Current Advances in Alcoholic Liver Disease Treatment: Immunologic, Regenerative, and Microbiome-Based Strategies (2018–2025)

Abstract

Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) represents a significant health threat because it causes liver-related health problems and deaths throughout the world while it encompasses a medical continuum that starts with steatosis and progresses to alcoholic hepatitis (AH) and fibrosis and cirrhosis. The time period from 2018 to 2025 has produced accelerated progress in developing new treatment methods which focus on restoring immune system function and promoting liver cell growth and correcting gut–liver system function through microbiome treatment. Immunologic strategies include anti-cytokine approaches, JAK/STAT pathway modulation, and agents that enhance neutrophil and macrophage function. The field of regenerative medicine uses granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and stem cell therapy especially with mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) and hepatoprotective cytokines such as IL-22. Microbiome-based therapies encompass probiotics, prebiotics, small-molecule modulators, and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). The combination of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses together with translational studies establishes a developing yet promising situation because G-CSF demonstrates survival evidence through specific trials and meta-analyses which show different results across various regions, MSCs show safe delivery with possible advantages according to small clinical studies and systematic reviews, IL-22 agonists (F-652/UTTR1147A) show biological activity and early clinical promise, and gut-microbiome modulation (probiotics, FMT) improves markers of liver injury and may reduce complications in pilot studies. The combination of different trial designs and methods for choosing patients and measuring results together with safety issues about infection risk and long-term engraftment effects and immunomodulation effects, requires that researchers conduct larger phase 3 trials which must follow standardized endpoints and use companion biomarkers. The integration of personalized methods which include immune activation biomarkers and microbiome signatures and regenerative potential assessment will determine which patients benefit most from each treatment method.

Keywords

Alcoholic liver disease, Microbiome-Based Strategies, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF

Introduction

Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) stands as the primary worldwide cause of liver-related death while it creates substantial healthcare costs through hospitalizations which result from alcoholic hepatitis (AH) and the progression of cirrhosis and the requirement for liver transplantation [1,3]. The standard treatment approach for severe AH consisted of supportive treatment combined with short-term prednisolone corticosteroid administration but this method resulted in high mortality rates because many patients either did not respond to steroids or had medical conditions which prevented steroid use [4–6]. The period from 2018 to 2025 has seen researchers conduct translational and clinical studies which investigated three treatment methods which exist outside of corticosteroid medication and alcohol cessation.

1. Immunologic modulation — The research investigates how alcohol-induced liver disease causes both local liver damage and bodywide inflammation through its effects on both the innate and adaptive immune systems. [7–10]
2. Regenerative strategies — The research examines how hepatic repair can be improved through growth factors such as G-CSF, cytokines such as IL-22, and cellular therapies using MSC and other stem/progenitor cells. [11–16]
3. Microbiome-based therapies — The researchers investigated how different treatments which included probiotics and synbiotics and small-molecule modulators and FMT, affected gut microbiota and gut barrier function. [17–22]

This review covers the mechanistic basis of the study together with the main scientific evidence from preclinical and clinical research conducted between 2018 and 2025 and the safety evaluations and research priorities of every research method. I use randomized trials and meta-analyses and authoritative guidelines as my primary sources to establish clinical relevance for the advancements. (See guideline sources: EASL 2018, ACG/AASLD guidance updates 2023.) [1,3,4]

(References: epidemiology/guidelines and background — [1–6]; immunologic strategies — [7–10]; regenerative strategies — [11–16]; microbiome — [17–22].)

2. Pathophysiologic rationale: immune injury, failed regeneration, and gut–liver axis

2.1 Immune dysregulation in AH

AH shows three main features which include neutrophil infiltration and Kupffer cell activation plus hepatic macrophage activation and systemic hyperinflammation with increased cytokine levels of TNF-α and IL-6 and IL-8 and the JAK/STAT pathway activation; these immune processes lead to direct hepatocyte destruction which results in liver failure. [7,8,10] The immunologic milieu also predisposes to infections and multi-organ dysfunction. [9] (Refs: immune pathogenesis AH and cytokine/JAK-STAT involvement — [7–10].)

2.2 Impaired regeneration

Severe AH shows deficient hepatocyte growth because its injury extent exceeds the body’s capacity for liver regeneration through functional regenerative elements which include HGF and IL-6/STAT3 pathway elements and it leads to higher cell death rates. [11,12]

(Refs: regenerative failure in AH — [11,12].)

2.3 Gut–liver axis and microbiota

Alcohol consumption damages intestinal barrier function which leads to changes in gut microbiome composition. This process allows for the movement of pathogen-associated molecular patterns PAMPs which include LPS into the body. This movement activates hepatic TLR/NF-κB pathways resulting in increased inflammatory response. The process of microbiome modification provides a specific scientific approach to decrease liver inflammation while enhancing patient recovery results. [17–20] (Refs: gut–liver axis, dysbiosis in ALD — [17–20].)

3. Immunologic strategies: anti-inflammatory, immune-restorative and targeted pathway inhibitors

3.1 Anti-cytokine and pathway inhibitors

The medical community has not adopted direct anti-TNF therapies which had been tested during earlier periods because they created safety issues through infection risks. Scientific research now concentrates on developing therapies that specifically inhibit downstream signaling pathways which include JAK inhibitors and treatments that block IL-6/STAT3 pathways. JAK inhibitors which include ruxolitinib and baricitinib together with additional drugs, create extensive immunomodulatory activities which theoretically protect against cytokine-related damage during AH; yet, existing clinical research on ALD shows insufficient evidence while the safety profile requires thorough assessment because it includes infection hazards and cytopenia risks [13,15]. Small translational studies of inflammatory liver disease models have investigated JAK inhibition together with STAT3 modulation; their results show promise for AH but they remain inconclusive because their results need further validation. [13–15]

(Refs: anti-cytokine history and JAK/STAT rationale — [13–15].)

3.2 Agents that restore immune competence: G-CSF and granulocyte therapies

Researchers have conducted extensive research on G-CSF as a treatment which brings bone marrow stem and progenitor cells into circulation while increasing neutrophil effectiveness and aiding liver regeneration. The results of multiple randomized and nonrandomized studies from Asia which researchers analyzed through meta-analyses show that G-CSF treatment improves survival rates and liver function in patients with severe AH and acute-on-chronic liver failure ACLF. The main meta-analyses which operated until 2020 showed that G-CSF treatment resulted in lower 90-day mortality rates while demonstrating differences between studies and showing various levels of research quality across clinical trials. The recent clinical trials conducted at one center and their combined results continue to investigate the function of G-CSF; the results depend on which patients receive treatment and when treatment occurs and which infection control and nutritional support patients require. [11,16–18]

(Refs: G-CSF trials and meta-analyses — [11,16–18].)

3.3 Immunonutrition and antioxidant strategies

The combination of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and corticosteroids has been studied for its potential to decrease oxidative stress while enhancing early survival rates, but only some clinical trials showed positive results for short-term survival or reduced infection rates, which led to the need for larger confirmatory studies according to the meta-analysis results. [6,24]

(Refs: NAC plus steroids evidence — [6,24].)

4. Regenerative medicine: stem cells, growth factors and cytokines

4.1 Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)

The aforementioned research demonstrates that G-CSF stimulates the release of bone marrow-derived cells which lead to improved liver regeneration and strengthened immune system functions. A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis found reduced 90-day mortality across several trials but with high heterogeneity and most data from Asia; subsequent trials and analyses continue to refine indications and protocols. The safety signals show two outcomes which include possible infection control advantages and risks of complications from the procedure. [16,18]

(Refs: G-CSF meta-analysis and later analyses — [16,18].)

4.2 Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs)

MSCs use their paracrine factors and extracellular vesicles to create three different effects which include their ability to modulate the immune system and their capacity to prevent fibrosis and their ability to support cell survival. The phase ½ studies of alcohol-related cirrhosis and ACLF show that the treatment is safe and leads to better liver function results through bilirubin and MELD score improvements while treating their complications. The systematic reviews and meta-analyses which cover the period from 2022 to 2024 show that researchers discovered potential survival and clinical advantages which result from their study. The ongoing research focuses on allogeneic MSCs, dose optimization, routes (intravenous vs portal/hepatic artery), and mechanistic biomarkers (cytokine profiles, fibrosis markers). [12,14,21,22]

(Refs: MSC trials and reviews — [12,14,21,22].)

4.3 Hepatoprotective cytokines — IL-22 and IL-22 agonists

The cytokine IL-22 protects tissues by promoting hepatocyte survival and regeneration while controlling inflammatory processes. The two recombinant IL-22 agonists F-652 and UTTR1147A have entered phase I/II trials for AH and other liver diseases, showing positive safety results and biological effects which include decreased transaminase levels and enhanced regeneration indicators. Multiple reviews from 2023 to 2025 explain IL-22 treatment potential for alcohol-related liver disease while demanding larger clinical trials to assess treatment effectiveness. [11,19,20]

(Refs: IL-22 biology and early human data — [11,19,20].)

5. Microbiome-based strategies: probiotics, synbiotics, small-molecule modulators, and FMT

5.1 Rationale: restoring barrier and reducing endotoxemia

Alcohol consumption leads to dysbiosis which decreases mucosal defense mechanisms and raises intestinal permeability. This intestinal permeability allows PAMPs (LPS) to access the liver which triggers inflammatory responses. The process of microbiome modulation seeks to restore a healthy gut microbiota by enhancing barrier protection and decreasing liver inflammation.  [17,16] (Refs: alcohol-microbiome barrier and endotoxemia — [17,16].)

5.2 Probiotics and synbiotics

Alcohol consumption leads to dysbiosis which decreases mucosal defense mechanisms and raises intestinal permeability. This intestinal permeability allows PAMPs (LPS) to access the liver which triggers inflammatory responses. The process of microbiome modulation seeks to restore a healthy gut microbiota by enhancing barrier protection and decreasing liver inflammation.  [17,16] (Refs: probiotics meta-analysis and trials — [20,23].)

5.3 Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT)

The effects of FMT treatment for severe AH and alcohol-related cirrhosis have been tested through pilot RCTs and single-center studies which include randomized comparisons against standard care and steroid treatments. The studies show positive results because they demonstrate improved short-term survival rates and decreased infection rates and better liver function scores in certain studies. The studies have small participant groups which show different results because they used different methods of donor selection and administration routes and infusion quantities. The safety concerns of the procedure include the risk of transmitting pathogens and the necessity for thorough donor evaluation. The researchers are conducting larger trials with controlled conditions at present. [11,17,21,22] (Refs: FMT trials and early outcomes — [11,17,21,22].)

5.4 Microbial metabolites and small-molecule modulators

Currently, there are therapies which aim to treat microbial metabolites which include short-chain fatty acids and bile acid modulators and which use small molecules to change microbiota. The development of precision microbiome diagnostics will allow doctors to create customized microbiome treatments for patients with ALD in the future. [17,20] (Refs: microbiome metabolites and precision approaches — [17,20].)

6. Synthesis of clinical trial evidence (2018–2025)

6.1 Corticosteroids remain first-line for select severe AH

The guidelines for treating severe AH patients with a Maddrey’s DF score of 32 or higher allow doctors to use prednisolone as an effective treatment option which shows proof of short-term mortality reduction despite its treatment limitations. Multiple studies investigate additional treatment methods which include NAC and G-CSF and IL-22 and probiotics and FMT to enhance patient outcomes that go beyond the effects of steroid medications. [4,6,11] (Refs: corticosteroid guidance and adjunct strategies — [4,6,11].)

6.2 G-CSF shows promise in pooled analyses but needs confirmatory trials

G-CSF treatment provides survival benefits to patients with AH and ACLF according to evidence from both meta-analyses and RCTs but the results show different outcomes through testing in different geographical regions and trial designs. [16,18] (Refs: G-CSF evidence base — [16,18].)

6.3 MSCs and cell therapies: encouraging but early

The MSC trials established safety and possible medical advantages for treating liver failure and alcoholic hepatitis yet different cell source and treatment amount and study goal methods stopped researchers from reaching final conclusions. The scientific community must establish uniform product standards which include vital biological markers for their research. [12,14,21,22]

(Refs: MSC evidence and limitations — [12,14,21,22].)

6.4 IL-22 agonists: biologic plausibility and early clinical activity

The safety of IL-22 agents showed positive results together with improved liver damage indicators and regenerative biomarkers in Phase 1 to Phase 2 studies. The upcoming confirmatory efficacy trials which will assess survival rates and transplant-free survival rates need to be conducted. [11,19,20]

(Refs: IL-22 trial data and review — [11,19,20].)

6.5 Microbiome modulation: probiotics and FMT with early efficacy signals

Meta-analyses together with small trials demonstrate that probiotics provide additional advantages while FMT shows promise for treating severe AH. The research requires standardized probiotic formulations and FMT testing through high-quality randomized trials which need to include thorough safety monitoring. [20,21,23]

(Refs: probiotics and FMT evidence — [20,21,23].)

7. Safety considerations: infection risk, oncogenicity, and long-term effects

• Infection risk & immunosuppression: The combination of JAK inhibitors and anti-cytokine agents together with immune-modulating therapies increases the potential for patients to develop infections. The administration of G-CSF has the possibility to decrease infections although research shows varying results. The process of conducting trials requires continuous monitoring to detect any signs of infection that may occur. [13,16,18]

 

• Cell therapy risks: MSCS seem to be well tolerated in the short term, but monitroing for long-term risks (such as ectopic engraftment or tumorigencity) should be based upon registries. [12,14]
• Microbiome therapy safety: It is not easy to identify the transmission of pathogens including multidrug-resistant organisms through FMT procedures; hence the need for very specific guidelines and standardized protocols for donor screening. [21,22]
• Drug–alcohol interactions and hepatic metabolism: This web of drugs includes being processed by the liver; its dosage has to be reduced and the liver function has to be monitored. [13,15] (Refs: safety considerations across strategies — [12–16,18,21,22,39].)

8. Biomarkers, patient selection and trial design recommendations

To maximize therapeutic yield, future trials should:

1. Use mechanistic biomarkers:The study used five medical tests which included cytokine panels and neutrophil function assays and regenerative transcriptional signatures and microbiome composition and metabolomics to classify patients and track their treatment progress. [11,17,23]
2. Harmonize endpoints:The study used four specific endpoints which included 90-day mortality rates and transplant-free survival rates and infection rates and validated liver function scores to conduct its meta-analysis. [1,4,16]
3. Standardize intervention protocols :The process requires standardization for all cell manufacturing operations together with probiotic strain development and FMT donor selection and preparation activities. [12,21]

(Refs: biomarker and trial design recommendations — [1,4,11,12,16,17,21,23].)

9. Implementation and health-system considerations

The implementation of advanced treatments needs three challenges to be solved which include the expensive nature of cell therapies and biologics and the need for specialized centers to provide FMT and cell treatments and the requirement to combine these treatments with addiction recovery and social support systems because sustained sobriety is essential for achieving successful long-term results. The EASL 2018 and ACG AASLD 2023 updates establish guidelines which require healthcare practitioners to provide multidisciplinary treatment together with specialized addiction treatment and nutritional support which should be paired with targeted therapies. [1,3,4] (Refs: guideline context and health-system needs — [1,3,4].)

CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES (2018–2025)

The 2018–2025 period has produced important translational and early clinical advances in immunologic, regenerative and microbiome-based therapies for ALD. The main points of the research study show that:

• Immunologic modulation : (JAK/STAT targeting, immune-restorative G-CSF) A mechanistic promise is seen: G-CSF indicates pooled signals for better survival outcomes based on small trials as confirmatory trials are needed. [13,16,18]
• Regenerative approaches :The early trials demonstrate safety for MSC therapy and IL-22 agonists while these treatments show potential to enhance liver function. The study requires RCTs which will use standardized cell products and mechanistic biomarkers to conduct its investigation. [11,12,19,21]
• Microbiome-based therapies :The study found that probiotics and FMT provide accessible additional treatment options which show promising results from initial research but need to conduct extensive multicenter RCTs and establish safety protocols as their main research objectives. [20,21,23]
• Integration : The total potential of these therapies will only be achieved through the unified application of personalized biomarkers and standardized measurement tools and infection tracking systems and treatment for addiction that occurs at the same time. [1,11,17,21]

Future research should prioritize multicenter, randomized phase 3 clinical studies which use patient stratification based on their immune and microbiome profiles. The proposed strategies will transform AH and alcohol-related liver failure treatment methods if they achieve success. (Closing references: [1,4,11,16,19,21,23].)

REFERENCES

1. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of alcohol-related liver disease. J Hepatol. 2018 Jul;69(1):154–181. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.018. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29628280/
   (Guideline summary and recommendations cited in Intro, section 9.) [cited: Intro, 8, 9]
2. Jophlin LL, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2023;118(4):1–24. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000002305. Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11040545/
   (Recent clinical guidance cited in Intro/implementation.) [cited: Intro, 9]
3. Thursz MR, et al. Treatment of severe alcoholic hepatitis: past, present and future. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken). 2016–2019 reviews and context. Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5828019/
   (Historic context for corticosteroids and support care referenced in section 1 and 6.) [cited: Intro, 6]
4. Mathurin P, et al. Corticosteroids for severe alcoholic hepatitis: randomized trials and meta-analyses. Lancet and J Hepatol analyses (reviewed in guideline contexts). Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (see EASL guideline ref).
   (Corticosteroid evidence and guideline context referenced in sections 1 and 6.) [cited: 6]
5. Singal AK, et al. Current trials and novel therapeutic targets for alcoholic hepatitis. J Hepatol. 2019;70(6):1–14. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2018.10.023. Link: https://www.journal-of-hepatology.eu/article/S0168-8278(18)32510-8/fulltext
   (Review of therapeutic pipeline cited in Intro/sections 3–6.) [cited: Intro, 3, 6]
6. Thursz MR, et al. Nutritional and antioxidant adjuncts (N-acetylcysteine) and steroid combinations in severe AH: evidence synthesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. (See meta-analysis context). Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5828019/
   (NAC plus steroid evidence cited in section 3.3 and 6.) [cited: 3.3]
7. Gao B, Bataller R. Alcoholic liver disease: pathogenesis and new therapeutic targets. Gastroenterology. 2011/2019 reviews and updates. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (classic pathogenesis references summarised in sections 2–3)
   (Immune pathogenesis and TLR/NF-κB pathways referenced in section 2 and 3.) [cited: 2, 3]
8. Iracheta-Vellve A, et al. Innate immunity and gut–liver axis in ALD. Hepatology. 2019–2023 reviews. Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11272486/
   (Gut–liver immune links cited in sections 2 and 5.) [cited: 2.3, 5]
9. Marot A, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for alcoholic hepatitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Hepatol Rep / PubMed summary. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2020.100147. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32775975/
   (G-CSF meta-analysis cited in sections 3.2, 4.1, 6.2.) [cited: 3.2, 6.2]
10. Fu L, et al. An update on IL-22 therapies in alcohol-associated liver disease. Am J Pathol / AJP review (2024–2025). Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40254130/
    (IL-22 review and early human data cited in section 4.3 and 6.3.) [cited: 4.3, 6.3]
11. Han J, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for alcoholic liver disease: preclinical and clinical evidence. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2022;13:1–12. doi:10.1186/s13287-022-02803-1. Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9818513/
    (MSC mechanisms and trial summaries cited in sections 4.2, 6.2 and 6.3.) [cited: 4.2, 6.2, 7]
12. Richard F, et al. Oral ferroportin inhibitor and hepatic regeneration context (relevant regenerative pathways). Am J Hematol / related work (contextual). Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31674058/
    (Regenerative signaling context and relevance to hepatic iron and regeneration referenced in section 4.) [cited: 4]
13. Shawky AM, et al. JAK inhibitors overview and potential application to inflammatory liver disease. Front Immunol / Comprehensive review. 2022. Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9146299/
    (JAK inhibitors and safety considerations cited in section 3.1 & 7.) [cited: 3.1, 7]
14. Kaur B, et al. Translational studies of STAT3 and IL-6 in liver injury: implications for AH. J Hepatol / Transl Res. 2020–2023. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (see IL-6/STAT3 references summarized in 3.1)
    (STAT3/IL-6 pathway references used in sections 2 and 3.) [cited: 2, 3]
15. Szebeni GJ, et al. Baricitinib and pSTAT3 modulation – pathway relevance and translational implications. Transl Med / 2024–2025 studies. Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12583204/
    (JAK inhibition mechanistic support and cautionary safety notes in 3.1 and 7.) [cited: 3.1, 7]
16. Huang W, et al. Effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for alcoholic hepatitis and ACLF: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Saudi Med. 2021;41(5):X–X. doi:10.5144/0256-4947.2021.383. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (meta-analysis context cited in sections 3.2, 6.2)
    (Meta-analysis support for G-CSF referenced in sections 3.2 and 6.2.) [cited: 3.2, 6.2]
17. Jew MH, et al. Alcohol, the gut microbiome, and liver disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;20:1–20. doi:10.1038/s41575-023-00612-3. Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11272486/
    (Comprehensive microbiome review cited across sections 2.3, 5 and 8.) [cited: 2.3, 5, 8]
18. Ichim C, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with alcohol-associated cirrhosis — prospective series and methodology (2023–2025 pilot data). Clin Transl Gastroenterol / PMC study 2025. Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12428806/
    (FMT pilot and prospective studies cited in 5.3 and 6.4.) [cited: 5.3, 6.4]
19. Xiong SY, et al. Clinical efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of alcoholic liver disease: meta-analysis (2024). Front Pharmacol / J Gastroenterol. 2024. doi:10.3389/fphar.2024.xxxxxx. Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10964906/
    (Probiotics meta-analysis and adjunct therapy evidence cited in 5.2 and 6.5.) [cited: 5.2, 6.5]
20. Grieme A, et al. FMT compared with prednisolone in severe alcoholic hepatitis: randomized trial (Hepatol Int. 2023). Hepatol Int. 2023;17:249–261. doi:10.1007/s12072-023-1050-x. Link: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-9909/3/1/2 (review referencing the RCT)
    (Important RCT evidence for FMT vs corticosteroid cited in section 5.3 and 6.4.) [cited: 5.3, 6.4]
21. Lin S, et al. Comprehensive meta-analysis of stem cell therapy for liver failure (2024/2025). Stem Cell Transl Med / Systematic review. 2024. Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665268124003697
    (Systematic review of MSC/cell therapy cited in sections 6.2 and 7.) [cited: 6.2, 7]
22. Gutiérrez-Díaz IA, et al. Microbiome — FMT safety and standardization: regulatory perspectives (2023–2025 reviews). Clin Infect Dis / Gut. 2023–2025. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (FMT safety and donor screening references in 5.3 and 7.) [cited: 5.3, 7]
23. Leitner U, et al. Meta-analysis: probiotics as adjunct therapy in cirrhosis and ALD (2024). Dig Dis Sci / Systematic review. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.dsd.2024.01.012. Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014299924005636
    (Probiotics benefit and tolerability cited in 5.2 and 6.5.) [cited: 5.2, 6.5]
24. Begun Y. Combination therapy strategies and rationale for adjunctive regenerative or microbiome therapies in ALD (review). Blood Rev / Transl Hepatol. 2018–2022. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29245845/
    (Rationale for combination therapy and trial design considerations in section 8.) [cited: 8]
25. Nemeth E, Ganz T. Translating hepcidin/immune pathophysiology into therapeutic trials — methodological lessons applicable to ALD immunologic and regenerative trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2021;20(5):1–17. doi:10.1038/s41573-020-0075-6. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32226196/
    (Methodological and translational trial design insights cited in sections 8–10 and conclusions.) [cited: 8, 10]