiprostone carry CONDITIONAL ones.

American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology (AGA-ACG), 'American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation' (Chang L, et al., Gastroenterology 2023;164(7):1086-1106), 2023 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Staudacher HM … Whelan K · Gastroenterology · IF 25.1 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=2,817 · Aug 14, 2026 · Hepatology · IF 18.0

Shear wave elastography demonstrates similar risk stratification performance to vibration-controlled transient elastography in FIB-4-based two-step algorithms for MASLD.

New evidenceMASLDbiomarker
Clinical takeawaySWE demonstrated similar performance to VCTE for MASLD risk stratification. If SWE is available at your institution, this study supports its use as an alternative to VCTE. If your institution is implementing an elastography program and choosing between modalities, either is supported by this evidence; decide based on cost, operator expertise, and availability. Ongoing VCTE use does not require change.
What it foundSWE and VCTE showed similar 60-month risk prediction for liver-related events in MASLD (time-dependent AUROC: AGA 0.770 vs 0.775, EASL 0.804 vs 0.805; no significant difference between modalities).
ContextThis prospective cohort study validates SWE against hard clinical endpoints (liver-related events) in MASLD, showing similar risk stratification performance to VCTE and establishing SWE as a viable alternative modality.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Lee J … Lee SK · Hepatology · IF 18.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology review · Aug 7, 2026 · Nat Rev Gastro Hep · IF 57.5

The dynamic spectrum of steatotic liver disease: the global perspective.

Practice-changingalcohol-associated liver diseaseMASLDepidemiology
Clinical takeawaySystematically screen all patients with steatotic liver disease for alcohol use using objective biomarkers such as phosphatidylethanol rather than patient report alone, structurally evaluate cardiometabolic risk factors (obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia), perform non-invasive fibrosis assessment, and crucially, reassess these factors repeatedly over time rather than applying static diagnostic labels once. Management should integrate alcohol reduction strategies, metabolic optimization, and liver-directed therapies in a multidisciplinary approach. Note that most emerging pharmacotherapies for metabolic steatohepatitis exclude patients with concurrent alcohol use, creating a gap between trial populations and real-world practice.
What it foundSteatotic liver disease comprises overlapping metabolic dysfunction-associated, metabolic and alcohol-related, and alcohol-related subtypes that transition dynamically over time as alcohol and metabolic risk factors fluctuate; misclassification is common due to under-reporting of alcohol and reliance on static diagnostic thresholds.
ContextChallenges the traditional siloed view of steatotic liver disease as separate entities (MASLD, MetALD, ALD) by emphasizing their overlapping nature and dynamic transitions. Highlights that current practice likely misclassifies patients due to under-reported alcohol and static diagnostic thinking. Identifies a real practice gap: trial design commonly excludes alcohol users, but real-world patients frequently have both metabolic dysfunction and alcohol exposure.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), "ACG Clinical Guideline: Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease" (Jophlin, Singal, Bataller, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(1):30-54

Decision at stakescreen for alcohol use disorder and provide multidisciplinary integrated care in patients with steatotic liver disease

Treatment of AUD with sustained abstinence is the most effective strategy to prevent progression and improve long-term outcomes at any stage of ALD; ACG recommends brief screening with a tool such as AUDIT-C (strong, high), brief motivational interventions (strong, low), and integrated multidisciplinary care combining behavioral therapy and/or pharmacotherapy (strong, low). …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Treatment of AUD with sustained abstinence is the most effective strategy to prevent progression and improve long-term outcomes at any stage of ALD; ACG recommends brief screening with a tool such as AUDIT-C (strong, high), brief motivational interventions (strong, low), and integrated multidisciplinary care combining behavioral therapy and/or pharmacotherapy (strong, low). AUD pharmacotherapy recommendations are scoped specifically to COMPENSATED ALD and are not co-equal: baclofen is recommended as an option (strong recommendation, moderate evidence); acamprosate or naltrexone are only suggested as options (conditional, very low); gabapentin or topiramate are suggested as options (conditional, very low); disulfiram is suggested AGAINST along any spectrum of ALD (conditional, very low). For severe alcohol withdrawal, benzodiazepines are the treatment of choice but with explicitly cautious use and careful monitoring given their potential to precipitate or exacerbate hepatic encephalopathy (strong, moderate); AWS is managed per CIWA-Ar protocol, differentiating it from HE while acknowledging the two can coexist. For alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), severity is stratified by MELD: MELD >20 defines severe AH, which carries high short-term mortality and should preferably be managed in hospital; MELD ≤20 defines moderate AH. In severe AH (MELD >20) ACG recommends corticosteroid therapy ONLY if there are no contraindications (strong, moderate); active infection (including untreated HBV infection), uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, gastrointestinal bleeding, and severe renal failure are contraindications to corticosteroid use, though corticosteroids can be started after adequate control or reversal of infection, renal failure, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Prednisolone is preferred over prednisone; both are dosed 40 mg/day for a total of 4 weeks, with IV methylprednisolone 32 mg/day as the alternative for patients unable to take oral medication; there is no evidence supporting rapid vs slow tapering after the 4-week course. Corticosteroid response is assessed by Lille score at day 7 OR day 4 (day-4 shown as accurate as day-7); among non-responders (Lille >0.45) corticosteroids should be discontinued. ACG recommends IV N-acetylcysteine as an adjuvant to corticosteroids in severe AH (strong, moderate), while explicitly noting that other society guidelines have not adopted this recommendation. ACG recommends AGAINST pentoxifylline (strong, moderate) and AGAINST universal prophylactic antibiotics in hospitalized severe AH (strong, moderate); data on G-CSF and microbiome-based therapies are insufficient. Nutrition: target 35 kcal/kg/day with 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day protein; patients consuming <21 kcal/kg/day should receive nutritional support, preferably oral/enteral, oral nutritional supplements first, escalating to enteral nutrition if caloric targets remain unmet (strong, moderate). Thiamine, vitamin B12 and zinc deficiencies are common in AH and should be supplemented. For severe AH unresponsive to medical management with high risk of death, early liver transplantation for highly selected patients should be considered according to regional and institutional protocols (conditional recommendation, low level of evidence); LT selection must not be based solely on an arbitrary duration of sobriety, and should rest on detailed psychosocial evaluation by a social worker and addiction specialist, optionally supported by tools such as SIPAT, HRAR, MAPS, HPSS or SALT. For severe AH with 4 or more organ failures, non-responsive to corticosteroids and ineligible for early LT, palliative care engagement is appropriate.

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), "ACG Clinical Guideline: Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease" (Jophlin, Singal, Bataller, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(1):30-54 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Younossi ZM … Krag A · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · IF 57.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=286 · Aug 7, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

Hepatic Steatosis and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Response After Statin Initiation: A Prospective Cohort Analysis.

New evidenceMASLDepidemiology
Clinical takeawayUse standard statin dosing in MASLD for cardiovascular prevention. Hepatic steatosis does not impair LDL-C response and should not prompt dose modification or additional monitoring adjustments.
What it foundHepatic steatosis (≥5% liver fat fraction) does not significantly impair LDL-C response to statins; observed differences were 0.097 mmol/L per month (months 0-3, p=0.231) and -0.037 mmol/L per month (months 3-12, p=0.141), neither clinically nor statistically significant.
ContextMASLD is strongly associated with dyslipidemia and cardiovascular mortality. The concern was that hepatic steatosis might impair statin efficacy through altered drug metabolism. This prospective cohort confirms that statin-induced LDL-C reduction is unaffected by hepatic steatosis status.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· AASLD, "AASLD Practice Guidance on the clinical assessment and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease" (Rinella ME et al., Hepatology 2023;77(5):1797-1835). DOI 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000323, PMID 36727674.

Decision at stakeUse standard statin dosing in patients with hepatic steatosis and do not reduce dose based on steatosis alone

Statins are safe and recommended in MASLD/MASH and compensated cirrhosis when indicated for cardiovascular risk reduction. Start per standard CV risk-based criteria with baseline LFTs; routine ALT monitoring on statin is not required and pre-existing transaminitis is not a contraindication. Hold or reduce only for clinically significant ALT elevation, severe muscle symptoms, or decompensated cirrhosis on an individualized basis.

AASLD, "AASLD Practice Guidance on the clinical assessment and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease" (Rinella ME et al., Hepatology 2023;77(5):1797-1835). DOI 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000323, PMID 36727674. · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Lau KC … Yip TC · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=965,960 · Aug 7, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

Diagnostic and Clinical Performance of Single-Use Versus Reusable Gastrointestinal Endoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

New evidencesystematic reviewmeta-analysisERCPendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayMaintain current practice with reusable endoscopes and rigorous reprocessing protocols. Single-use devices offer no diagnostic or technical advantage, and documented infection risk from reusable endoscopes is low. For ERCP specifically, single-use duodenoscopes (EXALT Model D) required conversion to reusable in 7% of procedures, limiting their utility as a standalone option.
What it foundSingle-use endoscopes demonstrated similar or slightly reduced diagnostic accuracy and technical performance compared with reusable models; estimated infection risk from reusable endoscopes was 0.01% to 0.8%, although detection and reporting bias likely affected these estimates.
ContextPrior concerns about pathogen transmission drove interest in single-use endoscopes as a safer alternative. This meta-analysis confirms that properly reprocessed reusable endoscopes carry acceptably low infection risk (0.01-0.8%) and demonstrate comparable or superior diagnostic performance to single-use alternatives.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Tyldesley-Marshall N … Arasaradnam R · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink

The read

the next 12, in full

IBD· 3

IBD retrospective · n=183 · Aug 12, 2026 · Aliment Pharm Ther · IF 6.7

Impact of Prior Biologic Mechanism of Action on Anti-TNF Effectiveness in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An ENEIDA Registry Study.

New evidenceCrohn's diseaseulcerative colitisbiologicsanti-TNF
Clinical takeawayIn UC patients with active luminal disease requiring biologic escalation, anti-TNF therapy after vedolizumab shows lower remission rates and durability than anti-TNF as first-line or anti-TNF-to-anti-TNF switching. Consider moving anti-TNF earlier in the biologic sequence for UC, or anti-TNF-to-anti-TNF sequencing rather than vedolizumab-then-anti-TNF. In CD patients with active luminal disease, clinical effectiveness remains similar despite higher discontinuation rates, making the sequencing implications less clear.
What it foundIn UC, anti-TNF therapy after vedolizumab (90% of cases) had significantly lower remission rates at short- and long-term follow-up (p < 0.001) and higher treatment discontinuation (HR 1.69 vs first-line, HR 1.91 vs anti-TNF-to-anti-TNF); in CD, anti-TNF after ustekinumab (62% of cases) showed higher discontinuation (HR 1.55 vs first-line) without significant differences in clinical effectiveness.
ContextCurrent IBD guidelines recommend individualizing biologic sequencing based on prior response, but evidence comparing efficacy after different prior mechanisms of action is limited. This registry study provides observational evidence that in UC, the prior biologic choice affects subsequent anti-TNF effectiveness, with vedolizumab being particularly associated with reduced anti-TNF durability and remission. The CD findings are less decisive.
Measured against the standard of care· ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH)

Decision at stakewhether to use anti-TNF therapy after prior failure of a non-anti-TNF biologic (vedolizumab, ustekinumab, etc.)

… Prior advanced-therapy (especially anti-TNF) exposure: suggest higher- or intermediate-efficacy agents (adalimumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, upadacitinib; ustekinumab, mirikizumab) over lower-efficacy ones (vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol). … Endoscopic balloon dilation is first-line for short strictures (about ≤4-5 cm) with few risk factors (fistula, prestenotic dilation >5 cm, high CRP, prior anti-TNF). …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes DIAGNOSIS.

Our full summary of this standard

Two current US guidelines govern Crohn's disease and should be read together. ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al.) remains the reference for diagnosis, mild-to-moderate disease, perianal, postoperative and abscess management. DIAGNOSIS: fecal calprotectin (>50-100 μg/g) separates inflammatory from noninflammatory disease of the colon. Workup is ileocolonoscopy with biopsies, including uninvolved mucosa, plus small-bowel imaging. CTE and MRE are comparable; prefer MRE in patients <35 y and when serial exams are likely. Intestinal ultrasound is an ungraded adjunct. Do routine CRC surveillance in Crohn's colitis. MILD-TO-MODERATE: recommend against oral mesalamine; sulfasalazine only for symptomatic mild colonic CD; ileal-release budesonide 9 mg for induction in ileocecal disease but not for maintenance. MODERATE-TO-SEVERE (AGA Living Guideline, Scott et al., Gastroenterology 2025;169(7):1397-1448, 16 recommendations: 1 strong, 9 conditional, 6 knowledge gaps; updated quarterly, adult outpatients only): RECOMMEND infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab or upadacitinib over no treatment; SUGGEST certolizumab pegol or vedolizumab over no treatment. Advanced-therapy-naive: suggest higher-efficacy agents (infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab) over lower-efficacy ones (certolizumab pegol, upadacitinib). Prior advanced-therapy (especially anti-TNF) exposure: suggest higher- or intermediate-efficacy agents (adalimumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, upadacitinib; ustekinumab, mirikizumab) over lower-efficacy ones (vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol). Suggest against thiopurine monotherapy for induction; suggest it for maintenance of remission. Suggest SC/IM methotrexate monotherapy; suggest against oral methotrexate. In thiopurine-naive patients starting infliximab, suggest infliximab + thiopurine over infliximab alone. No recommendation on IFX + MTX, adalimumab + immunomodulator, or non-TNF biologic + immunomodulator. After ≥6 months of steroid-free remission on anti-TNF + immunomodulator, suggest withdrawing the immunomodulator and suggest against withdrawing the anti-TNF. SUGGEST upfront advanced therapy over step-up therapy (corticosteroids and/or immunomodulator first). No recommendation on treating to endoscopic vs symptomatic remission. The ACG 2025 moderate-to-severe recommendations (anti-TNF, IFX + thiopurine combination and IL-12/23/IL-23 agents, each strong/moderate; upadacitinib after anti-TNF exposure; steroids for short-term induction only; TPMT/NUDT15 testing before thiopurines) still stand alongside AGA. ACG perianal (infliximab first; drain abscesses and place setons before escalating), postoperative (endoscopy at 6-12 months; anti-TNF strong, vedolizumab conditional in high-risk patients) and intra-abdominal abscess (>2 cm: antibiotics plus drainage, hold immunosuppression) positions are unchanged. THERAPEUTIC ENDOSCOPY (AGA Clinical Practice Update, CGH 2026; details below come from AGA news coverage, not the full text, and are ungraded advice): get cross-sectional imaging before the procedure. Endoscopic balloon dilation is first-line for short strictures (about ≤4-5 cm) with few risk factors (fistula, prestenotic dilation >5 cm, high CRP, prior anti-TNF). Longer or multiple strictures, or ≥3 risk factors, favor surgery.

ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Yagüe Caballero C … Casas Deza D · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD review · Aug 9, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Effects of Age on Inflammatory Bowel Disease Presentation and Management in Older Adults.

Practice-changingvedolizumabustekinumabbiologicshealth services
Clinical takeawayRisk-stratify older IBD patients using assessment of frailty, comorbidity burden, and drug interactions rather than age alone. Consider vedolizumab and ustekinumab in older patients with acceptable risk profiles; avoid deferring advanced therapy based on age. Reduce corticosteroid burden.
What it foundOlder IBD patients are undertreated with advanced therapies (vedolizumab, ustekinumab) and overtreated with corticosteroids; frailty, comorbidity, and polypharmacy predict treatment tolerability better than age alone.
ContextChallenges current practice patterns where age is often used as a default barrier to advanced therapies in IBD. Argues for individualized, risk-based assessment rather than categorical age-based restrictions.
Measured against the standard of care· ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH)

Decision at stakeUse of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in older adults with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease

… MODERATE-TO-SEVERE (AGA Living Guideline, Scott et al., Gastroenterology 2025;169(7):1397-1448, 16 recommendations: 1 strong, 9 conditional, 6 knowledge gaps; updated quarterly, adult outpatients only): RECOMMEND infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab or upadacitinib over no treatment; SUGGEST certolizumab pegol or vedolizumab over no treatment. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes DIAGNOSIS.

Our full summary of this standard

Two current US guidelines govern Crohn's disease and should be read together. ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al.) remains the reference for diagnosis, mild-to-moderate disease, perianal, postoperative and abscess management. DIAGNOSIS: fecal calprotectin (>50-100 μg/g) separates inflammatory from noninflammatory disease of the colon. Workup is ileocolonoscopy with biopsies, including uninvolved mucosa, plus small-bowel imaging. CTE and MRE are comparable; prefer MRE in patients <35 y and when serial exams are likely. Intestinal ultrasound is an ungraded adjunct. Do routine CRC surveillance in Crohn's colitis. MILD-TO-MODERATE: recommend against oral mesalamine; sulfasalazine only for symptomatic mild colonic CD; ileal-release budesonide 9 mg for induction in ileocecal disease but not for maintenance. MODERATE-TO-SEVERE (AGA Living Guideline, Scott et al., Gastroenterology 2025;169(7):1397-1448, 16 recommendations: 1 strong, 9 conditional, 6 knowledge gaps; updated quarterly, adult outpatients only): RECOMMEND infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab or upadacitinib over no treatment; SUGGEST certolizumab pegol or vedolizumab over no treatment. Advanced-therapy-naive: suggest higher-efficacy agents (infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab) over lower-efficacy ones (certolizumab pegol, upadacitinib). Prior advanced-therapy (especially anti-TNF) exposure: suggest higher- or intermediate-efficacy agents (adalimumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, upadacitinib; ustekinumab, mirikizumab) over lower-efficacy ones (vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol). Suggest against thiopurine monotherapy for induction; suggest it for maintenance of remission. Suggest SC/IM methotrexate monotherapy; suggest against oral methotrexate. In thiopurine-naive patients starting infliximab, suggest infliximab + thiopurine over infliximab alone. No recommendation on IFX + MTX, adalimumab + immunomodulator, or non-TNF biologic + immunomodulator. After ≥6 months of steroid-free remission on anti-TNF + immunomodulator, suggest withdrawing the immunomodulator and suggest against withdrawing the anti-TNF. SUGGEST upfront advanced therapy over step-up therapy (corticosteroids and/or immunomodulator first). No recommendation on treating to endoscopic vs symptomatic remission. The ACG 2025 moderate-to-severe recommendations (anti-TNF, IFX + thiopurine combination and IL-12/23/IL-23 agents, each strong/moderate; upadacitinib after anti-TNF exposure; steroids for short-term induction only; TPMT/NUDT15 testing before thiopurines) still stand alongside AGA. ACG perianal (infliximab first; drain abscesses and place setons before escalating), postoperative (endoscopy at 6-12 months; anti-TNF strong, vedolizumab conditional in high-risk patients) and intra-abdominal abscess (>2 cm: antibiotics plus drainage, hold immunosuppression) positions are unchanged. THERAPEUTIC ENDOSCOPY (AGA Clinical Practice Update, CGH 2026; details below come from AGA news coverage, not the full text, and are ungraded advice): get cross-sectional imaging before the procedure. Endoscopic balloon dilation is first-line for short strictures (about ≤4-5 cm) with few risk factors (fistula, prestenotic dilation >5 cm, high CRP, prior anti-TNF). Longer or multiple strictures, or ≥3 risk factors, favor surgery.

ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Sisliyan C … Keyashian K · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD retrospective · n=1,045 · Aug 11, 2026 · Gut · IF 24.6

Neutralising autoantibodies against IL-10 and HLA-DRB1*01:03 in paediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Diagnosticpediatricbiomarkerulcerative colitisCrohn's disease
Clinical takeawayIdentifies anti-IL-10 as a prognostic marker for difficult-to-treat pediatric IBD, but clinical testing is not recommended at this time. This research finding may eventually enable risk stratification and inform therapy selection in high-risk patients, pending prospective validation.
What it found2.5% of pediatric IBD patients have anti-IL-10 autoantibodies. Compared with matched controls, anti-IL-10-positive patients exhibited increased difficult-to-treat disease (23% vs 6%), acute severe UC (26% vs 6%), and colectomy (27% vs 6%). HLA-DRB1*01:03 was carried by 80% of anti-IL-10-positive patients vs 1.5% of anti-IL-10-negative patients.
ContextAdvances understanding of pediatric IBD heterogeneity by identifying an immune mechanistic subgroup (IL-10 neutralization pathway) associated with HLA-DRB1*01:03. Opens a question about whether anti-IL-10 status could guide intensified or targeted therapy selection, distinguishing this autoimmune subset from other IBD etiologies.
Measured against the standard of care· ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH)

Decision at stakeIdentify patients at risk of difficult-to-treat or severe disease to inform timing of advanced therapy escalation

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Two current US guidelines govern Crohn's disease and should be read together. ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al.) remains the reference for diagnosis, mild-to-moderate disease, perianal, postoperative and abscess management. DIAGNOSIS: fecal calprotectin (>50-100 μg/g) separates inflammatory from noninflammatory disease of the colon. Workup is ileocolonoscopy with biopsies, including uninvolved mucosa, plus small-bowel imaging. CTE and MRE are comparable; prefer MRE in patients <35 y and when serial exams are likely. Intestinal ultrasound is an ungraded adjunct. Do routine CRC surveillance in Crohn's colitis. MILD-TO-MODERATE: recommend against oral mesalamine; sulfasalazine only for symptomatic mild colonic CD; ileal-release budesonide 9 mg for induction in ileocecal disease but not for maintenance. MODERATE-TO-SEVERE (AGA Living Guideline, Scott et al., Gastroenterology 2025;169(7):1397-1448, 16 recommendations: 1 strong, 9 conditional, 6 knowledge gaps; updated quarterly, adult outpatients only): RECOMMEND infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab or upadacitinib over no treatment; SUGGEST certolizumab pegol or vedolizumab over no treatment. Advanced-therapy-naive: suggest higher-efficacy agents (infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab) over lower-efficacy ones (certolizumab pegol, upadacitinib). Prior advanced-therapy (especially anti-TNF) exposure: suggest higher- or intermediate-efficacy agents (adalimumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, upadacitinib; ustekinumab, mirikizumab) over lower-efficacy ones (vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol). Suggest against thiopurine monotherapy for induction; suggest it for maintenance of remission. Suggest SC/IM methotrexate monotherapy; suggest against oral methotrexate. In thiopurine-naive patients starting infliximab, suggest infliximab + thiopurine over infliximab alone. No recommendation on IFX + MTX, adalimumab + immunomodulator, or non-TNF biologic + immunomodulator. After ≥6 months of steroid-free remission on anti-TNF + immunomodulator, suggest withdrawing the immunomodulator and suggest against withdrawing the anti-TNF. SUGGEST upfront advanced therapy over step-up therapy (corticosteroids and/or immunomodulator first). No recommendation on treating to endoscopic vs symptomatic remission. The ACG 2025 moderate-to-severe recommendations (anti-TNF, IFX + thiopurine combination and IL-12/23/IL-23 agents, each strong/moderate; upadacitinib after anti-TNF exposure; steroids for short-term induction only; TPMT/NUDT15 testing before thiopurines) still stand alongside AGA. ACG perianal (infliximab first; drain abscesses and place setons before escalating), postoperative (endoscopy at 6-12 months; anti-TNF strong, vedolizumab conditional in high-risk patients) and intra-abdominal abscess (>2 cm: antibiotics plus drainage, hold immunosuppression) positions are unchanged. THERAPEUTIC ENDOSCOPY (AGA Clinical Practice Update, CGH 2026; details below come from AGA news coverage, not the full text, and are ungraded advice): get cross-sectional imaging before the procedure. Endoscopic balloon dilation is first-line for short strictures (about ≤4-5 cm) with few risk factors (fistula, prestenotic dilation >5 cm, high CRP, prior anti-TNF). Longer or multiple strictures, or ≥3 risk factors, favor surgery.

ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Gharahdaghi N … Uhlig HH · Gut · IF 24.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Hepatology· 5

Hepatology retrospective · n=220,160 · Aug 13, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Xenobiotic-Induced Liver Injury in the United States: A 25-Year Retrospective Analysis of National Poison Data System.

Epidemiologyacute liver failureepidemiology
Clinical takeawayCounsel patients taking acetaminophen on the hepatotoxic risk and overdose potential, particularly those using over-the-counter analgesics. Screen for acetaminophen use when evaluating unexplained transaminitis or ALT/AST elevation >100 U/L, given acetaminophen-alone products now account for one-third to one-half of medication-related liver injury cases.
What it foundAcetaminophen-alone exposures increased 349-380% from 2000 to 2024 and now account for one-third to one-half of medication-related liver injury cases (defined by ALT/AST >100 U/L), while APAP-combination products declined 60-85%.
ContextAcetaminophen's role in drug-induced liver injury is well-known. This analysis documents a major epidemiologic shift: acetaminophen-alone products now dominate (33-45% of cases, up 349-380%) while combination products declined 60-85% following FDA restrictions in the early 2010s, indicating regulatory efforts to limit APAP in combination formulations have redirected risk to isolated products.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Towers EB … Farah R · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=410 · Aug 9, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

Noninvasive Detection of MASH and Fibrotic Burden Using Ultrasound-Derived LIID and LSM in MASLD: A Multicenter Study.

DiagnosticMASLDbiomarker
Clinical takeawayConsider iLivTouch-derived LIID and LSM as alternative non-invasive tools for identifying MASH and staging fibrosis when FIB-4, VCTE, MRE, or ELF are unavailable or discordant
What it foundLIID score showed AUROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.76) for MASH detection, with rule-out threshold <6.0 achieving 89.6% sensitivity and 78.2% NPV, and rule-in threshold >7.8 achieving 88.4% specificity and 70.5% PPV; LSM showed AUROC 0.86 for advanced fibrosis (95% CI 0.79-0.92), 0.75 for significant fibrosis (95% CI 0.69-0.79), and 0.78 for cirrhosis (95% CI 0.61-0.95).
ContextThis literature reports on noninvasive quantitative ultrasound-derived scoring methods for detecting metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and hepatic fibrosis in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
Measured against the standard of care· EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798)

Decision at stakeUse non-invasive tests to identify MASH and assess fibrotic burden instead of liver biopsy

This standard applies to MASLD: hepatic steatosis on imaging or biopsy, at least one cardiometabolic criterion, no other liver disease, and alcohol below the MetALD range. … Pharmacotherapy is recommended for adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis (by non-invasive tests or biopsy), alongside structured lifestyle intervention and optimised management of comorbidities. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

This standard applies to MASLD: hepatic steatosis on imaging or biopsy, at least one cardiometabolic criterion, no other liver disease, and alcohol below the MetALD range. The AGA 2026 MetALD update sets MetALD at about 140-350 g/week of alcohol in women and 210-420 g/week in men, averaged over at least 3 months. MASLD therefore means under about 140 g/week (women) or 210 g/week (men), and drinking above the MetALD range is ALD. Assess alcohol use in every patient with steatotic liver disease at diagnosis and at least once a year, by interview, a validated questionnaire (e.g., AUDIT-C) and/or biomarkers such as phosphatidylethanol (PEth). Advise every patient with steatotic liver disease to stop drinking. Screen people with type 2 diabetes, people with overweight or obesity plus at least one more metabolic risk factor, and anyone with incidental steatosis or raised aminotransferases. Use FIB-4 first. A score below 1.3 (below 2.0 at age 65 or older) is low risk: the patient stays in primary care and repeats FIB-4 every 1-2 years. A score at or above the cutoff goes to a second-line test: VCTE, or ELF if elastography is not available. VCTE below 8 kPa is low risk. VCTE of 8 kPa or more, or ELF of 9.2 or more, means clinically significant fibrosis is likely and the patient should be referred to hepatology. Read liver stiffness with caution if the patient is actively drinking. Reserve biopsy for discordant or unclear results. Lifestyle change is the base of treatment for everyone: at least 5% weight loss improves steatosis, and 10% or more is usually needed for fibrosis to improve. Pharmacotherapy is recommended for adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis (by non-invasive tests or biopsy), alongside structured lifestyle intervention and optimised management of comorbidities. The NIT ranges that stand in for F2-F3 differ by society. AASLD uses VCTE 8-15 kPa, MRE 3.1-4.4 kPa or ELF 9.2-10.5. EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 frames the treatable high-risk group as, for example, VCTE 10-20 kPa, MRE 3.1-5.0 kPa or ELF 9.8-11.3. Two drugs are approved: resmetirom (80 mg oral daily, or 100 mg at body weight of 100 kg or more; AASLD Oct 2024 guidance) and semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously once weekly (FDA accelerated approval Aug 2025, AASLD Nov 2025 guidance; in ESSENCE, MASH resolved without fibrosis worsening in 62.9% vs 34.3% on placebo). EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 says to choose between them by patient preference, risks and cardio-renal-metabolic profile. Semaglutide may be preferred with obesity, type 2 diabetes, established cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular risk. Resmetirom may be prioritised without obesity, or when the patient is already on or cannot tolerate a GLP-1 receptor agonist. On semaglutide, monitoring includes nutrition and sarcopenia assessment, and fibrosis NITs are used over time to judge response. In MASH cirrhosis, resmetirom and semaglutide appear safe but should not be used as MASH-targeted treatment until liver-related benefit is shown. Pioglitazone or vitamin E remain options under the AASLD 2023 guidance. Neither resmetirom nor semaglutide has been formally studied in MetALD. Manage cardiometabolic risk in every patient whatever the fibrosis stage, including statins for ASCVD and control of glucose and blood pressure. On semaglutide, watch for GI side effects and rare risks (AKI, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, retinopathy, loss of lean mass). For MetALD, treat moderate or severe alcohol use disorder with medication plus behavioural therapy, correct micronutrient deficiencies (folate, thiamine, vitamin D), and do not offer bariatric or endobariatric procedures. HCC surveillance with ultrasound, with or without AFP, every 6 months is indicated only when cirrhosis is present.

EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Gao F … Wei L · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology rct · n=60 · Aug 12, 2026 · BMC Gastro · IF 2.5

Effect of high dose N-acetyl cysteine supplementation on markers of oxidative stress and insulin resistance in non-diabetic patients with metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease: a randomized controlled trial.

New evidenceMASLDbiomarker
Clinical takeawayDo not add NAC to lifestyle counseling for MASLD. Although NAC was safe and well-tolerated, it provided no additional benefit over lifestyle intervention alone for fibrosis, insulin resistance, oxidative stress, or steatosis indices. Lifestyle modification remains the evidence-based foundation.
What it foundHigh-dose NAC (2400 mg/day) for 12 weeks did not significantly reduce serum malondialdehyde, fasting insulin, HOMA-IR, or hepatic fibrosis compared to lifestyle intervention alone in 60 non-diabetic MASLD patients; the control group (lifestyle alone) showed greater liver steatosis score reduction (p=0.004).
ContextNAC has theoretical antioxidant and hepatoprotective effects and has been studied in NASH/MASLD, but this RCT provides clear evidence it does not improve the hallmark features of the disease (steatosis, fibrosis, insulin resistance). Confirms that lifestyle intervention alone is the evidence-based foundation of MASLD management.
Measured against the standard of care· EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798)

Decision at stakeWhether N-acetylcysteine supplementation provides clinical benefit for non-diabetic MASLD patients

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

This standard applies to MASLD: hepatic steatosis on imaging or biopsy, at least one cardiometabolic criterion, no other liver disease, and alcohol below the MetALD range. The AGA 2026 MetALD update sets MetALD at about 140-350 g/week of alcohol in women and 210-420 g/week in men, averaged over at least 3 months. MASLD therefore means under about 140 g/week (women) or 210 g/week (men), and drinking above the MetALD range is ALD. Assess alcohol use in every patient with steatotic liver disease at diagnosis and at least once a year, by interview, a validated questionnaire (e.g., AUDIT-C) and/or biomarkers such as phosphatidylethanol (PEth). Advise every patient with steatotic liver disease to stop drinking. Screen people with type 2 diabetes, people with overweight or obesity plus at least one more metabolic risk factor, and anyone with incidental steatosis or raised aminotransferases. Use FIB-4 first. A score below 1.3 (below 2.0 at age 65 or older) is low risk: the patient stays in primary care and repeats FIB-4 every 1-2 years. A score at or above the cutoff goes to a second-line test: VCTE, or ELF if elastography is not available. VCTE below 8 kPa is low risk. VCTE of 8 kPa or more, or ELF of 9.2 or more, means clinically significant fibrosis is likely and the patient should be referred to hepatology. Read liver stiffness with caution if the patient is actively drinking. Reserve biopsy for discordant or unclear results. Lifestyle change is the base of treatment for everyone: at least 5% weight loss improves steatosis, and 10% or more is usually needed for fibrosis to improve. Pharmacotherapy is recommended for adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis (by non-invasive tests or biopsy), alongside structured lifestyle intervention and optimised management of comorbidities. The NIT ranges that stand in for F2-F3 differ by society. AASLD uses VCTE 8-15 kPa, MRE 3.1-4.4 kPa or ELF 9.2-10.5. EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 frames the treatable high-risk group as, for example, VCTE 10-20 kPa, MRE 3.1-5.0 kPa or ELF 9.8-11.3. Two drugs are approved: resmetirom (80 mg oral daily, or 100 mg at body weight of 100 kg or more; AASLD Oct 2024 guidance) and semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously once weekly (FDA accelerated approval Aug 2025, AASLD Nov 2025 guidance; in ESSENCE, MASH resolved without fibrosis worsening in 62.9% vs 34.3% on placebo). EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 says to choose between them by patient preference, risks and cardio-renal-metabolic profile. Semaglutide may be preferred with obesity, type 2 diabetes, established cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular risk. Resmetirom may be prioritised without obesity, or when the patient is already on or cannot tolerate a GLP-1 receptor agonist. On semaglutide, monitoring includes nutrition and sarcopenia assessment, and fibrosis NITs are used over time to judge response. In MASH cirrhosis, resmetirom and semaglutide appear safe but should not be used as MASH-targeted treatment until liver-related benefit is shown. Pioglitazone or vitamin E remain options under the AASLD 2023 guidance. Neither resmetirom nor semaglutide has been formally studied in MetALD. Manage cardiometabolic risk in every patient whatever the fibrosis stage, including statins for ASCVD and control of glucose and blood pressure. On semaglutide, watch for GI side effects and rare risks (AKI, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, retinopathy, loss of lean mass). For MetALD, treat moderate or severe alcohol use disorder with medication plus behavioural therapy, correct micronutrient deficiencies (folate, thiamine, vitamin D), and do not offer bariatric or endobariatric procedures. HCC surveillance with ultrasound, with or without AFP, every 6 months is indicated only when cirrhosis is present.

EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Ramadan AM … Fahmy SF · BMC Gastroenterology · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology review · Aug 11, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

MAFLD/MASLD: Past, Present, and Future.

New therapyMASLDhepatocellular carcinomacirrhosisartificial intelligence
Clinical takeawayDiscuss resmetirom or semaglutide with eligible MASH patients. Consult the product labeling for efficacy, safety, and selection criteria.
What it foundResmetirom (2024) and semaglutide (2025) received FDA accelerated approval as the first pharmacotherapies for MASH, ending a period with no approved medical treatments for the disease.
ContextThis confirms that MASLD management has evolved from observation-only (with biopsy as the sole severity assessment tool) to an era with noninvasive biomarkers, structured care pathways, and FDA-approved pharmacotherapies. MASLD affects >30% of the global population and remains a leading cause of cirrhosis and HCC.
Measured against the standard of care· EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798)

Decision at stakeUse non-invasive biomarkers (FIB-4 and imaging) for fibrosis risk stratification rather than biopsy-first approach, and recognize resmetirom and semaglutide as evidence-based pharmacotherapies for MASH with F2-F3 fibrosis

… Pharmacotherapy is recommended for adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis (by non-invasive tests or biopsy), alongside structured lifestyle intervention and optimised management of comorbidities. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

This standard applies to MASLD: hepatic steatosis on imaging or biopsy, at least one cardiometabolic criterion, no other liver disease, and alcohol below the MetALD range. The AGA 2026 MetALD update sets MetALD at about 140-350 g/week of alcohol in women and 210-420 g/week in men, averaged over at least 3 months. MASLD therefore means under about 140 g/week (women) or 210 g/week (men), and drinking above the MetALD range is ALD. Assess alcohol use in every patient with steatotic liver disease at diagnosis and at least once a year, by interview, a validated questionnaire (e.g., AUDIT-C) and/or biomarkers such as phosphatidylethanol (PEth). Advise every patient with steatotic liver disease to stop drinking. Screen people with type 2 diabetes, people with overweight or obesity plus at least one more metabolic risk factor, and anyone with incidental steatosis or raised aminotransferases. Use FIB-4 first. A score below 1.3 (below 2.0 at age 65 or older) is low risk: the patient stays in primary care and repeats FIB-4 every 1-2 years. A score at or above the cutoff goes to a second-line test: VCTE, or ELF if elastography is not available. VCTE below 8 kPa is low risk. VCTE of 8 kPa or more, or ELF of 9.2 or more, means clinically significant fibrosis is likely and the patient should be referred to hepatology. Read liver stiffness with caution if the patient is actively drinking. Reserve biopsy for discordant or unclear results. Lifestyle change is the base of treatment for everyone: at least 5% weight loss improves steatosis, and 10% or more is usually needed for fibrosis to improve. Pharmacotherapy is recommended for adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis (by non-invasive tests or biopsy), alongside structured lifestyle intervention and optimised management of comorbidities. The NIT ranges that stand in for F2-F3 differ by society. AASLD uses VCTE 8-15 kPa, MRE 3.1-4.4 kPa or ELF 9.2-10.5. EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 frames the treatable high-risk group as, for example, VCTE 10-20 kPa, MRE 3.1-5.0 kPa or ELF 9.8-11.3. Two drugs are approved: resmetirom (80 mg oral daily, or 100 mg at body weight of 100 kg or more; AASLD Oct 2024 guidance) and semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously once weekly (FDA accelerated approval Aug 2025, AASLD Nov 2025 guidance; in ESSENCE, MASH resolved without fibrosis worsening in 62.9% vs 34.3% on placebo). EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 says to choose between them by patient preference, risks and cardio-renal-metabolic profile. Semaglutide may be preferred with obesity, type 2 diabetes, established cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular risk. Resmetirom may be prioritised without obesity, or when the patient is already on or cannot tolerate a GLP-1 receptor agonist. On semaglutide, monitoring includes nutrition and sarcopenia assessment, and fibrosis NITs are used over time to judge response. In MASH cirrhosis, resmetirom and semaglutide appear safe but should not be used as MASH-targeted treatment until liver-related benefit is shown. Pioglitazone or vitamin E remain options under the AASLD 2023 guidance. Neither resmetirom nor semaglutide has been formally studied in MetALD. Manage cardiometabolic risk in every patient whatever the fibrosis stage, including statins for ASCVD and control of glucose and blood pressure. On semaglutide, watch for GI side effects and rare risks (AKI, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, retinopathy, loss of lean mass). For MetALD, treat moderate or severe alcohol use disorder with medication plus behavioural therapy, correct micronutrient deficiencies (folate, thiamine, vitamin D), and do not offer bariatric or endobariatric procedures. HCC surveillance with ultrasound, with or without AFP, every 6 months is indicated only when cirrhosis is present.

EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Wong VW · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology retrospective · n=149 · Aug 11, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Albumin in the Management of Hepatorenal Syndrome-Acute Kidney Injury: Is There Ever Too Much?

New evidencecirrhosis
Clinical takeawayIn infection-triggered HRS-AKI with high disease severity (MELD >29, stage 3 AKI present in 67% of cohort), high-dose albumin (>50 g/day, mean 66 g/day) was not associated with increased respiratory failure compared to standard dosing (2/54, 3.7% vs. 2/89 standard-dose patients, 2.2%), prolonged hospital stay, or reduced 6-month survival (p=0.141). The respiratory failures observed were related to infection complications (pneumonia, aspiration), not albumin toxicity. Respiratory failure concern alone should not restrict albumin dosing in this severely ill population. Limitation: observational study with severity-based allocation; patients assigned to high-dose albumin had higher baseline MELD, stage 3 AKI, and infection-driven AKI, yet similar outcomes-reassuring but does not establish that higher-dose benefit extends to less-severe HRS-AKI.
What it foundHigh-dose albumin (>50 g/day, mean 66 g/day) in infection-triggered HRS-AKI resulted in respiratory failure in 2/54 cases (3.7%), similar to standard dosing (2/89 cases, 2.2%), without increased hospital stay or reduced 6-month survival (p=0.141).
ContextClinicians often restrict albumin in HRS-AKI due to worry about respiratory failure, which may inadvertently limit adequate renal perfusion support during AKI recovery. This study challenges that concern by showing similar low respiratory failure rates across a wide dosing range, though the groups differed in severity at baseline.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· International Club of Ascites (ICA) & Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI), "Acute kidney injury in patients with cirrhosis: Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) and International Club of Ascites (ICA) joint multidisciplinary consensus meeting," Journal of Hepatology, 2024

Decision at stakeuse albumin 20-25% at 20-40 g/day (adjusted daily to volume status) alongside vasoconstrictors in HRS-AKI

… Give 20-25% albumin 20-40 g/day with any vasoconstrictor, adjusted daily to volume status and withheld for fluid overload/pulmonary edema. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Per the 2024 ADQI-ICA joint consensus (which updates the 2015 ICA-AKI criteria referenced in AASLD 2021), in a patient with cirrhosis and ascites: DIAGNOSE HRS-AKI when all of (a) cirrhosis with ascites; (b) AKI by KDIGO/ICA criteria, serum creatinine rise ≥0.3 mg/dL (26.5 µmol/L) within 48h or ≥50% from a baseline known or presumed within the prior 7 days, and/or urine output ≤0.5 mL/kg/h for ≥6h (strong recommendation, grade A); (c) absence of improvement in serum creatinine and/or urine output within 24h following adequate volume resuscitation WHEN CLINICALLY INDICATED, the consensus recommends AGAINST systematic 48h albumin administration as a diagnostic requisite (strong recommendation, grade D), and only where volume status is equivocal is a single fluid challenge (250-500 mL crystalloid, or 1-1.5 g/kg of 20-25% albumin) assessed within 24h; and (d) absence of strong evidence for an alternative primary cause of AKI (e.g., septic shock requiring vasopressors, acute glomerular injury, obstruction, or nephrotoxin-induced AKI) (not graded). HRS-AKI is a phenotype specific to advanced cirrhosis and ascites: coexisting CKD, tubular injury or proteinuria do NOT exclude it, and it may coexist with, or be superimposed on, other AKI etiologies rather than requiring pure exclusion. TREAT: immediately on diagnosis start a vasoconstrictor plus 20-25% albumin (strong recommendation, grade A). Terlipressin is first-line, continuous IV infusion 2-12 mg/day, titrated up by ≥2 mg/day every 24h to a maximum 12 mg/day if serum creatinine has not fallen ≥25%; or IV bolus 1-2 mg every 6h, escalated from 1 mg to 2 mg every 6h on that same ≥25% serum-creatinine response threshold, with the 12 mg/day maximum applying only to continuous infusion and not to bolus dosing. If terlipressin is unavailable or contraindicated, norepinephrine (continuous infusion 0.5-3 mg/h, up-titrated 0.5 mg/h every 4h to raise MAP ≥10 mmHg; requires ICU care and a central line) may be more appropriate. Midodrine 7.5-15 mg PO every 8h plus octreotide 100-200 µg SC every 8h with albumin is third-line, considered only if terlipressin is contraindicated AND transfer to ICU for norepinephrine is not possible. Give 20-25% albumin 20-40 g/day with any vasoconstrictor, adjusted daily to volume status and withheld for fluid overload/pulmonary edema. Discontinue vasoconstrictors when serum creatinine returns to within 0.3 mg/dL of baseline, for a severe adverse reaction, if kidney function does not improve after 48h at maximum tolerated dose, if RRT is indicated, or at a maximum of 14 days of therapy (strong recommendation, grade B). Initiation of RRT should be individualized to clinical context and anticipated or observed life-threatening AKI-related complications (best-practice statement) rather than framed strictly as a transplant-bridge measure. Recommend expedited evaluation for liver transplantation following an episode of AKI (best-practice statement); LT in selected patients is the definitive treatment for HRS-AKI regardless of vasoconstrictor response (strong recommendation, grade A), with vasoconstrictors serving as a bridge to transplantation or renal recovery rather than a cure.

International Club of Ascites (ICA) & Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI), "Acute kidney injury in patients with cirrhosis: Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) and International Club of Ascites (ICA) joint multidisciplinary consensus meeting," Journal of Hepatology, 2024 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Ong N, Wong F · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Pancreas/Biliary· 1

Pancreas/Biliary retrospective · n=152 · Aug 8, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

The Global Immune-Nutrition-Inflammation Index (GINI) in Acute Pancreatitis Severity Assessment: A Comparative Study.

Diagnosticacute pancreatitisbiomarker
Clinical takeawayGINI shows promise for early severity stratification in acute pancreatitis, with a high negative predictive value (92% NPV) for excluding moderate-severe disease. Clinical implementation requires the full paper to clarify the index's calculation methodology. This single-center retrospective study requires prospective multicenter validation before adoption into routine practice.
What it foundGINI, a composite immune-nutrition-inflammation index, achieved AUC 0.813 (95% CI 0.738-0.888) with 79% sensitivity and 77% specificity for detecting moderately severe or severe acute pancreatitis at a cut-off of 3134, significantly outperforming CRP, CAR, PLR, PIV, SII, and PNI (all p < 0.05). Its specific components and calculation method are not detailed in this abstract.
ContextGINI was previously studied in oncology but is new to acute pancreatitis. This is the first comparative analysis of GINI against conventional inflammatory and nutritional markers (CRP, CAR, PLR, PIV, SII, PNI) in AP. The combined immune-nutrition-inflammatory profile appears to outperform single conventional markers, with consistent performance across both biliary and non-biliary etiologies.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437

Decision at stakeoptimal method for early severity stratification in acute pancreatitis

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP) by the Atlanta criteria (2 of 3: characteristic epigastric/LUQ pain, lipase or amylase >3x ULN [lipase preferred for specificity/duration], or characteristic imaging). ACG 2024 stratifies severity risk using SIRS on admission plus bedside risk factors, rising/elevated BUN, rising/elevated hematocrit (>44), obesity (BMI>30), extrapancreatic fluid collections/pleural effusion/infiltrates, altered mental status, and older age/comorbidities, rather than mandating a formal BISAP or APACHE II composite score. Give moderately aggressive lactated Ringer's, most important in the first 6-12 hours, reassessing volume status/BUN/HCT at 6 hours (further aggressive hydration has little added benefit after 24-48h). Start oral low-fat solid food within 24-48h as tolerated in mild disease; if enteral feeding is needed for moderately severe/severe disease, prefer nasogastric over nasojejunal with small-peptide/medium-chain-triglyceride formula and continuous (not bolus/cyclic) feeding; avoid parenteral nutrition if possible. Do not give prophylactic antibiotics, even in severe disease or sterile necrosis; reserve antibiotics for suspected infected necrosis (typically arising 10-14 days in), and choose agents that penetrate pancreatic necrosis while together covering both gut-derived gram-negative enterics and anaerobes, a carbapenem supplies this as monotherapy, whereas a fluoroquinolone or a third-or-higher-generation cephalosporin must be combined with metronidazole; metronidazole alone (anaerobic cover only), or a cephalosporin or a quinolone alone, does not adequately treat infected necrosis. Perform cholecystectomy preferably before discharge for mild acute biliary pancreatitis, and after a second unexplained AP episode even without identified gallstones; reserve ERCP within 24h for AP complicated by cholangitis, with rectal indomethacin +/- pancreatic duct stent and periprocedural hydration to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk. Check triglycerides when gallstones/alcohol are absent (>1000 mg/dL supports a hypertriglyceridemia etiology). For stable pancreatic necrosis, defer surgical, radiological, or endoscopic intervention 4-6 weeks to allow walling-off (step-up approach).

American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Turkmen B … Baskol M · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Endoscopy· 3

Endoscopy retrospective · n=876 · Aug 10, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Long-term risk of metachronous gastric neoplasms after curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer.

New evidenceESDepidemiologybiomarker
Clinical takeawayExtend endoscopic surveillance beyond 5 years after curative ESD for early gastric cancer, particularly in patients with family history of gastric cancer or extensive intestinal metaplasia. All detected metachronous neoplasms were early-stage (stage I) with no gastric cancer-related deaths.
What it foundMetachronous gastric neoplasms accumulated to 26.65% cumulative incidence by 10 years after curative ESD (vs. 10.79% at 5 years). Independent predictors were family history of gastric cancer (aHR 2.12, 95% CI 1.32-3.41) and extensive intestinal metaplasia (aHR 6.50, 95% CI 3.73-11.36); histological upgrade emerged as a risk factor only in the late period (P interaction = 0.005).
ContextPrior surveillance protocols often limited follow-up to 5 years; this study establishes that metachronous neoplasm risk continues accumulating beyond that threshold, providing risk factors to identify patients requiring extended surveillance.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP), "Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): Guideline update 2025", Endoscopy, 2025 (Recommendations 31 and 34)

Decision at stakeLong-term risk stratification and surveillance protocols after curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer

… Propose NO surveillance for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history of gastric cancer, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection), the guideline states this group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Perform individual gastric risk assessment and staging of precancerous conditions at first-time gastroscopy, irrespective of the patient's country of origin. Use high quality endoscopy with virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), after proper training, for screening, diagnosis and staging of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia and after endoscopic therapy; VCE guides the biopsy site, with random biopsies taken only when there are no endoscopically suspected changes. Take biopsies from at least two topographic sites, 2 from the antrum/incisura and 2 from the corpus, VCE-guided, in two separate, clearly labeled vials; an additional incisura biopsy is optional, not required. Stage with validated endoscopic classifications of atrophy (e.g. Kimura-Takemoto) or intestinal metaplasia (e.g. EGGIM) to stratify gastric cancer risk (suggestion, weaker than the biopsy recommendation). Follow up patients with extensive endoscopic changes (Kimura C3+ or EGGIM 5+) OR an advanced histological stage that reaches OLGA/OLGIM III/IV, severe atrophy or intestinal metaplasia and/or significant changes in both antrum and corpus rising to stage III/IV, not any intestinal metaplasia or any antrum-plus-corpus involvement on its own, with high quality endoscopy every 3 years, irrespective of country of origin (strong recommendation, moderate quality). Propose NO surveillance for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history of gastric cancer, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection), the guideline states this group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice. Eradicate H. pylori in all patients with precancerous conditions and after endoscopic or surgical therapy. Discontinue or do not start gastric cancer screening or surveillance in asymptomatic individuals over 80, and weigh comorbidities when planning treatment of superficial lesions. Advise smoking cessation; low-dose daily aspirin may be considered for gastric cancer prevention only in selected individuals already at high cardiovascular risk. For visible neoplasia, use ESD for differentiated lesions clinically staged as dysplastic (low or high grade) or intramucosal carcinoma (any size if not ulcerated, or ≤30 mm if ulcerated), with EMR an alternative for Paris 0-IIa lesions ≤10 mm with low likelihood of malignancy. At the population level, endoscopic screening is suggested every 2-3 years in high-risk regions (age-standardized rate >20 per 100,000 person-years), every 5 years in intermediate-risk regions (ASR 10-20) only if cost-effectiveness has been proven, and not at all in low-risk regions (ASR <10).

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP), "Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): Guideline update 2025", Endoscopy, 2025 (Recommendations 31 and 34) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Park JS … Noh CK · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=939 · Aug 10, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Advanced cannulation techniques vs early EUS-BD in case of difficult biliary cannulation in patients with DMBO: an international propensity score-matched analysis.

New evidenceERCPEUSbiliary stricture
Clinical takeawayWhen standard biliary cannulation fails at ERCP in a patient with malignant obstruction and dilated common bile duct (>12 mm), consider early EUS-guided drainage as the preferred alternative to advanced cannulation techniques if EUS expertise is available. The lower adverse event rate (particularly post-procedural pancreatitis at 12% with advanced ERCP) and higher technical success with EUS-BD support its use as a safer, more technically effective option for failed biliary access.
What it foundIn patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction and failed standard ERCP cannulation, early EUS-guided biliary drainage (eEUS-BD) was associated with lower adverse event rates (9.3% vs 18.2%, p<0.01) and higher technical success (95.9% vs 82.0%, p<0.01) compared to advanced ERCP cannulation techniques, while clinical success was comparable (96.4% vs 94.5%, p=0.89).
ContextAdvanced ERCP cannulation techniques have been the traditional next step after failed standard cannulation, but carry substantial post-procedure pancreatitis risk. This propensity score-matched comparison suggests EUS-BD should move earlier in the salvage algorithm for DMBO with difficult cannulation, potentially reordering the escalation pathway.
Measured against the standard of care· ESGE 2026 (biliary stricture management; replaces ESGE 2018 stenting guideline) / ESGE 2025 (biliary stricture diagnosis)

Decision at stakeWhen standard ERCP cannulation fails in distal malignant biliary obstruction, whether to escalate with advanced ERCP techniques or pivot to EUS-guided biliary drainage

… For distal extrahepatic strictures with no pancreatic mass, do combined same-session EUS-guided tissue acquisition plus ERCP brushing and biopsy. … Endoscopic drainage is preferred over surgery or PTBD for inoperable obstruction. … For Bismuth III-IV, ERCP or ERCP combined with EUS-guided drainage (EUS-BD) is preferred over primary PTBD, with PTBD as a complement if needed. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Diagnosis is unchanged and still follows the separate ESGE diagnostic guideline (Endoscopy 2025;57:166-185). Start with MRI/MRCP plus laboratory tests, read CA19-9 only after decompression, and check IgG4 when IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis is suspected. For distal extrahepatic strictures with no pancreatic mass, do combined same-session EUS-guided tissue acquisition plus ERCP brushing and biopsy. For perihilar strictures, sample by ERCP first and move to cholangioscopy-guided biopsy if the result is indeterminate. Do not place an uncovered SEMS (USEMS) until malignancy is confirmed. Management now follows the 2026 ESGE biliary stricture management guideline, which replaces the 2018 stenting guideline and brings it into line with the 2022 therapeutic EUS guideline. Benign: post-cholecystectomy strictures get temporary multiple plastic stents (MPSs), exchanged every 3-4 months with as many stents as possible, for about 12 months. A fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) is an option only if the stricture is more than 2 cm below the hepatic confluence or the patient will not comply with repeated ERCPs. Anastomotic strictures after liver transplant get MPSs, or a temporary FCSEMS if more than 2 cm below the confluence. Nonanastomotic post-transplant strictures that can be treated endoscopically get MPSs plus balloon dilation if needed. Chronic pancreatitis strictures get a temporary 8-10 mm FCSEMS for 6-12 months. High-grade PSC strictures get balloon dilation alone, with no stent, because stenting adds no benefit and may add adverse events. Endotherapy is indicated for a benign stricture with liver tests raised for more than 1 month and/or cholangitis. Malignant distal: drain before surgery only selectively (cholangitis, severe jaundice or pruritus, delayed surgery). When drainage is needed before surgery or neoadjuvant therapy, or for palliation, place a 10-mm SEMS endoscopically. Endoscopic drainage is preferred over surgery or PTBD for inoperable obstruction. Malignant hilar: manage in high-volume centres with a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary team (MDT). ERCP is preferred over PTBD for preoperative drainage. Palliate Bismuth I-II with ERCP. For Bismuth III-IV, ERCP or ERCP combined with EUS-guided drainage (EUS-BD) is preferred over primary PTBD, with PTBD as a complement if needed. For proven Bismuth II-IV, aim to drain more than 50%, ideally 70% or more, of the viable nonatrophic liver volume using several routes as needed. Use plastic stents when the drainage strategy is undefined or the centre is not expert. USEMS are for expert centres when the diagnosis is proven, the tumour is unresectable, and complete drainage is predicted. After failed or unfeasible ERCP, EUS-BD is recommended over PTBD. Use hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) if there is a duodenal stricture, and EUS-HGS or choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) if there is not. PTBD is used if EUS-BD fails. In surgically altered anatomy, benign disease gets enteroscopy-assisted ERCP first; malignant disease gets enteroscopy-assisted ERCP or EUS-BD. Give antibiotics before ERCP in selected cases: predicted incomplete drainage, hilar strictures, immunocompromised patients, PSC, cholangioscopy. This follows the ESGE ERCP-adverse-events guideline. Etiology-specific care (Strasberg injuries, IgG4-SC, Mirizzi, choledochal cysts) is unchanged.

ESGE 2026 (biliary stricture management; replaces ESGE 2018 stenting guideline) / ESGE 2025 (biliary stricture diagnosis) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Spadaccini M … ACT-EUS Study Group · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=21 · Aug 10, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Endoscopic Management of Cystic Duct Remnant Stones Causing Post-Cholecystectomy Syndrome: A Multi-Center Experience.

Practice-changingERCPcholedocholithiasishealth services
Clinical takeawayFor symptomatic cystic duct remnant stones causing post-cholecystectomy syndrome, ERCP is a less-invasive alternative to surgical excision. Anticipate escalation to cholangioscopy in approximately 43% of cases, with EHL required in most cholangioscopy cases (89%). Counsel patients on a 10% risk of mild post-ERCP pancreatitis.
What it foundERCP achieved complete stone clearance in 95% (20/21) and clinical success in 91% (19/21) of 21 patients with post-cholecystectomy syndrome from cystic duct remnant stones. Balloon sweep alone succeeded in 43%; cholangioscopy was required in 43%, with EHL used in 89% of those cholangioscopy cases. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 10% (2/21), both mild.
ContextCystic duct remnant stones are an underrecognized cause of post-cholecystectomy syndrome. Surgery was traditionally the standard treatment; this retrospective multi-center series demonstrates that ERCP is highly effective and less invasive, shifting the initial management paradigm for symptomatic patients.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· Annals of Medicine (Taylor & Francis), "Clinical perspectives on post-cholecystectomy syndrome: a narrative review," 2025

Decision at stakeWhen cystic duct remnant stones cause post-cholecystectomy syndrome, choose the management approach.

Address the specific underlying cause of persistent or new post-cholecystectomy symptoms after narrowing the heterogeneous differential (retained/CBD stone, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, bile leak/duct injury, bile acid diarrhea, functional dyspepsia/IBS, GERD). …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Address the specific underlying cause of persistent or new post-cholecystectomy symptoms after narrowing the heterogeneous differential (retained/CBD stone, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, bile leak/duct injury, bile acid diarrhea, functional dyspepsia/IBS, GERD). First exclude time-sensitive early postoperative complications, bile leak/duct injury, obstructing retained/CBD stone, biliary obstruction or cholangitis, and treat red-flag features (jaundice, fever, sepsis, or early-onset/worsening pain) as warranting prompt evaluation rather than reassurance; only then reassure that most symptoms settle within 6-12 months, avoid empiric reoperation, and obtain multidisciplinary GI + HPB surgery input for refractory or atypical cases.

Annals of Medicine (Taylor & Francis), "Clinical perspectives on post-cholecystectomy syndrome: a narrative review," 2025 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Arif Y … Issa D · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Everything else this week34 that cleared the bar

Ranked below the cards above, not excluded: these met the bar and were read and scored the same way. One line each, grouped by subspecialty, highest signal first; click through for the paper.

Also screened this week38 papers read, not selected

These cleared the journal filter and were read, but were not selected this week. A score means the paper was weighed: below 35 it fell short of the bar; at 35 or above, a check after scoring set it aside. A blank means it was set aside before scoring. Listed for anyone going deeper; no takeaway attached, because none was written. How we choose →

Endoscopy· 17

How we choose

the same pipeline every week
01

Scan

Every new paper across 48 vetted GI, hepatology, and general-medicine journals.

02

Screen

Drop what is not a study: letters, editorials, corrections, case reports. Classify the rest.

03

Anchor

Compare each paper to the guideline standard it touches, and record how far it moves it.

04

Verify

An adversarial second pass checks every claim against its cited source.

05

Vet

Each issue is reviewed by a physician editor before it publishes.