Rifaximin for prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy describes the spectrum of neuropsychiatric changes that may complicate the course of cirrhosis and detrimentally affect outcomes. Ammonia plays a key role in its development. Rifaximin is a non-absorbable antibiotic that inhibits urease-producing bacteria and reduces absorption of dietary and bacterial ammonia. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of rifaximin versus placebo, no intervention, or non-absorbable disaccharides for: (i) the prevention of hepatic encephalopathy, and (ii) the treatment of minimal and overt hepatic encephalopathy, in people with cirrhosis, both when used alone and when combined with a non-absorbable disaccharide. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Clinical Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, the reference lists of identified papers, and relevant conference proceedings. We wrote to authors and pharmaceutical companies for information on other published, unpublished, or ongoing trials. Searches were performed to January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials assessing prevention or treatment of hepatic encephalopathy with rifaximin alone, or with a non-absorbable disaccharide, versus placebo/no intervention, or a non-absorbable disaccharide alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six authors independently searched for studies, extracted data, and validated findings. We assessed the design, bias risk, and participant/intervention characteristics of the included studies. We assessed mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatic encephalopathy, non-serious adverse events, blood ammonia, Number Connection Test-A, and length of hospital stay. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 trials involving 4545 people with, or at risk for, developing hepatic encephalopathy. We excluded 89 trials and identified 13 ongoing studies. Some trials involved participants with more than one type of hepatic encephalopathy or more than one treatment comparison. Hepatic encephalopathy was classed as acute (13 trials), chronic (7 trials), or minimal (8 trials), or else participants were considered at risk for its development (13 trials). The control groups received placebo (12 trials), no/standard treatment (1 trial), or a non-absorbable disaccharide (14 trials). Eighteen trials assessed rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide versus a non-absorbable disaccharide alone. We classified 11 trials as at high risk of overall bias for mortality and 28 for non-mortality outcomes, mainly due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Compared to placebo/no intervention, rifaximin likely has no overall effect on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.38; P = 48, I2 = 0%; 13 trials, 1007 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and there may be no overall effect when compared to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.97; P = 0.97, I2 = 0%; 10 trials, 786 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there is likely a reduction in the overall risk of mortality when comparing rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide to a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 22; P = 0.001, I2 = 0%; 14 trials, 1946 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is likely no effect on the overall risk of serious adverse events when comparing rifaximin to placebo/no intervention (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.32; P = 68, I2 = 0%; 9 trials, 801 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and there may be no overall effect when compared to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.40; P = 85, I2 = 0%; 8 trials, 681 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was very low-certainty evidence that use of rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide may be associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events than use of a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; P = 0.04, I2 = 60%; 7 trials, 1076 participants). Rifaximin likely results in an overall effect on health-related quality of life when compared to placebo/no intervention (mean difference (MD) -1.43, 95% CI -2.87 to 0.02; P = 0.05, I2 = 81%; 4 trials, 214 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may benefit health-related quality of life in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MD -2.07, 95% CI -2.79 to -1.35; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 176 participants). The overall effect on health-related quality of life when comparing rifaximin to non-absorbable disaccharides is very uncertain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.98; P = 0.62, I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 249 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the combined rifaximin/non-absorbable disaccharide trials reported on this outcome. There is likely an overall beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin to placebo/no intervention (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; NNTB = 5; P < 0.001, I2 = 68%; 13 trials, 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This effect may be more marked in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.52; NNTB = 3; P < 0.001, I2 = 10%; 6 trials, 364 participants) and in prevention trials (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.91; NNTB = 10; P = 0.007, I2 = 36%; 4 trials, 474 participants). There may be little overall effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; P = 0.13, I2 = 0%; 13 trials, 921 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there may be an overall beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide to a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71; NNTB = 5; P < 0.001, I2 = 62%; 17 trials, 2332 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo/no intervention, rifaximin likely improves health-related quality of life in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy, and may improve hepatic encephalopathy, particularly in populations with minimal hepatic encephalopathy and when it is used for prevention. Rifaximin likely has no overall effect on mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or hepatic encephalopathy compared to non-absorbable disaccharides. However, when used in combination with a non-absorbable disaccharide, it likely reduces overall mortality risk, the risk of serious adverse events, improves hepatic encephalopathy, reduces the length of hospital stay, and prevents the occurrence/recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy. The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low to moderate; further high-quality trials are needed.

A genetic risk score and diabetes predict development of alcohol-related cirrhosis in drinkers.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Only a minority of excess alcohol drinkers develop cirrhosis. We developed and evaluated risk stratification scores to identify those at highest risk. METHODS: Three cohorts (GenomALC-1: n = 1,690, GenomALC-2: n = 3,037, UK Biobank: relevant n = 6,898) with a history of heavy alcohol consumption (≥80 g/day (men), ≥50 g/day (women), for ≥10 years) were included. Cases were participants with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Controls had a history of similar alcohol consumption but no evidence of liver disease. Risk scores were computed from up to 8 genetic loci identified previously as associated with alcohol-related cirrhosis and 3 clinical risk factors. Score performance for the stratification of alcohol-related cirrhosis risk was assessed and compared across the alcohol-related liver disease spectrum, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). RESULTS: A combination of 3 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (PNPLA3:rs738409, SUGP1-TM6SF2:rs10401969, HSD17B13:rs6834314) and diabetes status best discriminated cirrhosis risk. The odds ratios (ORs) and (95% CIs) between the lowest (Q1) and highest (Q5) score quintiles of the 3-SNP score, based on independent allelic effect size estimates, were 5.99 (4.18-8.60) (GenomALC-1), 2.81 (2.03-3.89) (GenomALC-2), and 3.10 (2.32-4.14) (UK Biobank). Patients with diabetes and high risk scores had ORs of 14.7 (7.69-28.1) (GenomALC-1) and 17.1 (11.3-25.7) (UK Biobank) compared to those without diabetes and with low risk scores. Patients with cirrhosis and HCC had significantly higher mean risk scores than patients with cirrhosis alone (0.76 ± 0.06 vs. 0.61 ± 0.02, p = 0.007). Score performance was not significantly enhanced by information on additional genetic risk variants, body mass index or coffee consumption. CONCLUSIONS: A risk score based on 3 genetic risk variants and diabetes status enables the stratification of heavy drinkers based on their risk of cirrhosis, allowing for the provision of earlier preventative interventions. LAY SUMMARY: Excessive chronic drinking leads to cirrhosis in some people, but so far there is no way to identify those at high risk of developing this debilitating disease. We developed a genetic risk score that can identify patients at high risk. The risk of cirrhosis is increased >10-fold with just two risk factors - diabetes and a high genetic risk score. Risk assessment using this test could enable the early and personalised management of this disease in high-risk patients.

SLC19A1 Genetic Variation Leads to Altered Thiamine Diphosphate Transport: Implications for the Risk of Developing Wernicke-Korsakoff's Syndrome.

AIMS: Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome (WKS) is commonly associated with chronic alcohol misuse, a condition known to have multiple detrimental effects on thiamine metabolism. This study was conducted to identify genetic variants that may contribute to the development of WKS in individuals with alcohol dependence syndrome through alteration of thiamine transport into cells. METHODS: Exome sequencing data from a panel of genes related to alcohol metabolism and thiamine pathways were analysed in a discovery cohort of 29 individuals with WKS to identify possible genetic risk variants associated with its development. Variant frequencies in this discovery cohort were compared with European frequencies in the Genome Aggregation Database browser, and those present at significantly higher frequencies were genotyped in an additional cohort of 87 alcohol-dependent cases with WKS and 197 alcohol-dependent cognitively intact controls. RESULTS: Thirty non-synonymous variants were identified in the discovery cohort and, after filtering, 23 were taken forward and genotyped in the case-control cohort. Of these SLC19A1:rs1051266:G was nominally associated with WKS. SLC19A1 encodes the reduced folate carrier, a major transporter for physiological folate in plasma; rs1051266 is reported to impact folate transport. Thiamine pyrophosphate (TPP) efflux was significantly decreased in HEK293 cells, stably transfected with rs1051266:G, under thiamine deficient conditions when compared with the efflux from cells transfected with rs1051266:A (P = 5.7 × 10-11). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the role of genetic variation in the SLC19A1 gene, which may contribute to the development of WKS in vivo through modulation of TPP transport in cells.

Genome-Wide Association Study for Alcohol-Related Cirrhosis Identifies Risk Loci in MARC1 and HNRNPUL1.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Little is known about genetic factors that affect development of alcohol-related cirrhosis. We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of samples from the United Kingdom Biobank (UKB) to identify polymorphisms associated with risk of alcohol-related liver disease. METHODS: We performed a GWAS of 35,839 participants in the UKB with high intake of alcohol against markers of hepatic fibrosis (FIB-4, APRI, and Forns index scores) and hepatocellular injury (levels of aminotransferases). Loci identified in the discovery analysis were tested for their association with alcohol-related cirrhosis in 3 separate European cohorts (phase 1 validation cohort; n=2545). Variants associated with alcohol-related cirrhosis in the validation at a false discovery rate of less than 20% were then directly genotyped in 2 additional European validation cohorts (phase 2 validation, n=2068). RESULTS: In the GWAS of the discovery cohort, we identified 50 independent risk loci with genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10-8). Nine of these loci were significantly associated with alcohol-related cirrhosis in the phase 1 validation cohort; 6 of these 9 loci were significantly associated with alcohol-related cirrhosis in phase 2 validation cohort, at a false discovery rate below 5%. The loci included variants in the mitochondrial amidoxime reducing component 1 gene (MARC1) and the heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein U like 1 gene (HNRNPUL1). After we adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and type-2 diabetes in the phase 2 validation cohort, the minor A allele of MARC1:rs2642438 was associated with reduced risk of alcohol-related cirrhosis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.76; P=.0027); conversely, the minor C allele of HNRNPUL1:rs15052 was associated with an increased risk of alcohol-related cirrhosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; P=.020). CONCLUSIONS: In a GWAS of samples from the UKB, we identified and validated (in 5 European cohorts) single-nucleotide polymorphisms that affect risk of alcohol-related cirrhosis in opposite directions: the minor A allele in MARC1:rs2642438 decreases risk, whereas the minor C allele in HNRNPUL1:rs15052 increases risk.

Genetic Variation in HSD17B13 Reduces the Risk of Developing Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Alcohol Misusers.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Carriage of rs738409:G in patatin-like phospholipase domain containing 3 (PNPLA3) is associated with an increased risk for developing alcohol-related cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recently, rs72613567:TA in hydroxysteroid 17-beta dehydrogenase 13 (HSD17B13) was shown to be associated with a reduced risk for developing alcohol-related liver disease and to attenuate the risk associated with carriage of PNPLA3 rs738409:G. This study explores the risk associations between these two genetic variants and the development of alcohol-related cirrhosis and HCC. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Variants in HSD17B13 and PNPLA3 were genotyped in 6,171 participants, including 1,031 with alcohol-related cirrhosis and HCC, 1,653 with alcohol-related cirrhosis without HCC, 2,588 alcohol misusers with no liver disease, and 899 healthy controls. Genetic associations with the risks for developing alcohol-related cirrhosis and HCC were determined using logistic regression analysis. Carriage of HSD17B13 rs72613567:TA was associated with a lower risk for developing both cirrhosis (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.88; P = 8.13 × 10-6 ) and HCC (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89; P = 2.27 × 10-4 ), whereas carriage of PNPLA3 rs738409:G was associated with an increased risk for developing cirrhosis (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.54-1.88; P = 1.52 × 10-26 ) and HCC (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.58-1.98; P = 2.31 × 10-23 ). These associations remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, type 2 diabetes, and country. Carriage of HSD17B13 rs72613567:TA attenuated the risk for developing cirrhosis associated with PNPLA3 rs738409:G in both men and women, but the protective effect against the subsequent development of HCC was only observed in men (ORallelic , 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87; P = 1.72 × 10-4 ). CONCLUSIONS: Carriage of variants in PNPLA3 and HSD17B13 differentially affect the risk for developing advanced alcohol-related liver disease. A genotypic/phenotypic risk score might facilitate earlier diagnosis of HCC in this population.

Pharmacotherapies that specifically target ammonia for the prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in adults with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis, with high related morbidity and mortality. Its presence is associated with a wide spectrum of change ranging from clinically obvious neuropsychiatric features, known as 'overt' hepatic encephalopathy, to abnormalities manifest only on psychometric or electrophysiological testing, 'minimal' hepatic encephalopathy. The exact pathogenesis of the syndrome is unknown but ammonia plays a key role. Drugs that specifically target ammonia include sodium benzoate, glycerol phenylbutyrate, ornithine phenylacetate, AST-120 (spherical carbon adsorbent), and polyethylene glycol. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacotherapies that specifically target ammonia versus placebo, no intervention, or other active interventions, for the prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to March 2019. We also searched online trials registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, and the Food and Drug Administration for ongoing or unpublished trials. In addition, we searched conference proceedings, checked bibliographies, and corresponded with investigators. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing sodium benzoate, glycerol phenylbutyrate, ornithine phenylacetate, AST-120, and polyethylene glycol versus placebo or non-absorbable disaccharides, irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status. We included participants with minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy or participants who were at risk of developing hepatic encephalopathy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included reports. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 statistic values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 randomised clinical trials that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Two trials evaluated the prevention of hepatic encephalopathy while nine evaluated the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. The trials assessed sodium benzoate (three trials), glycerol phenylbutyrate (one trial), ornithine phenylacetate (two trials), AST-120 (two trials), and polyethylene glycol (three trials). Overall, 499 participants received these pharmacotherapies while 444 participants received a placebo preparation or a non-absorbable disaccharide. We classified eight of the 11 trials as at 'high risk of bias' and downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low for all outcomes.Eleven trials, involving 943 participants, reported mortality data, although there were no events in five trials. Our analyses found no beneficial or harmful effects of sodium benzoate versus non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.28; 101 participants; 2 trials; I2 = 0%), glycerol phenylbutyrate versus placebo (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.81; 178 participants; 1 trial), ornithine phenylacetate versus placebo (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.51; 269 participants; 2 trials; I2 = 0%), AST-120 versus lactulose (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.85; 41 participants; 1 trial), or polyethylene glycol versus lactulose (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.64; 190 participants; 3 trials; I2 = 0%).Seven trials involving 521 participants reported data on hepatic encephalopathy. Our analyses showed a beneficial effect of glycerol phenylbutyrate versus placebo (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.90; 178 participants; 1 trial; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6), and of polyethylene glycol versus lactulose (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.44; 190 participants; 3 trials; NNTB 4). We did not observe beneficial effects in the remaining three trials with extractable data: sodium benzoate versus non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.93; 74 participants; 1 trial); ornithine phenylacetate versus placebo (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.12 to 62.70; 38 participants; 1 trial); or AST-120 versus lactulose (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.85; 41 participants; 1 trial).Ten trials, involving 790 participants, reported a total of 130 serious adverse events. Our analyses found no evidence of beneficial or harmful effects of sodium benzoate versus non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.68; 101 participants; 2 trials), glycerol phenylbutyrate versus placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.13; 178 participants; 1 trial), ornithine phenylacetate versus placebo (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; 264 participants; 2 trials; I2 = 0%), or polyethylene glycol versus lactulose (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.82; 190 participants; 3 trials; I2 = 0%). Likewise, eight trials, involving 782 participants, reported a total of 374 non-serious adverse events and again our analyses found no beneficial or harmful effects of the pharmacotherapies under review when compared to placebo or to lactulose/lactitol.Nine trials, involving 733 participants, reported data on blood ammonia. We observed significant reductions in blood ammonia in placebo-controlled trials evaluating sodium benzoate (MD -32.00, 95% CI -46.85 to -17.15; 16 participants; 1 trial), glycerol phenylbutyrate (MD -12.00, 95% CI -23.37 to -0.63; 178 participants; 1 trial), ornithine phenylacetate (MD -27.10, 95% CI -48.55 to -5.65; 231 participants; 1 trial), and AST-120 (MD -22.00, 95% CI -26.75 to -17.25; 98 participants; 1 trial). However, there were no significant differences in blood ammonia concentrations in comparison with lactulose/lactitol with sodium benzoate (MD 9.00, 95% CI -1.10 to 19.11; 85 participants; 2 trials; I2 = 0%), AST-120 (MD 5.20, 95% CI -2.75 to 13.15; 35 participants; 1 trial), and polyethylene glycol (MD -29.28, 95% CI -95.96 to 37.39; 90 participants; 2 trials; I2 = 88%). FUNDING: Five trials received support from pharmaceutical companies while four did not; two did not provide this information. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of these pharmacotherapies on the prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in adults with cirrhosis. They have the potential to reduce blood ammonia concentrations when compared to placebo, but their overall effects on clinical outcomes of interest and the potential harms associated with their use remain uncertain. Further evidence is needed to evaluate the potential beneficial and harmful effects of these pharmacotherapies in this clinical setting.

Band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices.

BACKGROUND: The presence of oesophageal varices is associated with the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic variceal ligation is used to prevent this occurrence but the ligation procedure may be associated with complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices. SEARCH METHODS: We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 9 February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing band ligation verus no intervention regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. Included participants had cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no previous history of variceal bleeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors extracted data independently. The primary outcome measures were all-cause mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. In addition, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTTB) for the primary outcomes . We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains; determined the certainty of the evidence using GRADE; and conducted sensitivity analyses including Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Six randomised clinical trials involving 637 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One of the trials included an additional small number of participants (< 10% of the total) with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension/portal vein block. We classified one trial as at low risk of bias for the outcome, mortality and high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes; the five remaining trials were at high risk of bias for all outcomes. We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty due to the bias risk. We gathered data on all primary outcomes from all trials. Seventy-one of 320 participants allocated to band ligation compared to 129 of 317 participants allocated to no intervention died (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; I2 = 0%; NNTTB = 6 persons). In addition, band ligation was associated with reduced risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; 6 trials, 637 participants; I2 = 61%; NNTTB = 5 persons), serious adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; 6 trials, 637 participants; I2 = 44%; NNTTB = 4 persons), and variceal bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 56%; NNTTB = 5 persons). The non-serious adverse events reported in association with band ligation included oesophageal ulceration, dysphagia, odynophagia, retrosternal and throat pain, heartburn, and fever, and in the one trial involving participants with either small or large varices, the incidence of non-serious side effects in the banding group was much higher in those with small varices, namely ulcers: small versus large varices 30.5% versus 8.7%; heartburn 39.2% versus 17.4%. No trials reported on health-related quality of life.Two trials did not receive support from pharmaceutical companies; the remaining four trials did not provide information on this issue. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found moderate-certainty evidence that, in patients with cirrhosis, band ligation of oesophageal varices reduces mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, and serious adverse events compared to no intervention. It is unlikely that further trials of band ligation versus no intervention would be considered ethical.

Genetic variants in PNPLA3 and TM6SF2 predispose to the development of hepatocellular carcinoma in individuals with alcohol-related cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVES: Variants in patatin-like phospholipase domain-containing 3 (PNPLA3; rs738409), transmembrane 6 superfamily member 2 (TM6SF2; rs58542926), and membrane bound O-acyltransferase domain containing 7 (MBOAT7; rs641738) are risk factors for the development of alcohol-related cirrhosis. Within this population, PNPLA3 rs738409 is also an established risk factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to explore possible risk associations of TM6SF2 rs58542926 and MBOAT7 rs641738 with HCC. METHODS: Risk variants in PNPLA3, TM6SF2, and MBOAT7 were genotyped in 751 cases with alcohol-related cirrhosis and HCC and in 1165 controls with alcohol-related cirrhosis without HCC. Association with the risk of developing HCC was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The development of HCC was independently associated with PNPLA3 rs738409 (ORadjusted 1.84 [95% CI 1.55-2.18], p = 1.85 × 10-12) and TM6SF2 rs58542926 (ORadjusted 1.66 [1.30-2.13], p = 5.13 × 10-05), using an additive model, and controlling the sex, age, body mass index, and type 2 diabetes mellitus; the risk associated with carriage of MBOAT7 rs641738 (ORadjusted 1.04 [0.88-1.24], p = 0.61) was not significant. The population-attributable fractions were 43.5% for PNPLA3 rs738409, 11.5% for TM6SF2 rs58542926, and 49.9% for the carriage of both the variants combined. CONCLUSIONS: Carriage of TM6SF2 rs58542926 is an additional risk factor for the development of HCC in people with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Carriage of both PNPLA3 rs738409 and TM6SF2 rs58542926 accounts for half of the attributable risk for HCC in this population. Genotyping will allow for more precise HCC risk-stratification of patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis, and genotype-guided screening algorithms would optimize patient care.

Correction: Genetic Variants in PNPLA3 and TM6SF2 Predispose to the Development of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Individuals With Alcohol-Related Cirrhosis.

Author Pierre Deltenre, MD should appear in the author list in position 25, between Felix Braun and Thomas Berg. He should also have a PhD degree added to his name.

L-ornithine L-aspartate for prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis and has high associated morbidity and mortality. The condition is classified as overt if it is clinically apparent or minimal if only evident though psychometric testing. The exact pathogenesis of this syndrome is unknown although ammonia is thought to play a key role. L-ornithine L-aspartate has ammonia-lowering properties and may, therefore, benefit people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo, no intervention, or other active interventions in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2017 and manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and corresponded with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. We included participants with cirrhosis who had minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy or who were at risk for developing hepatic encephalopathy. We compared: L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo or no intervention; and L-ornithine L-aspartate versus other active agents such as non-absorbable disaccharides, antibiotics, probiotics, or branched-chain amino acids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented the results as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; we evaluated the risk of publication bias and other small trial effects in regression analyses; conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses; and performed Trial Sequential Analyses. We determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 36 randomised clinical trials, involving at least 2377 registered participants, which fulfilled our inclusion criteria including 10 unpublished randomised clinical trials. However, we were only able to access outcome data from 29 trials involving 1891 participants. Five of the included trials assessed prevention, while 31 trials assessed treatment. Five trials were at low risk of bias in the overall assessment of mortality; one trial was at low risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes.L-ornithine L-aspartate had a beneficial effect on mortality compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.72; I2 = 0%; 19 trials; 1489 participants; very low quality evidence), but not when the analysis was restricted to the trials at low risk of bias (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.58; 4 trials; 244 participants). It had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; 22 trials; 1375 participants; I2 = 62%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 63 participants). The analysis of serious adverse events showed a potential benefit of L-ornithine L-aspartate when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; 1 trial; 1489 participants; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias for this outcome (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.65; 63 participants). The Trial Sequential Analyses of mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events found insufficient evidence to support or refute beneficial effects. Subgroup analyses showed no difference in outcomes in the trials evaluating evaluating the prevention or treatment of either overt or minimal hepatic encephalopathy or trials evaluating oral versus intravenous administration We were unable to undertake a meta-analysis of the three trials involving 288 participants evaluating health-related quality of life. Overall, we found no difference between L-ornithine L-aspartate and placebo or no intervention in non-serious adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; 14 trials; 1076 participants; I2 = 40%). In comparison with lactulose, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.17; 4 trials; 175 participants; I2 = 0%); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.57); serious adverse events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11); or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.18). In comparison with probiotics, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.51); serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.88); or changes in blood ammonia concentrations from baseline (RR -2.30 95% CI -6.08 to 1.48), but it had a possible beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90). Finally, in comparison with rifaximin, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.03; 2 trials; 105 participants); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.96); serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42), or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review suggest a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events in comparisons with placebo or no-intervention, but, because the quality of the evidence is very low, we are very uncertain about these findings. There was very low quality evidence of a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on hepatic encephalopathy, when compared with probiotics, but no other benefits were demonstrated in comparison with other active agents. Additional access to data from completed, but unpublished trials, and new randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials are needed.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

BACKGROUND: Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices. SEARCH METHODS: We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

The genetics of alcohol dependence and alcohol-related liver disease.

The susceptibility to developing alcohol dependence and significant alcohol-related liver injury is determined by a number of constitutional, environmental and genetic factors, although the nature and level of interplay between them remains unclear. The familiality and heritability of alcohol dependence is well-documented but, to date, no strong candidate genes conferring increased risk have emerged, although variants in alcohol dehydrogenase and acetaldehyde dehydrogenase have been shown to confer protection, predominantly in individuals of East Asian ancestry. Population contamination with confounders such as drug co-dependence and psychiatric and physical co-morbidity may explain the essentially negative genome-wide association studies in this disorder. The familiality and hereditability of alcohol-related cirrhosis is not as well-documented but three strong candidate genes PNPLA3, TM6SF2 and MBOAT7, have been identified. The mechanisms by which variants in these genes confer risk and the nature of the functional interplay between them remains to be determined but, when elucidated, will undoubtedly increase our understanding of the pathophysiology of this disease. The way in which this genetic information could potentially inform patient management has yet to be determined and tested.

Homozygosity for rs738409:G in PNPLA3 is associated with increased mortality following an episode of severe alcoholic hepatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Carriage of rs738409:G in PNPLA3 is associated with an increased risk of developing alcohol-related cirrhosis and has a significant negative effect on survival. Short-term mortality in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis is high; drinking behaviour is a major determinant of outcome in survivors. The aim of this study was to determine whether carriage of rs738409:G has an additional detrimental effect on survival in this patient group. METHODS: Genotyping was undertaken in 898 cases with severe alcoholic hepatitis, recruited through the UK Steroids or Pentoxifylline for Alcoholic Hepatitis (STOPAH) trial, and 1188 White British/Irish alcohol dependent controls with no liver injury, recruited via University College London. Subsequent drinking behaviour was classified, in cases surviving ≥90days, as abstinent or drinking. The relationship between rs738409 genotype, drinking behaviour and survival was explored. RESULTS: The frequency of rs738409:G was significantly higher in cases than controls (29.5% vs. 18.9%; p=2.15×10-15; odds ratio 1.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.55-2.08]). Case-mortality at days 28, 90 and 450 was 16%, 25% and 41% respectively. There was no association between rs738409:G and 28-day mortality. Mortality in the 90 to 450-day period was higher in survivors who subsequently resumed drinking (hazard ratio [HR] 2.77, 95% CI 1.79-4.29; p<0.0001) and in individuals homozygous for rs738409:G (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.02-2.81, p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Homozygosity for rs738409:G in PNPLA3 confers significant additional risk of medium-term mortality in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. Rs738409 genotype may be taken into account when considering treatment options for these patients. LAY SUMMARY: Individuals misusing alcohol who carry a particular variant of the gene PNPLA3 are more at risk of developing severe alcoholic hepatitis, a condition with a poor chance of survival. The longer-term outcome in people with this condition who survive the initial illness is strongly influenced by their ability to remain abstinent from alcohol. However, carriers of this gene variant are less likely to survive even if they are able to stop drinking completely. Knowing if someone carries this gene variant could influence the way in which they are managed. Clinical trial numbers: EudraCT reference number: 2009-013897-42; ISRCTN reference number: ISRCTN88782125. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS: EudraCT reference number: 2009-013897-42; ISRCTN reference number: ISRCTN88782125.

Nonabsorbable disaccharides for hepatic encephalopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: Nonabsorbable disaccharides (NADs) have been used to treat hepatic encephalopathy (HE) since 1966. However, a Cochrane Review, published in 2004, found insufficient evidence to recommend their use in this context. This updated systematic review evaluates the effects of the NADs, lactulose and lactitol, for the treatment and prevention of HE in patients with cirrhosis. Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials, involving 1,828 patients, were identified through electronic and manual searches; 31 randomized controlled trials looked at the treatment of HE, while seven looked at its primary/secondary prevention. Random-effects meta-analyses showed that, compared to placebo/no intervention, NADs had a beneficial effect on HE (relative risk [RR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.74, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4) and serious liver-related adverse events such as liver failure, variceal bleeding, serious infections, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and hepatorenal syndrome (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.26-0.69, NNT = 50). Treatment was also associated with a reduction in mortality in patients with overt HE (RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.94, NNT = 20), although not in patients with minimal HE. Meta-analyses of the prevention randomized controlled trials showed that NADs prevented the development of HE (RR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.68, NNT = 6), the risk of developing serious liver-related adverse events (RR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.70, NNT = 6), and reduced mortality (RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98, NNT = 20). Use of NADs was associated with nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events. There were no differences in the efficacy or safety of lactulose and lactitol. CONCLUSIONS: NADs have beneficial effects in the treatment and prevention of HE; their use, in this context, confers additional benefits including a reduction in serious liver-related morbidities and all-cause mortality. (Hepatology 2016;64:908-922).

Flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis which results in poor brain functioning. The spectrum of changes associated with hepatic encephalopathy ranges from the clinically 'indiscernible' or minimal hepatic encephalopathy to the clinically 'obvious' or overt hepatic encephalopathy. Flumazenil is a synthetic benzodiazepine antagonist with high affinity for the central benzodiazepine recognition site. Flumazenil may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy through an indirect negative allosteric modulatory effect on gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor function. The previous version of this review, which included 13 randomised clinical trials, found no effect of flumazenil on all-cause mortality, based on an analysis of 10 randomised clinical trials, but found a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy, based on an analysis of eight randomised clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and LILACS; meeting and conference proceedings; and bibliographies in May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE; evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses; and conducted trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 eligible randomised clinical trials with 867 participants, the majority of whom had an acute episode of overt hepatic encephalopathy. In addition, we identified one ongoing randomised clinical trial. We were unable to gather outcome data from two randomised clinical trials with 25 participants. Thus, our analyses include 842 participants from 12 randomised clinical trials comparing flumazenil versus placebo. We classified one randomised clinical trial at low risk of bias in the overall assessment and the remaining randomised clinical trials at high risk of bias. The duration of follow-up ranged from a few minutes to two weeks, but it was less than one day in the majority of the trials.In total, 32/433 (7.4%) participants allocated to flumazenil versus 38/409 (9.3%) participants allocated to placebo died (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; 11 randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis and the one randomised clinical trial assessed as low risk of bias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.53) found no beneficial or harmful effects of flumazenil on all-cause mortality. The methods used to evaluate hepatic encephalopathy included several different clinical scales, electrophysiological variables, and psychometric tests. Flumazenil was associated with a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.80; 824 participants; nine randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence), or just the trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.84; 527 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis supported a beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy. The randomised clinical trials included little information about causes of death and little information on non-fatal serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality evidence suggesting a short-term beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis, but no evidence of an effect on all-cause mortality. Additional evidence from large, high quality randomised clinical trials is needed to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of flumazenil in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

Flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis which results in poor brain functioning. The spectrum of changes associated with hepatic encephalopathy ranges from the clinically 'indiscernible' or minimal hepatic encephalopathy to the clinically 'obvious' or overt hepatic encephalopathy. Flumazenil is a synthetic benzodiazepine antagonist with high affinity for the central benzodiazepine recognition site. Flumazenil may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy through an indirect negative allosteric modulatory effect on gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor function. The previous version of this review, which included 13 randomised clinical trials, found no effect of flumazenil on all-cause mortality, based on an analysis of 10 randomised clinical trials, but found a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy, based on an analysis of eight randomised clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and LILACS; meeting and conference proceedings; and bibliographies in May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE; evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses; and conducted trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 eligible randomised clinical trials with 867 participants, the majority of whom had an acute episode of overt hepatic encephalopathy. In addition, we identified one ongoing randomised clinical trial. We were unable to gather outcome data from 2 randomised clinical trials with 25 participants. Thus, our analyses include 842 participants from 12 randomised clinical trials comparing flumazenil versus placebo. We classified one randomised clinical trial at low risk of bias in the overall assessment and the remaining randomised clinical trials at high risk of bias. The duration of follow-up ranged from a few minutes to two weeks, but it was less than one day in the majority of the trials.In total, 32/433 (7.4%) participants allocated to flumazenil versus 38/409 (9.3%) participants allocated to placebo died (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; 11 randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis and the one randomised clinical trial assessed as low risk of bias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.53) found no beneficial or harmful effects of flumazenil on all-cause mortality. The methods used to evaluate hepatic encephalopathy included several different clinical scales, electrophysiological variables, and psychometric tests. Flumazenil was associated with a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.80; 824 participants; 9 randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence), or just the trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.84; 527 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis supported a beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy. The randomised clinical trials included little information about causes of death and little information on non-fatal serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality evidence suggesting a short-term beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis, but no evidence of an effect on all-cause mortality. Additional evidence from large, high quality randomised clinical trials is needed to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of flumazenil in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

A longitudinal study of patients with cirrhosis treated with L-ornithine L-aspartate, examined with magnetization transfer, diffusion-weighted imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

The presence of overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is associated with structural, metabolic and functional changes in the brain discernible by use of a variety of magnetic resonance (MR) techniques. The changes in patients with minimal HE are less well documented. Twenty-two patients with well-compensated cirrhosis, seven of whom had minimal HE, were examined with cerebral 3 Tesla MR techniques, including T1- and T2-weighted, magnetization transfer and diffusion-weighted imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy sequences. Studies were repeated after a 4-week course of oral L-ornithine L-aspartate (LOLA). Results were compared with data obtained from 22 aged-matched healthy controls. There was no difference in mean total brain volume between patients and controls at baseline. Mean cerebral magnetization transfer ratios were significantly reduced in the globus pallidus and thalamus in the patients with cirrhosis irrespective of neuropsychiatric status; the mean ratio was significantly reduced in the frontal white matter in patients with minimal HE compared with healthy controls but not when compared with their unimpaired counterparts. There were no significant differences in either the median apparent diffusion coefficients or the mean fractional anisotropy, calculated from the diffusion-weighted imaging, or in the mean basal ganglia metabolite ratios between patients and controls. Psychometric performance improved in 50 % of patients with minimal HE following LOLA, but no significant changes were observed in brain volumes, cerebral magnetization transfer ratios, the diffusion weighted imaging variables or the cerebral metabolite ratios. MR variables, as applied in this study, do not identify patients with minimal HE, nor do they reflect changes in psychometric performance following LOLA.

Non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and lactulose versus lactitol for the prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Non-absorbable disaccharides (lactulose and lactitol) are recommended as first-line treatment for hepatic encephalopathy. The previous (second) version of this review included 10 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and eight RCTs evaluating lactulose versus lactitol for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. The review found no evidence to either support or refute the use of the non-absorbable disaccharides and no differences between lactulose versus lactitol. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of i) non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and ii) lactulose versus lactitol in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We carried out electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to 19 October 2015; manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We presented the results of meta-analyses as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) and bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. Our analyses included regression analyses of publication bias and other small study effects, Trial Sequential Analyses to detect type 1 and type 2 errors, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 RCTs with a total of 1828 participants. Eight RCTs had a low risk of bias in the assessment of mortality. All trials had a high risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a beneficial effect of non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention on mortality when including all RCTs with extractable data (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.87; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence) and in the eight RCTs with a low risk of bias (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; 705 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis with the relative risk reduction (RRR) reduced to 30% confirmed the findings when including all RCTs, but not when including only RCTs with a low risk of bias or when we reduced the RRR to 22%. Compared with placebo/no intervention, the non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with beneficial effects on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.69; 1415 participants; 22 RCTs; I(2) = 32%; moderate quality evidence). Additional analyses showed that non-absorbable disaccharides can help to reduce serious adverse events associated with the underlying liver disease including liver failure, hepatorenal syndrome, and variceal bleeding (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.60; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We confirmed the results in Trial Sequential Analysis. Tests for subgroup differences showed no statistical differences between RCTs evaluating prevention, overt, or minimal hepatic encephalopathy. The evaluation of secondary outcomes showed a potential beneficial effect of the non-absorbable disaccharides on quality of life, but we were not able to include the data in an overall meta-analysis (very low quality evidence). Non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with non-serious (mainly gastrointestinal) adverse events (very low quality evidence). None of the RCTs comparing lactulose versus lactitol evaluated quality of life. The review found no differences between lactulose and lactitol for the remaining outcomes (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review includes a large number of RCTs evaluating the prevention or treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. The analyses found evidence that non-absorbable disaccharides may be associated with a beneficial effect on clinically relevant outcomes compared with placebo/no intervention.

Non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and lactulose versus lactitol for the prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Non-absorbable disaccharides (lactulose and lactitol) are recommended as first-line treatment for hepatic encephalopathy. The previous (second) version of this review included 10 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and eight RCTs evaluating lactulose versus lactitol for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. The review found no evidence to either support or refute the use of the non-absorbable disaccharides and no differences between lactulose versus lactitol. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of i) non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and ii) lactulose versus lactitol in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We carried out electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to 19 October 2015; manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We presented the results of meta-analyses as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) and bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. Our analyses included regression analyses of publication bias and other small study effects, Trial Sequential Analyses to detect type 1 and type 2 errors, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 RCTs with a total of 1828 participants. Eight RCTs had a low risk of bias in the assessment of mortality. All trials had a high risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a beneficial effect of non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention on mortality when including all RCTs with extractable data (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.87; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence) and in the eight RCTs with a low risk of bias (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; 705 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis with the relative risk reduction (RRR) reduced to 30% confirmed the findings when including all RCTs, but not when including only RCTs with a low risk of bias or when we reduced the RRR to 22%. Compared with placebo/no intervention, the non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with beneficial effects on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.69; 1415 participants; 22 RCTs; I(2) = 32%; moderate quality evidence). Additional analyses showed that non-absorbable disaccharides can help to reduce serious adverse events associated with the underlying liver disease including liver failure, hepatorenal syndrome, and variceal bleeding (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.60; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We confirmed the results in Trial Sequential Analysis. Tests for subgroup differences showed no statistical differences between RCTs evaluating prevention, overt, or minimal hepatic encephalopathy. The evaluation of secondary outcomes showed a potential beneficial effect of the non-absorbable disaccharides on quality of life, but we were not able to include the data in an overall meta-analysis (very low quality evidence). Non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with non-serious (mainly gastrointestinal) adverse events (very low quality evidence). None of the RCTs comparing lactulose versus lactitol evaluated quality of life. The review found no differences between lactulose and lactitol for the remaining outcomes (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review includes a large number of RCTs evaluating the prevention or treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. The analyses found evidence that non-absorbable disaccharides may be associated with a beneficial effect on clinically relevant outcomes compared with placebo/no intervention.