Introduction

Portal hypertension (PHT) most commonly due to cirrhosis, but non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH) related to metabolic dysfunction, specifically metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), necessitates further clarification of its mechanisms and identification of therapeutic targets.

PHT may precede the development of hepatic fibrosis in MASLD, and even serve as a driving factor in the pathogenesis of MASLD. Consequently, metabolic dysfunction-associated PHT might not depend on structural alterations such as hepatic fibrosis or pseudolobule formation, but rather correlate with other factors such as endothelial dysfunction, which has been demonstrated to play a pivotal role in NCPH. Endothelial dysfunction encompasses endothelial injury and endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EndMT), the latter being a specific type of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). As reported, the JAK/STAT3 signaling pathway plays a pivotal role in the initiation and progression of EMT. Similarly, patients with NCPH induced by myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) often lack pathological features such as hepatic fibrosis or pseudolobule formation. The Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) V617F mutation is highly prevalent in MPN patients. Therefore, targeted inhibition of JAK2 serves as an effective therapeutic strategy for MPN.

Given the shared pathological features between MPN-associated portal hypertension and MASLD-associated portal hypertension, as well as the vital​ role of JAK2 in both disease, the application of JAK2 inhibitor holds significant therapeutic potential for metabolic dysfunction-associated portal hypertension.

Aims & Methods

This study aims to verify the therapeutic efficacy of JAK2 inhibition in attenuating MASLD-associated PHT, with particular focus on its modulation of EndMT. Mice were fed with a high-fat diet (HFD) diet for 12 weeks to induce MASLD-associated PHT and divided into two groups, the treatment group (Rux) and control (Ctr) group. Ruxolitinib (JAK2 inhibitor) was given as a suspension by gavage (60 mg/kg in 0.2 ml) every two days for 3 weeks, while controls received the same volume of saline, from week 10-12 of feeding. Portal pressure was measured, serological analysis and histopathological staining were performed. RT-PCR and Western Blot were conducted to measure EndMT-related genes expression.

Results

The treatment group (Rux) demonstrated a significant reduction in directly measured portal pressure, with concordant changes observed in the spleen-to-body weight ratio, which served as an indirect indicator of portal pressure. Concurrent improvement was noted in ALT, AST and TC. H&E, Masson and Sirius red staining showed decreased perisinusoidal and perivascular fibrosis in the Rux group. Electron microscopy revealed restoration of endothelial fenestration. Additionally, ruxolitinib treatment led to downregulation of endothelial damage markers, mesenchymal cell markers as well as EndMT-related regulatory factors, indicating an alleviation of EndMT and endothelial dysfunction.

Conclusion

The JAK2 inhibitor demonstrates therapeutic potential for MASLD-associated PHT through modulation of endothelial dysfunction and EndMT. These mechanistic insights position ruxolitinib as a promising candidate for clinical management of NCPH, particularly in the MASLD-associated PHT.

References

[1] European Association for the Study of the Liver; European Association for the Study of Diabetes; European Association for the Study of Obesity. EASL-EASD-EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD): Executive Summary. Diabetologia. 2024 Jun 13. [2] Song Z, Liu X, Zhang W, et al. Ruxolitinib suppresses liver fibrosis progression and accelerates fibrosis reversal via selectively targeting Janus kinase 1/2. Journal of Translational Medicine. 2022, 20(1): 157.
[3] Zhang XL, Zhang XY, Ge XQ, et al. Mangiferin prevents hepatocyte epithelial-mesenchymal transition in liver fibrosis via targeting HSP27-mediated JAK2/STAT3 and TGF-β1/Smad pathway. Phytotherapy Research. 2022, 36(11): 4167-4182.
[4] Jin W. Role of JAK/STAT3 Signaling in the Regulation of Metastasis, the Transition of Cancer Stem Cells, and Chemoresistance of Cancer by Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition. Cells. 2020;9(1):217.
[5] Hammoutene A, Rautou PE. Role of liver sinusoidal endothelial cells in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Journal of Hepatology. 2019, 70(6): 1278–1291.

Introduction

While trans-perineal ultrasound (TPUS) is promising, its accuracy compared to trans-abdominal ultrasound (TAS) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in predicting rectal histoendoscopic activity in ulcerative colitis (UC) is unclear.

Aims & Methods

We aimed to evaluate the reliability of TPUS in predicting rectal histoendoscopic activity in UC using EUS as the reference standard. This prospective study included adult UC patients who underwent TAS and TPUS, followed by EUS. Rectal total wall thickness (TWT) and vascularity (Modified Limberg Score, MLS) were measured on all modalities. Additionally, mucosal thickness (MT) and submucosal thickness (SMT) were assessed on EUS. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the area under the curve (AUC) for predicting endoscopic activity (Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity, UCEIS >1) and histologic activity (Nancy Index >1).

Results

A total of 142 UC patients (33.8% female, median age 40 years, BMI 22.5 kg/m²) were included. Disease extent was proctitis (12%), proctosigmoiditis (58%), and extensive colitis (30%). The median SCCAI score was 3 (range: 0-8). Most patients were on 5-ASA (90.8%), azathioprine (31%), and tofacitinib (10.6%).
The median rectal length visualized on TPUS was 3.9 cm (2.4-6.3 cm). Endoscopic remission (UCEIS ≤1) was observed in 49.3% of patients, and histologic remission (NHI ≤1) in 38.7%.
For endoscopic activity, EUS had the highest accuracy, with MT >0.95 mm (AUC: 0.96, sensitivity: 98.6%, specificity: 87%) and MLS >1 (AUC: 0.95, sensitivity: 81.7%, specificity: 94%). TPUS had moderate accuracy(TWT >5.4 mm, AUC: 0.73), while TAS performed poorly (TWT >5.8 mm, AUC: 0.63).
For histologic remission, EUS vascularity (MLS >1) was most predictive (AUC: 0.91, sensitivity: 66.3%, specificity: 98.1%), followed by rectal TWT ≥4 mm (AUC: 0.83) and MT ≥0.95 mm (AUC: 0.86). Among non-EUS techniques, TPUS (TWT ≥6.1 mm, AUC: 0.66) showed moderate accuracy, while TAS was the least predictive (AUC: 0.62).
The Milan Ultrasound Criteria (MUC) demonstrated highest accuracy for endoscopic remission with EUS MUC ≥8 (AUC: 0.94), followed by TPUS (AUC: 0.78) and TAS (AUC: 0.67). For histologic remission, EUS MUC >7 had the highest accuracy (AUC: 0.87), followed by TPUS (MUC ≥9.7, AUC: 0.70) and TAS (AUC: 0.64) (Table 1). BMI-based comparisons showed no significant differences in MUC scores.

Measure	Sensitivity	Specificity	AUC	p-value	95% CI
	Endoscopic Activity
TAS (MUC) (≥8.5)	67.6%	60.9%	0.67	<0.001	0.59-0.76
TPUS (MUC) (≥8)	86%	62.3%	0.78	<0.001	0.70-0.86
EUS (MUC) (≥8)	81.7%	81.2%	0.94	<0.001	0.85-0.95
	Histologic activity
TAS (MUC) (>8.6)	62.8%	66%	0.64	0.005	0.54-0.74
TPUS (MUC) (≥9.7)	59.3%	79.6%	0.70	<0.001	0.61-0.79
EUS (MUC) (>7)	83.7%	81.5%	0.87	<0.001	0.81-0.93

Correlation analysis showed a strong correlation between TPUS and EUS TWT (r=0.371, p<0.001). TPUS and TAS had moderate correlation (r=0.309, p<0.001), while TAS and EUS showed weaker correlation (r=0.264, p=0.002 for average TWT, r=0.234, p=0.005 for lower rectal TWT). MUC scores correlated best between EUS and TPUS (r=0.425, p<0.001).

Conclusion

While EUS remains the most accurate, TPUS shows moderate accuracy for assessing rectal inflammation in UC. However, TPUS is limited to the lower rectum and needs further validation for better reproducibility. Standardized cutoffs and integration into routine UC monitoring could enhance non-invasive assessment, reducing endoscopy reliance and improving patient management.(NCT06717906).

References

1. Sagami S, Kobayashi T, Aihara K, Umeda M, Morikubo H, Matsubayashi M, Kiyohara H, Nakano M, Ohbu M, Hibi T. Transperineal ultrasound predicts endoscopic and histological healing in ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020;51(12):1373-1383. [10.1111/apt.15767]
2. Sagami S, Kobayashi T, Aihara K, Umeda M, Odajima K, Morikubo H, Asonuma K, Miyatani Y, Fukuda T, Matsubayashi M, Kiyohara H, Nakano M, Hibi T. Early improvement in bowel wall thickness on transperineal ultrasonography predicts treatment success in active ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022;55(10):1320-1329. [10.1111/apt.16817]

Introduction

Guselkumab (GUS) is a dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor that potently neutralizes IL-23 and binds to CD64, a receptor on cells that produce IL-23. In the QUASAR studies, GUS intravenous (IV) induction and subcutaneous (SC) maintenance demonstrated symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic efficacy through 2 years.^1,2 Here, we describe maintenance of endoscopic and histologic efficacy in the long-term extension (LTE).

Aims & Methods

At maintenance week (W) 0, GUS IV induction responders were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 100 mg SC every 8 weeks (q8w), GUS 200 mg SC q4w or placebo (GUS withdrawal). Participants (pts) completing the W44 visit could enter the LTE and continue the treatment regimen they were receiving at W44. Placebo pts discontinued after study unblinding. Efficacy data for randomized pts who continued to receive their GUS regimen assigned at W0 in the LTE were analyzed using 2 methods: 1) nonresponder imputation (NRI) accounting for pts with treatment failure or missing data, and 2) “as observed.”

Results

Overall, 303 randomized pts (155 for 100 mg q8w and 148 for 200 mg q4w) continued their GUS treatment assigned at W0 in the LTE. Of pts who achieved endoscopic improvement at W44, 87.2% of GUS 100 mg q8w pts and 80.2% GUS 200 mg q4w pts maintained endoscopic improvement through W92 (NRI analysis; Table). Of pts who achieved histologic improvement at W44, 77.9% and 75.2%, respectively, maintained histologic improvement at W92. Of pts who achieved histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement (HEMI) at W44, 73.5% and 75.5%, respectively, maintained HEMI through W92. Of pts who were in histologic remission at W44, 71.2% maintained histologic remission at W92 in both GUS groups. Results of the as-observed analysis were consistent with the NRI analysis; the dropout rate was low among GUS-treated pts in the LTE. Proportions of pts who maintained endoscopic and histologic outcomes from W0 to W92 are presented in the Table.

Table. Maintenance of endoscopic and histologic efficacy with GUS in the QUASAR LTE study
aPercentages represent proportions of pts achieving the endpoint at W92 among those who achieved the corresponding endpoint at W44. CIs in each treatment group are based on the normal approximation confidence limits. bPercentages represent proportions of pts achieving the endpoint at W92 among those who achieved the corresponding endpoint at W0 (baseline of the maintenance study). CIs in each treatment group are based on the normal approximation confidence limits. Includes pts with modified Mayo score of 5-9 at induction baseline who achieved clinical response to GUS IV induction and were randomized to receive GUS maintenance treatment and did not experience a dose adjustment from W8 through W32. Endoscopic improvement is defined as an endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1. Histologic improvement is defined as neutrophil infiltration in <5% of crypts, no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations or granulation tissue according to the Geboes grading system. HEMI is defined as achieving a combination of histologic improvement and endoscopic improvement. Histologic remission is defined as the absence of neutrophils from the mucosa (both lamina propria and epithelium), no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations or granulation tissue according to the Geboes grading system (equivalent to a Robarts Histopathology Index ≤2b, with subscores of 0 for lamina propria neutrophils and neutrophils in the epithelium and without ulcers or erosion). CI=Confidence interval; GUS=Guselkumab; HEMI=histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement; IV=Intravenous; LTE=Long-term extension; m=Number of pts achieving endpoint at W0 or W44; n=Number of pts achieving endpoint at week 92; NRI=Nonresponder imputation; pts=Participants; q4w=Every 4 weeks; q8w=Every 8 weeks; SC=Subcutaneous; W=Week.
	Endpoint maintenance: W44 to W92a				Endpoint maintenance: W0 to W92b
	NRI analysis		As-observed analysis		NRI analysis		As-observed analysis
% [95% CI] (n/m)	GUS 100mg SC q8w	GUS 200mg SC q4w	GUS 100mg SC q8w	GUS 200mg SC q4w	GUS 100mg SC q8w	GUS 200mg SC q4w	GUS 100mg SC q8w	GUS 200mg SC q4w
Endoscopic improvement	87.2% [80.5, 94.0] (82/94)	80.2% [72.4, 88.0] (81/101)	92.1% [86.5, 97.7] (82/89)	90.0% [83.8, 96.2] (81/90)	80.3% [70.7, 89.9] (53/66)	85.9% [77.4, 94.5] (55/64)	85.5% [76.7, 94.3] (53/62)	94.8% [89.1, 100] (55/58)
Histologic improvement	77.9% [70.5, 85.2] (95/122)	75.2% [67.6, 82.8] (94/125)	83.3% [76.5, 90.2] (95/114)	83.2% [76.3, 90.1] (94/113)	74.3% [65.7, 82.8] (75/101)	72.0% [62.9, 81.2] (67/93)	80.6% [72.6, 88.7] (75/93)	80.7% [72.2, 89.2] (67/83)
HEMI	73.5% [64.0, 83.0] (61/83)	75.5% [66.8, 84.2] (71/94)	80.3% [71.3, 89.2] (61/76)	85.5% [78.0, 93.1] (71/83)	70.2% [58.3, 82.1] (40/57)	79.6% [68.9, 90.4] (43/54)	78.4% [67.1, 89.7] (40/51)	91.5% [83.5, 99.5] (43/47)
Histologic remission	71.2% [62.7, 79.6] (79/111)	71.2% [63.0, 79.4] (84/118)	76.7% [68.5, 84.9] (79/103)	77.8 % [69.9, 85.6] (84/108)	67.0% [57.4, 76.7] (61/91)	67.1% [56.9, 77.2] (55/82)	73.5% [64.0, 83.0] (61/83)	76.4% [66.6, 86.2] (55/72)

Conclusion

High rates of long-term sustained endoscopic and histologic endpoints were observed at W92 of the LTE with both GUS dose regimens.

References

1. Rubin DT, et al. Guselkumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (QUASAR): phase 3 double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled induction and maintenance studies. Lancet. 2025;405(10472):33-49.
2. Lichtenstein GR, et al. Efficacy and safety of guselkumab for ulcerative colitis through week 92 of the QUASAR long-term extension study. Presented at: Digestive Disease Week (DDW); May 4–6, 2025; San Diego, CA.

Disclosure

Study support: Johnson & Johnson.
TH: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, EA Pharma Co, Ltd., JIMRO, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Johnson & Johnson, Kissei Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
JP: AbbVie, Alimentiv, Athos, Atomwise, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celsius, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Mirum, Nimbus, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus, Protagonist, Revolo, Sanofi, Sorriso, Surrozen, Takeda, Wasserman.
FM: AbbVie, Arena, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, Ferring, Fresenius, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Roche, Sandoz, Tillots, Takeda, Teva.
GRL: AbbVie, American College of Gastroenterology, CellCeutrix, Celgene, Clinical Advances in Gastroenterology, Ferring, Gastroenterology and Hepatology [Gastro-Hep Communications], Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Orthobiotech, Eli Lilly, Luitpold / American Regent, Merck, McMahon Publishing, Pfizer, Prometheus, Romark, Salix/ Valeant, Shire, SLACK, Springer, Takeda, UCB, Up-To-Date, Vindico, Virgo.
JRA: Abbvie, Bristol Myer Squibb, Ferring, Finch, Iterative Scopes, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer, Roivant, Seres Therapeutics, Roivant Adiso.
BB: AbbVie, Alimentiv, Allergan, Amgen, AMT, Bausch Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, Business Intelligence, Celgene, Celltrion, Eupraxia Fresenius Kabi, Ferring, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Iterative Scopes, GlaxoSmithKline, Jamp, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Microbiome Insights, Mylan, Novartis, Organon, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Protagonist, Qu Biologic, Sandoz, Takeda, Viatris.
WA: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Dynacare, Eli-Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, Theradiag.
MAS: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Falk, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Sanofi, STADA, Takeda, Tillotts.
BDY: AbbVie Korea, BMS Pharmaceutical Korea Ltd., Celltrion, Chong Kun Dang Pharm, CJ Red BIO, Cornerstones Health, Curacle, Daewoong Pharm, Dong-A ST, Eisai Korea, Eli Lilly and Company Korea, Ferring Korea, Imscout, IQVIA, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Korea, JEIL PHARMACEUTICAL CO., Kangstem Biotech, Korea Otsuka Pharm, Korea United Pharm, Medtronic Korea, NanoEntek, ORGANOIDSCIENCES LTD, Pfizer Korea, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, Takeda Korea, Yuhan.
SY, MG, NS, DP, YM, HZ: Johnson & Johnson.
AD: Abivax, AbbVie, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CED Service GmbH, Celltrion, Dr Falk Foundation, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, High5MD, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Materia Prima, MedToday, MSD, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Roche, Sandoz, Stada, Takeda, Thieme, Tillotts, UniMed Verlag, Vifor Pharma.
DTR: Abbvie, Altrubio, Apex, Avalo Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Buhlmann Diagnostics Corp, Celgene, Connect BioPharma, Intouch Group, Iterative Health, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Neurologica, Takeda.
BES: AbbVie, Abivax, Adiso Therapeutics, Agomab, Alimentiv, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Biolojic Design, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Equillium, Enthera, Enveda Biosciences, Evommune, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Imhotex, Index Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Johnson & Johnson, Kaleido, Kallyope, Lilly, Merck, Microba, Mirador Therapeutics, Mobius Care, Morphic Therapeutics, MRM Health, Nexus Therapeutics, Nimbus Discovery, Odyssey Therapeutics, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rasayana Therapeutics, Recludix Therapeutics, Reistone Biopharma, Sanofi, Sorriso Pharmaceuticals, Spyre Therapeutics, Sun Pharma, Surrozen, Takeda, Target RWE, Teva, TLL Pharmaceutical, Tr1X, Union Therapeutics, Ventyx Biosciences, and Vividion Therapeutics.