The Accuracy of Serum Biomarkers in the Diagnosis of Steatosis, Fibrosis, and Inflammation in Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Comparison to a Liver Biopsy.

Background and Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic performance of various biomarkers for steatosis, fibrosis, and inflammation in comparison to a liver biopsy (LB) in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional study that included 135 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD. Fatty liver index (FLI), hepatic steatosis index (HSI), cell death markers (CK-18 M30 and CK-18 M65), FIB-4 index, NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), BARD, and AST to platelet ratio index (APRI) were calculated and analysed. Results: FLI, HSI scores, and the cell death biomarkers showed poor diagnostic accuracy for steatosis detection and quantification, with an area under the curve (AUC) of <0.70. The cell death biomarkers likewise did not perform well for the detection of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) (AUC < 0.7). As for the fibrosis staging, only APRI and the cell death biomarkers had moderate accuracy (AUC > 0.7) for advanced fibrosis, whereas FIB-4, BARD, and NFS scores demonstrated poor performance (AUC < 0.70). However, a combination of FIB-4 and NFS with the cell death biomarkers had moderate accuracy for advanced (≥F3) fibrosis detection, with an AUC of >0.70. Conclusions: In this first study on Croatian patients with NAFLD, serum biomarkers demonstrated poor diagnostic performance for the noninvasive diagnosis of liver steatosis and NASH. APRI and the cell death biomarkers had only moderate accuracy for diagnosing advanced fibrosis, as did the combination of FIB-4 and NFS with the cell death biomarkers. Further studies regarding serum biomarkers for all NAFLD stages are needed.

Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease diagnosed by transient elastography and liver biopsy.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine if there was a higher incidence of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) than in patients without NAFLD. Moreover, we assessed whether patients with significant fibrosis (SF) had a higher incidence of SIBO compared with patients with non-significant or no liver fibrosis. METHODS: NAFLD was diagnosed in 117 patients by using Fibroscan with a controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) as well as liver biopsy (LB). SIBO was defined by esophagogastroduodenoscopy with an aspiration of the descending duodenum. RESULTS: Patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and those with SF on LB had a significantly higher incidence of SIBO than patients without NASH and those without SF, respectively (P < .05). According to histological characteristics, there was a higher proportion of patients in the SIBO group with higher steatosis and fibrosis grade, lobular and portal inflammation, and ballooning grade (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, significant predictors associated with SF and NASH were type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and SIBO. Moreover, in multivariate analysis, significant predictors that were independently associated with SIBO were T2DM, fibrosis stage and ballooning grade (OR 8.80 (2.07-37.37), 2.50 (1.16-5.37) and 27.6 (6.41-119), respectively). The most commonly isolated were gram-negative bacteria, predominantly Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. CONCLUSION: In this relatively large population of patients, we used a gold standard for both SIBO (quantitative culture of duodenum's descending part aspirate) and NAFLD (LB), and we demonstrated that NASH patients and those with SF had a higher incidence of SIBO. Moreover, significant predictors independently associated with SIBO were T2DM, fibrosis stage and ballooning grade. Although TE is a well-investigated method for steatosis and fibrosis detection, in our study, independent predictors of SIBO were histological characteristics of NAFLD, while elastographic parameters did not reach statistical significance.

Chronic use of statins and acetylsalicylic acid and incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography acute pancreatitis: A multicenter, prospective, cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) acute pancreatitis (PEP) is a frequent complication of this endoscopic procedure. Chronic statin intake has been linked to lower incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis (AP). Periprocedural rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is protective against PEP, but the role of chronic acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) treatment is unclear. We aimed to investigate whether statins and chronic ASA intake are associated with lower risk of PEP. METHODS: An international, multicenter, prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients undergoing ERCP in seven European centers were included. Patients were followed-up to detect those with PEP. Multivariate analysis by means of binary logistic regression was performed, and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1150 patients were included, and 70 (6.1%) patients developed PEP. Among statins users, 8.1% developed PEP vs. 5.4% among non-users (P = 0.09). Multivariate analysis showed no association between statin use and PEP incidence (aOR 1.68 (95% CI 0.94-2.99, P = 0.08)). Statin use had no effect on severity of PEP, being mild in 92.0% of statin users vs. 82.2% in non-statin users (P = 0.31). Chronic ASA use was not associated with PEP either (aOR 1.02 (95% CI 0.49-2.13), P = 0.96). Abuse of alcohol and previous endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy were protective factors against PEP, while >1 pancreatic guidewire passage, normal bilirubin values, and duration of the procedure >20 minutes, were risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The use of statins or ASA is not associated with a lower risk or a milder course of PEP.

Letter to Editor: Response to AASLD Editorial/Message from the President.

A commentary [1] criticized our systematic review regarding the use of direct-acting agents (DAAs) in chronic hepatitis C [2]. The following represents our major disagreements. Sustained virological response (SVR) is a non-validated surrogate outcome. The principles of evidence-based medicine require that it be validated in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by showing parallel benefits in clinical outcomes [3]. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Vitamin D for treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease detected by transient elastography: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the effects of vitamin D on transient elastography (TE, FibroScan) indices of liver steatosis (controlled attenuation parameter [CAP]) and fibrosis (liver stiffness measurement [LSM]) in adults with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized (2:1), double-blind, single-centre, 12-month trial, patients with NAFLD were treated with vitamin D (1000 IU/day) (n = 201) or a matching placebo (n = 110). Two co-primary outcomes were changes in CAP and LSM after 360 days of treatment versus baseline. Two main secondary outcomes were CAP/LSM changes after 180 days of treatment. RESULTS: Both CAP and LSM gradually decreased in vitamin D-treated patients and slightly increased in the placebo arm. Vitamin D was superior to placebo for both primary outcomes (mean differences in CAP and LSM changes (-49.5 dB/m [95% CI -59.5 to -39.4] and -0.72 kPa [95% CI -1.43 to 0.00], respectively) and both secondary outcomes (-22.1 dB/m [-32.1 to -12.1] and -0.89 kPa [-1.61 to -0.17], respectively). Of a number of exploratory outcomes (change at 12 months vs. baseline), vitamin D reduced serum uric acid (-17.9 µmol/L [-30.6 to -5.2]), gamma-glutamyltransferase (-8.9 IU/L [-15.5 to -2.3)] and fasting serum insulin levels (-5.1 pmol/L [-9.3 to -0.8]) as well as the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance index (-1.6 [-3.1 to -0.2]) (false discovery rate [5%]-adjusted P-values between .0572 and .0952). CONCLUSION: Low-medium dose supplementation of vitamin D (1000 IU/day) over 12 months reduces TE indices of liver steatosis (CAP) and fibrosis (LSM) in NAFLD patients.

Diclofenac sodium versus ceftazidime for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to compare the efficacy of prophylactic, parenterally administered ceftazidime and rectally applied diclofenac sodium for the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients who underwent ERCP. In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, patients received a suppository containing diclofenac sodium rectally (100 mg) and placebo intravenously (group A) or ceftazidime intravenously (1 g) and placebo rectally (group B) immediately before the procedure. The serum and urine amylase levels were recorded and the patients were clinically evaluated after ERCP. RESULTS: Of the 272 patients enrolled (group A: 129; group B: 143), 32 developed pancreatitis (group A: 11 [8.5 %]; group B: 21 [14.7 %]; P = 0.17; relative risk = 1.72; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.86-3.43). The severity of the pancreatitis or complications did not significantly differ between the groups. A serum amylase level of ≥560 U/L and urine amylase level of ≥1150 U/L indicated a positive likelihood ratio for post-ERCP pancreatitis of ≥10. Moreover, the threshold visual analog scale score of ≤5 for abdominal pain after ERCP had excellent diagnostic potential for predicting the presence or absence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: The PEP incidence did not differ between the ceftazidime and diclofenac sodium groups. In patients with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug contraindications, antibiotics can be considered a safe alternative to diclofenac sodium for PEP prevention. Moreover, the visual analog scale for abdominal pain has excellent diagnostic value for predicting PEP. CLINICAL TRIALS. GOV NUMBER: NCT 01784445.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.

Enteral nutrition formulations for acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis is a common and potentially lethal disease with increasing incidence. Severe cases are characterised by high mortality, and despite improvements in intensive care management, no specific treatment relevantly improves clinical outcomes of the disease. Meta-analyses suggest that enteral nutrition is more effective than conventional treatment consisting of discontinuation of oral intake with use of total parenteral nutrition. However, no systematic review has compared different enteral nutrition formulations for the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different enteral nutrition formulations in patients with acute pancreatitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Specialised Register of Clinical Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE (from inception to 20 August 2013), EMBASE (from inception to 2013, week 33) and Science Citation Index-Expanded (from 1990 to August 2013); we conducted full-text searches and applied no restrictions by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised clinical trials assessing enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. We allowed concomitant interventions if they were received equally by all treatment groups within a trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We performed the analysis using Review Manager 5 (Review Manager 2013) and both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We expressed results as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data, and as mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analysis was based on an intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials (1376 participants) in this review. We downgraded the quality of evidence for many of our outcomes on the basis of high risk of bias. Low-quality evidence suggests that immunonutrition decreases all-cause mortality (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80). The effect of immunonutrition on other outcomes from a subset of the included trials was uncertain. Subgrouping trials by type of enteral nutrition did not explain any variation in effect. We found mainly very low-quality evidence for the effects of probiotics on the main outcomes. One eligible trial in this comparison reported a higher rate of serious adverse events leading to increased organ failure and mortality due to low numbers of events and low risk of bias. When we excluded this study as a post hoc sensitivity analysis, risks of mortality (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.84), organ failure (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92) and local septic complications (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.72) were lower with probiotics. In one trial assessing immunonutrition with probiotics and fibres, no deaths occurred, but hospital stay was shorter with immunonutrition (MD -5.20 days, 95% CI -8.73 to -1.67). No deaths were reported following semi-elemental enteral nutrition (EN), and the effect on length of hospital stay was small (MD 0.30 days, 95% CI -0.82 to 1.42). Fibre-enriched formulations reduced the number of other local complications (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87) and length of hospital stay (MD -9.28 days, 95% CI -13.21 to -5.35) but did not significantly affect all-cause mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.84) and other outcomes. Very low-quality evidence from the subgroup of trials comparing EN versus no intervention showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with EN (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of low or very low quality for the effects of immunonutrition on efficacy and safety outcomes. The role of supplementation of enteral nutrition with potential immunomodulatory agents remains in question, and further research is required in this area. Studies assessing probiotics yielded inconsistent and almost contrary results, especially regarding safety and adverse events, and their findings do not support the routine use of EN enriched with probiotics in routine clinical practice. However, further research should be carried out to try to determine the potential efficacy or harms of probiotics. Lack of trials reporting on other types of EN assessed and lack of firm evidence regarding their effects suggest that additional randomised clinical trials are needed. The quality of evidence for the effects of any kind of EN on mortality was low, and further studies are likely to have an impact on the finding of improved survival with EN versus no nutritional support. Evidence remains insufficient to support the use of a specific EN formulation.

FibroTest/Fibrosure for significant liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis B: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Extent of liver fibrosis is one of the most important factors in determining prognosis and the need for active treatment in chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Noninvasive alternatives such as FibroTest/Fibrosure (FT) have been developed in order to overcome the shortcomings of liver biopsy (LB). We aimed to systematically review studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of FT for predicting CHB-related fibrosis. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE searches and hand searching methods were performed to identify studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of FibroTest in HB patients using LB as a reference standard. We used a hierarchical summary receiver operating curves model and the bivariate model to produce summary receiver operating characteristic curves and pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: We included 16 studies (N=2494) and 13 studies (N=1754) in the heterogenous meta-analysis for liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, respectively. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating curve for significant liver fibrosis and for all included studies was 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.88). At the FT threshold of 0.48, the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of FT for significant fibrosis were 61 (48-72%), 80 (72-86%), and 6.2% (3.3-11.9), respectively. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating curve for liver cirrhosis and for all included studies was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90). At the FT threshold of 0.74, the sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of FT for cirrhosis were 62 (47-75%), 91 (88-93%), and 15.7% (8.6-28.8), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FibroTest is of value in exclusion of patients with CHB-related cirrhosis, but has suboptimal accuracy in the detection of significant fibrosis and cirrhosis. It is necessary to further improve the test or combine it with other noninvasive modalities in order to improve accuracy.

Peginterferon alpha-2a versus peginterferon alpha-2b for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: A combination of weekly pegylated interferon (peginterferon) alpha and daily ribavirin still represents standard treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection in the majority of patients. However, it is not established which of the two licensed peginterferon products, peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alpha-2b, is the most effective and has a better safety profile. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the benefits and harms of peginterferon alpha-2a versus peginterferon alpha-2b in head-to-head randomised clinical trials in patients with chronic hepatitis C. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and LILACS until October 2013. We also searched conference abstracts, journals, and grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing peginterferon alpha-2a versus peginterferon alpha-2b given with or without co-intervention(s) (for example, ribavirin) for chronic hepatitis C. Quasi-randomised studies and observational studies as identified by the searches were also considered for assessment of harms. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, liver-related morbidity, serious adverse events, adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, other adverse events, and quality of life. The secondary outcome was sustained virological response in the blood serum. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently used a standardised data collection form. We meta-analysed data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models. For each outcome we calculated the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. We used domains of the trials to assess the risk of systematic errors (bias) and trial sequential analyses to assess the risks of random errors (play of chance). Intervention effects on the outcomes were assessed according to GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 randomised clinical trials which compared peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin versus peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin in 5847 patients. All trials had a high risk of bias. Very few trials reported data on very few patients for the patient-relevant outcomes all-cause mortality, liver-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Accordingly, we were unable to conduct meta-analyses on all-cause mortality, liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Twelve trials reported on adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment without clear evidence of a difference between the two peginterferons (197/2171 (9.1%) versus 311/3169 (9.9%); RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.22; I2 = 44%; low quality evidence). A trial sequential analysis showed that we could exclude a relative risk reduction of 20% or more on this outcome. Peginterferon alpha-2a significantly increased the number of patients who achieved a sustained virological response in the blood serum compared with peginterferon alpha-2b (1069/2099 (51%) versus 1327/3075 (43%); RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.18; I2= 0%, 12 trials; moderate quality evidence). Trial sequential analyses supported this result. Subgroup analyses based on risk of bias, viral genotype, and treatment history yielded similar results. Trial sequential analyses supported the results in patients with genotypes 1 and 4, but not in patients with genotypes 2 and 3. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is lack of evidence on patient-important outcomes and paucity of evidence on adverse events. Moderate quality evidence suggests that peginterferon alpha-2a is associated with a higher sustained virological response in serum than with peginterferon alpha-2b. This finding may be affected by the high risk of bias of the included studies . The clinical consequences of peginterferon alpha-2a versus peginterferon alpha-2b are unknown, and we cannot translate an effect on sustained virological response into comparable clinical effects because sustained virological response is still an unvalidated surrogate outcome for patient-important outcomes. The lack of evidence on patient-important outcomes and the paucity of evidence on adverse events means that we are unable to draw any conclusions about the effects of one peginterferon over the other.

Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Pegylated interferon (peginterferon) plus ribavirin is the recommended treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C, but systematic assessment of the effect of this treatment compared with interferon plus ribavirin is needed. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the benefits and harms of peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for patients with chronic hepatitis C. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index-Expanded, and LILACS. We also searched conference abstracts, journals, and grey literature. The last searches were conducted in September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin with or without co-intervention(s) (e.g., other antiviral drugs) for chronic hepatitis C. Quasi-randomised and observational studies retrieved through the searches for randomised clinical trials were also considered for reports of harms. Our primary outcomes were liver-related morbidity, all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, other adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcome was sustained virological response in serum, that is, undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA in serum by sensitive tests six months after the end of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently used a standardised data collection form. We meta-analysed data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) (for liver-related morbidity or all-cause mortality) or the risk ratio (RR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. We used domains of the trials to assess the risk of systematic errors (bias) and trial sequential analyses to assess the risk of random errors (play of chance).For each outcome, we calculated the RR with 95% CI based on intention-to-treat analysis. Effects of interventions on outcomes were assessed according to GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 randomised trials with 5938 participants. All trials had high risk of bias. We considered that the risk of bias did not impact on the quality of evidence for liver-related mortality and adverse event outcomes, but it did for virological response. All trials compared peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for participants with chronic hepatitis C. Three trials administered co-interventions (amantadine hydrochloride 200 mg daily to both intervention groups), and 24 trials were conducted without co-interventions. The effect observed between the two intervention groups regarding liver-related morbidity plus all-cause mortality (5/907 (0.55%) versus 4/882 (0.45%) was imprecise: OR 1.14 ( 95% CI 0.38 to 3.42; five trials; low quality of evidence), as was the risk of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (332/2692 (12.3%) versus 409/2176 (18.8%); RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 15 trials; low quality of evidence) or regarding adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (332/2692 (12.3%) versus 409/2176 (18.8%); RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.12; 17 trials; low quality of evidence). However, peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin significantly increased the risk of neutropenia (332/2202 (15.1%) versus 117/1653 (7.1%); RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.61; 13 trials), thrombocytopenia (65/1113 (5.8%) versus 23/1082 (2.1%); RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.68 to 4.11; 10 trials), arthralgia (517/1740 (29.7%) versus 282/1194 (23.6%); RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; four trials), injection site reaction (627/1168 (53.7%) versus 186/649 (28.7%); RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.93; four trials), and nausea (606/1784 (34.0%) versus 354/1239 (28.6%); RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.26; four trials). The most frequent adverse event was fatigue, which occurred in 57% of participants (2024/3608). No significant difference was noted between peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin in terms of fatigue (1177/2062 (57.1%) versus 847/1546 (54.8%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07; 12 trials). No significant differences were reported between the two treatment groups regarding anaemia, headache, rigours, myalgia, pyrexia, weight loss, asthenia, depression, insomnia, irritability, alopecia, pruritus, skin rash, thyroid malfunction, decreased appetite, or diarrhoea. We were unable to identify any data on quality of life. Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin seemed to significantly increase the number of participants achieving sustained virological response (1673/3300 participants (50.7%) versus 1081/2804 patients (36.7%); RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.56; I2 = 64%; 27 trials; very low quality of evidence). However, the risk of bias in the 13/27 (48.1%) trials reporting on this outcome was high and was considered only 'lower' in the remainder. Because the conventional meta-analysis did not reach its required information size (n = 14,486 participants), we used trial sequential analysis to control for risks of random errors. Again, in this analysis, the estimated effect was statistically significant in favour of peginterferon. Subgroup analyses according to risk of bias, viral genotype, baseline viral load, past treatment history, and type of intervention yielded similarly significant results favouring peginterferon over interferon on the outcome of sustained virological response. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin seems to significantly increase the proportion of patients with sustained virological response, as well as the risk of certain adverse events. However, we have insufficient evidence to recommend or reject peginterferon plus ribavirin for liver-related morbidity plus all-cause mortality compared with interferon plus ribavirin. The clinical consequences of achieved sustained virological response are unknown, as sustained virological response is still an unvalidated surrogate outcome. We found no evidence of the potential benefits on quality of life in patients with achieved sustained virological response. Further high-quality research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of patient-relevant outcomes and is likely to change our estimates.There is very low quality evidence that peginterferon plus ribavirin increases the proportion of patients with sustained virological response in comparison with interferon plus ribavirin. There is evidence that it also increases the risk of certain adverse events.

Machine learning for the prediction of post-ERCP pancreatitis risk: A proof-of-concept study.

BACKGROUND: Predicting Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) risk can be determinant in reducing its incidence and managing patients appropriately, however studies conducted thus far have identified single-risk factors with standard statistical approaches and limited accuracy. AIM: To build and evaluate performances of machine learning (ML) models to predict PEP probability and identify relevant features. METHODS: A proof-of-concept study was performed on ML application on an international, multicenter, prospective cohort of ERCP patients. Data were split in training and test set, models used were gradient boosting (GB) and logistic regression (LR). A 10-split random cross-validation (CV) was applied on the training set to optimize parameters to obtain the best mean Area Under Curve (AUC). The model was re-trained on the whole training set with the best parameters and applied on test set. Shapley-Additive-exPlanation (SHAP) approach was applied to break down the model and clarify features impact. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and fifty patients were included, 6.1% developed PEP. GB model outperformed LR with AUC in CV of 0.7 vs 0.585 (p-value=0.012). GB AUC in test was 0.671. Most relevant features for PEP prediction were: bilirubin, age, body mass index, procedure time, previous sphincterotomy, alcohol units/day, cannulation attempts, gender, gallstones, use of Ringer's solution and periprocedural NSAIDs. CONCLUSION: In PEP prediction, GB significantly outperformed LR model and identified new clinical features relevant for the risk, most being pre-procedural.

The effects of microbiota abundance on symptom severity in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review.

Introduction: Parkinson's disease (PD) is neurodegenerative disease with a multifactorial etiopathogenesis with accumulating evidence identifying microbiota as a potential factor in the earliest, prodromal phases of the disease. Previous research has already shown a significant difference between gut microbiota composition in PD patients as opposed to healthy controls, with a growing number of studies correlating gut microbiota changes with the clinical presentation of the disease in later stages, through various motor and non-motor symptoms. Our aim in this systematic review is to compose and assess current knowledge in the field and determine if the findings could influence future clinical practice as well as therapy in PD. Methods: We have conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines through MEDLINE and Embase databases, with studies being selected for inclusion via a set inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: 20 studies were included in this systematic review according to the selected inclusion and exclusion criteria. The search yielded 18 case control studies, 1 case study, and 1 prospective case study with no controls. The total number of PD patients encompassed in the studies cited in this review is 1,511. Conclusion: The link between gut microbiota and neurodegeneration is a complex one and it depends on various factors. The relative abundance of various microbiota taxa in the gut has been consistently shown to have a correlation with motor and non-motor symptom severity. The answer could lie in the products of gut microbiota metabolism which have also been linked to PD. Further research is thus warranted in the field, with a focus on the metabolic function of gut microbiota in relation to motor and non-motor symptoms.

Functional bowel disorders with diarrhoea: Clinical guidelines of the United European Gastroenterology and European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility.

Irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea (IBS-D) and functional diarrhoea (FDr) are the two major functional bowel disorders characterized by diarrhoea. In spite of their high prevalence, IBS-D and FDr are associated with major uncertainties, especially regarding their optimal diagnostic work-up and management. A Delphi consensus was performed with experts from 10 European countries who conducted a literature summary and voting process on 31 statements. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation criteria. Consensus (defined as >80% agreement) was reached for all the statements. The panel agreed with the potential overlapping of IBS-D and FDr. In terms of diagnosis, the consensus supports a symptom-based approach also with the exclusion of alarm symptoms, recommending the evaluation of full blood count, C-reactive protein, serology for coeliac disease, and faecal calprotectin, and consideration of diagnosing bile acid diarrhoea. Colonoscopy with random biopsies in both the right and left colon is recommended in patients older than 50 years and in presence of alarm features. Regarding treatment, a strong consensus was achieved for the use of a diet low fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols, gut-directed psychological therapies, rifaximin, loperamide, and eluxadoline. A weak or conditional recommendation was achieved for antispasmodics, probiotics, tryciclic antidepressants, bile acid sequestrants, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 antagonists (i.e. alosetron, ondansetron, or ramosetron). A multinational group of European experts summarized the current state of consensus on the definition, diagnosis, and management of IBS-D and FDr.

Peginterferon alpha-2a is associated with higher sustained virological response than peginterferon alfa-2b in chronic hepatitis C: systematic review of randomized trials.

UNLABELLED: A combination of weekly pegylated interferon (peginterferon) alpha and daily ribavirin represents the standard of care for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C according to current guidelines. It is not established which of the two licensed products (peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alfa-2b) is most effective. We performed a systematic review of head-to-head randomized trials to assess the benefits and harms of the two treatments. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS through July 2009. Using standardized forms, two reviewers independently extracted data from each eligible trial report. We statistically combined data using a random effects meta-analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle. We identified 12 randomized clinical trials, including 5,008 patients, that compared peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin versus peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin. Overall, peginterferon alpha-2a significantly increased the number of patients who achieved a sustained virological response (SVR) versus peginterferon alfa-2b (47% versus 41%; risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.19; P = 0.004 [eight trials]). Subgroup analyses of risk of bias, viral genotype, and treatment history yielded similar results. The meta-analysis of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation included 11 trials and revealed no significant differences between the two peginterferons. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that peginterferon alpha-2a is associated with higher SVR than peginterferon alfa-2b. However, the paucity of evidence on adverse events curbs the decision to definitively recommend one peginterferon over the other, because any potential benefit must outweigh the risk of harm.