Vittoria Manilla

Endothelial dysfunction (ED) is the in the background of multiple metabolic diseases and a key process in liver disease progression and cirrhosis decompensation. ED affects liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs) in response to different damaging agents, causing their progressive dedifferentiation, unavoidably associated with an increase in intrahepatic resistance that leads to portal hypertension and hyperdynamic circulation with increased cardiac output and low peripheral artery resistance. These changes are driven by a continuous interplay between different hepatic cell types, invariably leading to increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, increased release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, and reduced nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability, with a subsequent loss of proper vascular tone regulation and fibrosis development. ED evaluation is often accomplished by serum markers and the flow-mediated dilation (FMD) measurement of the brachial artery to assess its NO-dependent response to shear stress, which usually decreases in ED. In the context of liver cirrhosis, the ED assessment could help understand the complex hemodynamic changes occurring in the early and late stages of the disease. However, the instauration of a hyperdynamic state and the different NO bioavailability in intrahepatic and systemic circulation—often defined as the NO paradox—must be considered confounding factors during FMD analysis. The primary purpose of this review is to describe the main features of ED and highlight the key findings of the dynamic and intriguing relationship between ED and liver disease. We will also focus on the significance of FMD evaluation in this setting, pointing out its key role as a therapeutic target in the never-ending battle against liver cirrhosis progression.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a widespread disease worldwide, and is one of the cornerstones of metabolic syndrome. The existence of a strong relationship between diabetes and the progression of liver fibrosis has been demonstrated by several studies, using invasive and noninvasive techniques. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) show faster progression of fibrosis than patients without diabetes. Many confounding factors make it difficult to determine the exact mechanisms involved. What we know so far is that both liver fibrosis and T2DM are expressions of metabolic dysfunction, and we recognize similar risk factors. Interestingly, both are promoted by metabolic endotoxemia, a low-grade inflammatory condition caused by increased endotoxin levels and linked to intestinal dysbiosis and increased intestinal permeability. There is broad evidence on the role of the gut microbiota in the progression of liver disease, through both metabolic and inflammatory mechanisms. Therefore, dysbiosis that is associated with diabetes can act as a modifier of the natural evolution of NAFLD. In addition to diet, hypoglycemic drugs play an important role in this scenario, and their benefit is also the result of effects exerted in the gut. Here, we provide an overview of the mechanisms that explain why diabetic patients show a more rapid progression of liver disease up to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), focusing especially on those involving the gut–liver axis.

Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), also known as endotoxin, is a component of the membrane of gram-negative bacteria and a well-recognized marker of sepsis. In case of disruption of the intestinal barrier, as occurs with unhealthy diets, alcohol consumption, or during chronic diseases, the microbiota residing in the gastrointestinal tract becomes a crucial factor in amplifying the systemic inflammatory response. Indeed, the translocation of LPS into the bloodstream and its interaction with toll-like receptors (TLRs) triggers molecular pathways involved in cytokine release and immune dysregulation. This is a critical step in the exacerbation of many diseases, including metabolic disorders and cancer. Indeed, the role of LPS in cancer development is widely recognized, and examples include gastric tumor related to Helicobacter pylori infection and hepatocellular carcinoma, both of which are preceded by a prolonged inflammatory injury; in addition, the risk of recurrence and development of metastasis appears to be associated with endotoxemia. Here, we review the mechanisms that link the promotion and progression of tumorigenesis with endotoxemia, and the possible therapeutic interventions that can be deployed to counteract these events.

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare disease. The diagnosis of AIP is difficult and should be made by a comprehensive evaluation of clinical, radiological, serological, and pathological findings. Two different types of AIP have been identified: autoimmune pancreatitis type 1 (AIP-1), which is considered a pancreatic manifestation of multiorgan disease related to IgG4, and autoimmune pancreatitis type 2 (AIP-2), which is considered a pancreas-specific disease not related to IgG4. Although the pathophysiological conditions seem to differ between type 1 and type 2 pancreatitis, both respond well to steroid medications. In this review, we focused on the pathogenesis of the disease to develop a tool that could facilitate diagnosis and lead to the discovery of new therapeutic strategies to combat autoimmune pancreatitis and its relapses. The standard therapy for AIP is oral administration of corticosteroids. Rituximab (RTX) has also been proposed for induction of remission and maintenance therapy in relapsing AIP-1. In selected patients, immunomodulators such as azathioprine are used to maintain remission. The strength of this review, compared with previous studies, is that it focuses on the clear difference between the two types of autoimmune pancreatitis with a clearly delineated and separate pathogenesis. In addition, the review also considers various therapeutic options, including biologic drugs, such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, a well-tolerated and effective second-line therapy for AIP type 2 relapses or steroid dependence. Other biologic therapies are also being explored that could provide a useful therapeutic alternative to corticosteroids and immunosuppressants, which are poorly tolerated due to significant side effects.