Introduction

MAESTRO-NASH (NCT03900429) is an ongoing 54-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial evaluating efficacy of resmetirom in patients with biopsy-confirmed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH/MASH) and fibrosis. 966 patients with biopsy confirmed NASH were randomized 1:1:1 to resmetirom 80 mg, resmetirom 100 mg, or placebo once daily. Dual primary endpoints at Week 52 were achieved with both resmetirom 80 mg and 100 mg: NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis (NR) or ≥1-stage improvement in fibrosis with no worsening of NAS (FI). The benefit of resmetirom in patients with and without indicators of increased alcohol consumption above protocol-allowed limits for NASH/MASH was assessed on biopsy endpoints and MRI-PDFF (liver fat reduction).

Aims & Methods

Carbohydrate Deficient Transferrin (CDT) was collected longitudinally in all patients over 52 weeks. Post-randomization, a PEth test was performed in patients suspected of increased alcohol consumption. Patients with baseline or post-baseline CDT >2.5% (ULN 2.47) and/or a PEth >20ng/ml (ULN 20ng/ml) were assigned to a possible “MetALD” subgroup. Analyses were performed on 782 patients who had both a baseline and Week 52 biopsy.

Results

Of the 782 patients, 75 patients (9.6%) were included in the MetALD subgroup and 707 were not. Baseline characteristics, mean (SD), for the MetALD and non-alcohol subgroups included Age=57.7 (10.5), 60.1 (10.7); percent male=59%, 42%; Presence of diabetes=50.7%, 67.9%; CDT%=2.2 (1.0), 1.6 (0.3); BMI 33.0 (5.5), 35.8 (6.6); MRI-PDFF=21.7% (7.4), 17.4 (6.5), Fibroscan VCTE=13.4 (6.7), 13.2 (6.6); Fibroscan CAP=348.5 (38.5), 347.0 (38.7); FIB-4=1.67 (0.69), 1.37 (0.66); AST=45.6 (21.8), 40.3 (22.9); ALT=55.2 (24.8), 55.5 (32.2); GGT=117.9 (170.8), 75.3 (85.6); Bilirubin=0.69 (0.31), 0.65 (0.29); MCV=92.3 (5.8), 90.3 (5.6); Platelets=200, 229; NAS (median)=5 (5,6), 5 (5,6); and %F3=66.7, 62.5.
For the group of patients with low or no alcoholic consumption: Patients treated with 80 mg and 100 mg resmetirom doses (n=224 and 228, respectively): 29.9% and 36% had NR, 29% and 33.3% had FI, 59.2% and 71.2% showed a ≥30% reduction from baseline in MRI-PDFF. For patients treated with placebo (n=255), the corresponding results were 10.3%, 13.7%, and 24.5%.
For the possible MetALD group: Patients treated with 80 mg and 100 mg resmetirom doses (n=34 and 20, respectively): 29% and 35% had NR, 35% and 30% had FI, and 88% and 81% showed a ≥30% reduction from baseline in MRI-PDFF. For patients treated with placebo (n=21), the corresponding results were 10%, 19%, and 14%.

Conclusion

A total of 75 (9.6%) of patients had possible MetALD during the first 52 weeks of
MAESTRO-NASH. Baseline characteristics showed a higher mean GGT and FIB-4 in the MetALD versus
low alcohol group. Response rates to resmetirom in patients with suspected MetALD were similar to
those without MetALD.

Disclosure

Authors are investigators in the MAESTRO-NASH trial or employees of Madrigal Pharmaceuticals.

Introduction

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with stent placement is the current standard for drainage of distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), but carries a significant risk of post-procedural pancreatitis.[1] EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) is increasingly used as a promising alternative, but comparative studies are still scarce.[2,3] While previous studies have mainly focused on stent patency, the current study aims to evaluate whether EUS-CDS is superior to ERCP in achieving a textbook outcome for the patients, indicating an optimal post-procedural course.

Aims & Methods

This single-center study included patients with distal MBO who underwent technically successful (1) EUS-CDS with a lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS) plus additional coaxial stent or (2) ERCP with fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) as part of the prospective SCORPION studies and SPHINX trial, respectively.[1,4] The primary endpoint was textbook outcome, defined as the absence of procedure- or stent-related adverse events (AEs), reinterventions, or hospital readmissions within 30 days of the procedure. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the primary outcome, mortality, time to initiation of treatment (e.g., systemic therapy or surgery), and textbook outcome at 90 days.

Results

A total of 144 patients were enrolled for EUS-CDS (n=49) or ERCP (n=95). Primary etiologies included pancreatic cancer (n=117, 81%) and distal cholangiocarcinoma (n=14, 10%). Coaxial stents used in the EUS-CDS group were FCSEMS (n=20) or double pigtail plastic stents (n=29). Textbook outcome was achieved in 44 patients (90%) in the EUS-CDS group and in 67 patients (71%) in the ERCP group at 30 days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.08-1.50). EUS-CDS led to fewer procedure- or stent-related AEs (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14-0.84) compared with ERCP, particularly post-procedure pancreatitis (0% vs. 23%). Other AEs, including perforation (2% vs. 0%), bleeding (0% vs. 0%), stent dysfunction with or without cholangitis (4% vs. 6%), and cholecystitis (4% vs. 3%) were similar between groups. Hospital readmission rate was lower in the EUS-CDS group (6% vs. 30%, RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.65), as was the length of hospital stay (mean 0.3 days [SD 1.3] vs. 1.8 days [SD 4.0], P=0.01). In-hospital mortality (8% vs. 5%), need for reinterventions (8% vs. 6%), and time to treatment initiation, either surgery or chemotherapy, did not differ (median 33 days [IQR 23-42] vs. 30 days [IQR 18-41]). At 90 days, textbook outcome was more often present in the EUS-CDS group when compared to ERCP however the difference was no longer significant (78% vs. 69%, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.02-1.44).

Conclusion

EUS-CDS with LAMS and additional coaxial stent was superior to ERCP with FCSEMS in achieving textbook outcome at 30 days post-procedure. EUS-CDS resulted in less procedure- or stent-related AEs, particularly post-procedure pancreatitis, and consequently in fewer hospital readmissions and shorter hospital stay. Therefore, when expertise is available, EUS-CDS with coaxial stent placement could be considered as primary biliary drainage technique in patients with distal MBO.

References

1. Onnekink, A. M., Gorris, M., Bekkali, N. L., et al (2024). Endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis after self-expandable metal stent placement for distal malignant biliary obstruction (SPHINX): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Gut, gutjnl-332695. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332695
2. Teoh, A. Y. B., Napoleon, B., Kunda, R et al (2023). EUS-Guided choledocho-duodenostomy using lumen apposing stent versus ERCP with covered metallic stents in patients with unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (DRA-MBO trial). Gastroenterology, 165(2), 473-482.e2. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.016
3. Chen, Y., Sahai, A., Donatelli, G. et al (2023). Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial). Gastroenterology, 165(5), 1249-1261.e5. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.024
4. Fritzsche, J. A., Fockens, P., Besselink, M. G. et al (2024). Optimizing EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy with lumen-apposing metal stents for primary drainage of malignant distal biliary obstruction (SCORPION-IIp): a prospective pilot study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2024.10.012

Disclosure

Paul Fockens acted as a consultant for Cook Endoscopy and Olympus, outside the submitted work.
Roy L.J. van Wanrooij acted as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Jeanin E. van Hooft has received research support from Cook Medical and acted as lecturer for Cook Medical, Boston Scientific and Falk, and as consultant for Olympus. Rogier P. Voermans received a research grant and acted as consultant for Boston Scientific. All outside the submitted work. All other authors declare that they have no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this abstract.

Introduction

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) is the best endoscopic technique that enables en bloc resection of superficial colorectal neoplasms.Despite its effectiveness, ESD is not very widespread in Western countries due to technical complexity, long procedure times, and a steep learning curve. These barriers have created a significant gap in adoption and outcomes between Eastern and Western centers. Underwater ESD (U-ESD) has been introduced to simplify the procedure. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of U-ESD versus conventional gas-based ESD (G-ESD) in a Western center, focusing on procedural efficiency and safety.

Aims & Methods

This is a single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial conducted at Fondazione Campus Bio-Medico in Rome between December 2024 and April 2025.Forty patients with non-pedunculated colorectal lesions were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either Underwater ESD (U-ESD) or conventional ESD with insufflation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (G-ESD).The primary outcome was total procedure time. Secondary outcomes included dissection speed, en bloc and R0 resection rates, use of hemostatic forceps, and the incidence of adverse events such as delayed bleeding, perforation, and post-ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS).

Results

A total of 40 patients referred to our endoscopic unit for ESD between December 2024 and April 2025. The mean size of the colorectal lesions was 57.4 mm and 40.7 mm in the U-ESD and G-ESD groups. The location of the lesions was in the rectum in 15% and 55% of the U-ESD and C-ESD groups, respectively; in the right side of the colon in 35% and 20% of the U-ESD and G-ESD groups, respectively. The morphology of LST was classified as LST-nongranular in 20 % and 25% of the U-ESD and G-ESD groups, respectively; as LST granular in 60% and 35% of the U-ESD and G-ESD groups, respectively. Fibrosis (grade 1 and 2) was present in 45% and 30% of the U-ESD and G-ESD groups, respectively. The mean total procedure time was shorter in the U-ESD group compared with the G-ESD group (53.3 ±33 minutes vs 78.7 ± 25.6 minutes; mean difference,–25.4 minutes; P=0.009).Mean dissection speed was faster in the U-ESD group compared with the G-ESD group (42 ± 26.3 mm2/min vs 13.3 ± 8 mm2/min; mean difference, 28.7 mm2/min; P= 0.001). En bloc and R0 resection rates in both groups were 100%. The use of a hemostatic forceps was significantly lower in U-ESD compared G-ESD (40% vs 90%, P= 0.001). Delayed bleeding occurred in only one patient in G-ESD group and was managed successfully by endoscopic clipping. No perforations occurred in either group. PECS was noted in only one patient in the G-ESD group.

Conclusion

UESD has shown a significantly shorter procedure time and faster dissection speed compared with GESD. These both empower the possibility of considering U-ESD as the preferred colorectal ESD method for colorectal lesions.