Vitamin D supplementation for chronic liver diseases in adults.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is often reported in people with chronic liver diseases. Improving vitamin D status could therefore be beneficial for people with chronic liver diseases. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation in adults with chronic liver diseases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov  and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and enquired experts and pharmaceutical companies as to additional trials. All searches were up to November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults with chronic liver diseases. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcidiol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 randomised clinical trials with 1979 adult participants. This review update added 12 trials with 945 participants. We assessed all trials as at high risk of bias. All trials had a parallel-group design. Eleven trials were conducted in high-income countries and 16 trials in middle-income countries. Ten trials included participants with chronic hepatitis C, five trials participants with liver cirrhosis, 11 trials participants with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and one trial liver transplant recipients. All of the included trials reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants. Participants in nine trials had baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at or above vitamin D adequacy (20 ng/mL), whilst participants in the remaining 18 trials were vitamin D insufficient (less than 20 ng/mL). Twenty-four trials administered vitamin D orally, two trials intramuscularly, and one trial intramuscularly and orally. In all 27 trials, the mean duration of vitamin D supplementation was 6 months, and the mean follow-up of participants from randomisation was 7 months. Twenty trials (1592 participants; 44% women; mean age 48 years) tested vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol); three trials (156 participants; 28% women; mean age 54 years) tested vitamin D2; four trials (291 participants; 60% women; mean age 52 years) tested 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D; and one trial (18 participants; 0% women; mean age 52 years) tested 25-hydroxyvitamin D. One trial did not report the form of vitamin D. Twelve trials used a placebo, whilst the other 15 trials used no intervention in the control group. Fourteen trials appeared to be free of vested interest. Eleven trials did not provide any information on clinical trial support or sponsorship. Two trials were funded by industry. We are very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.45; 27 trials; 1979 participants). The mean follow-up was 7 months (range 1 to 18 months). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on liver-related mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.66; 1 trial; 18 participants) (follow-up: 12 months); serious adverse events such as hypercalcaemia (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.8; 1 trial; 76 participants); myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.08 to 6.81; 2 trials; 86 participants); thyroiditis (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.91; 1 trial; 68 participants); circular haemorrhoidal prolapse (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.9; 1 trial; 20 participants); bronchopneumonia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; 1 trial 20 participants); and non-serious adverse events. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes is very low. We found no data on liver-related morbidity such as gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, ascites, or liver cancer. There were also no data on health-related quality of life. The evidence is also very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on rapid, early, and sustained virological response in people with chronic hepatitis C. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the high risk of bias and insufficient power of the included trials and the very low certainty of the available evidence, vitamin D supplementation versus placebo or no intervention may increase or reduce all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, serious adverse events, or non-serious adverse events in adults with chronic liver diseases. There is a lack of data on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life. Further evidence on clinically important outcomes analysed in this review is needed.

Plasma expanders for people with cirrhosis and large ascites treated with abdominal paracentesis.

BACKGROUND: Plasma volume expanders are used in connection to paracentesis in people with cirrhosis to prevent reduction of effective plasma volume, which may trigger deleterious effect on haemodynamic balance, and increase morbidity and mortality. Albumin is considered the standard product against which no plasma expansion or other plasma expanders, e.g. other colloids (polygeline , dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol have been compared. However, the benefits and harms of these plasma expanders are not fully clear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of any plasma volume expanders such as albumin, other colloids (polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus no plasma volume expander or versus another plasma volume expander for paracentesis in people with cirrhosis and large ascites. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index until January 2019. Furthermore, we searched FDA, EMA, WHO (last search January 2019), www.clinicaltrials.gov/, and www.controlled-trials.com/ for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials, no matter their design or year of publication, publication status, and language, assessing the use of any type of plasma expander versus placebo, no intervention, or a different plasma expander in connection with paracentesis for ascites in people with cirrhosis. We considered quasi-randomised, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials only, for reports on harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) using the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model meta-analyses, based on the intention-to-treat principle, whenever possible. If the fixed-effect and random-effects models showed different results, then we made our conclusions based on the analysis with the highest P value (the more conservative result). We assessed risks of bias of the individual trials using predefined bias risk domains. We assessed the certainty of the evidence at an outcome level, using GRADE, and constructed 'Summary of Findings' tables for seven of our review outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 randomised clinical trials for inclusion in this review (24 published as full-text articles and 3 as abstracts). Five of the trials, with 271 participants, assessed plasma expanders (albumin in four trials and ascitic fluid in one trial) versus no plasma expander. The remaining 22 trials, with 1321 participants, assessed one type of plasma expander, i.e. dextran, hydroxyethyl starch, polygeline, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus another type of plasma expander, i.e. albumin in 20 of these trials and polygeline in one trial. Twenty-five trials provided data for quantitative meta-analysis. According to the Child-Pugh classification, most participants were at an intermediate to advanced stage of liver disease in the absence of hepatocellular carcinoma, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, infections, and hepatic encephalopathy. All trials were assessed as at overall high risk of bias. Ten trials seemed not to have been funded by industry; twelve trials were considered unclear about funding; and five trials were considered funded by industry or a for-profit institution.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion on mortality (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.83; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.02 to 5.88; 181 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.27; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.40; 158 participants; 3 trials; very low certainty). Two of the trials stated that no serious adverse events occurred while the remaining trials did not report on this outcome. No trial reported data on health-related quality of life.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between experimental plasma expanders versus albumin on mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; 1014 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty); serious adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.10 to 8.30; 118 participants; 2 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.91; 1107 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 1083 participants; 16 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.85; 977 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty). We found no data on heath-related quality of life and refractory ascites. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis did not find any benefits or harms of plasma expanders versus no plasma expander or of one plasma expander such as polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus albumin on primary or secondary outcomes. The data originated from few, small, mostly short-term trials at high risks of systematic errors (bias) and high risks of random errors (play of chance). GRADE assessments concluded that the evidence was of very low certainty. Therefore, we can neither demonstrate or discard any benefit of plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion, and differences between one plasma expander versus another plasma expander.Larger trials at low risks of bias are needed to assess the role of plasma expanders in connection with paracentesis. Such trials should be conducted according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines.

Vitamin D supplementation for chronic liver diseases in adults.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is often reported in people with chronic liver diseases. Therefore, improving vitamin D status could have a beneficial effect on people with chronic liver diseases. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation in people with chronic liver diseases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We also searched databases of ongoing trials and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials. All searches were up to January 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults with chronic liver diseases. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcidiol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We contacted authors of the trials to ask for missing information. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs), and for continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and Trial Sequential Analyses-adjusted CIs. We calculated Peto odds ratio (OR) for rare events. We considered risk of bias in domains to assess the risk of systematic errors. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risk of random errors. We assessed the quality of the evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 randomised clinical trials with 1034 participants randomised. All trials had a parallel group design. Nine trials were conducted in high-income countries and six trials in middle-income countries. All trials were at high risk of bias. Six trials included participants with chronic hepatitis C, four trials included participants with liver cirrhosis, four trials included participants with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and one trial included liver transplant recipients. All included trials reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants. Participants in six trials had baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at or above vitamin D adequacy (20 ng/mL), while participants in the remaining nine trials were vitamin D insufficient (less than 20 ng/mL). All trials administered vitamin D orally. Mean duration of vitamin D supplementation was 0.5 years and follow-up was 0.6 years. Eleven trials (831 participants; 40% women; mean age 52 years) tested vitamin D3, one trial (18 men; mean age 61 years) with three intervention groups tested vitamin D2 and 25-dihydroxyvitamin D in separate groups, and three trials (185 participants; 55% women; mean age 55 years) tested 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D. Seven trials used placebo, and eight trials used no intervention in the control group.The effect of vitamin D on all-cause mortality at the end of follow-up is uncertain because the results were imprecise (Peto OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.38; I2 = 32%; 15 trials; 1034 participants; very low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis on all-cause mortality was performed based on a mortality rate in the control group of 10%, a relative risk reduction of 28% in the experimental intervention group, a type I error of 2.5%, and type II error of 10% (90% power). There was no diversity. The required information size was 6396 participants. The cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit or harm after the 15th trial, and the Trial Sequential Analyses-adjusted CI was 0.00 to 2534.The effect of vitamin D on liver-related mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.66; 1 trial; 18 participants) and on serious adverse events such as hypercalcaemia (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.8; 1 trial; 76 participants), myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.08 to 6.81; 2 trials; 86 participants), and thyroiditis (RR 0.33 95% CI 0.01 to 7.91; 1 trial; 68 participants) is uncertain because the results were imprecise. The evidence on all these outcomes is of very low quality. The effect of vitamin D3 on non-serious adverse events such as glossitis (RR 3.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 87.6; 1 trial; 65 participants; very low quality of evidence) is uncertain because the result was imprecise.Due to few data, we did not conduct Trial Sequential Analysis on liver-related mortality, and serious and non-serious adverse events.We found no data on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life in the randomised trials included in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain as to whether vitamin D supplements in the form of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, or 25-dihydroxyvitamin D have important effect on all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, or on serious or non-serious adverse events because the results were imprecise. There is no evidence on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life. Our conclusions are based on few trials with an insufficient number of participants and on lack of data on clinically important outcomes. In addition, the analysed trials are at high risk of bias with significant intertrial heterogeneity. The overall quality of evidence is very low.

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.

Predictors of Mortality in Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients with Terminal Alcoholic Cirrhosis: Is It Time to Accept Remodeled Scores?

OBJECTIVE: To identify the prognostic score that is the best predictor of outcome in patients hospitalized with decompensated liver cirrhosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 126 patients were enrolled and followed up for 29 months. For each patient, prognostic scores were calculated; these included the Child-Turcotte-Pugh score (CTP score), CTP creatinine-modified I score, CTP creatinine-modified II score, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD score), MELD model for end-stage liver disease sodium-modified score, Integrated MELD score, updated MELD score, United Kingdom MELD, and the MELD score remodeled by serum sodium index (MESO index). Cox regression analysis was used to assess the ability of each of the scores for predicting mortality in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis. Their discriminatory ability was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: The updated MELD score had the highest predictive value (3.29) among the tested scores (95% CI: 2.26-4.78). ROC curve analysis demonstrated that the MELD score of 22.50 (AUC = 0.914, 95% CI: 0.849-0.978; p < 0.001) had the best discriminative ability for identifying patients with a high risk of mortality; the next best was the MESO index of 16.00 (AUC = 0.912, 95% CI: 0.847-0.978; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The risk of mortality was highest in patients with the highest updated MELD score, and those with MELD scores >22.50 and a MESO index >16.00.

Antioxidant supplements and mortality.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Oxidative damage to cells and tissues is considered involved in the aging process and in the development of chronic diseases in humans, including cancer and cardiovascular diseases, the leading causes of death in high-income countries. This has stimulated interest in the preventive potential of antioxidant supplements. Today, more than one half of adults in high-income countries ingest antioxidant supplements hoping to improve their health, oppose unhealthy behaviors, and counteract the ravages of aging. RECENT FINDINGS: Older observational studies and some randomized clinical trials with high risks of systematic errors ('bias') have suggested that antioxidant supplements may improve health and prolong life. A number of randomized clinical trials with adequate methodologies observed neutral or negative results of antioxidant supplements. Recently completed large randomized clinical trials with low risks of bias and systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials taking systematic errors ('bias') and risks of random errors ('play of chance') into account have shown that antioxidant supplements do not seem to prevent cancer, cardiovascular diseases, or death. Even more, beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. Some recent large observational studies now support these findings. According to recent dietary guidelines, there is no evidence to support the use of antioxidant supplements in the primary prevention of chronic diseases or mortality. SUMMARY: Antioxidant supplements do not possess preventive effects and may be harmful with unwanted consequences to our health, especially in well-nourished populations. The optimal source of antioxidants seems to come from our diet, not from antioxidant supplements in pills or tablets.

Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on whether vitamin D supplementation is effective in decreasing cancers is contradictory. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to February 2014. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults who were healthy or were recruited among the general population, or diagnosed with a specific disease. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). We considered risk of bias in order to assess the risk of systematic errors. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess the risk of random errors. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen randomised trials with 50,623 participants provided data for the analyses. All trials came from high-income countries. Most of the trials had a high risk of bias, mainly for-profit bias. Most trials included elderly community-dwelling women (aged 47 to 97 years). Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of six years. Fourteen trials tested vitamin D3, one trial tested vitamin D2, and three trials tested calcitriol supplementation. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1927/25,275 (7.6%) recipients of vitamin D versus 1943/25,348 (7.7%) recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 18 trials; 50,623 participants; moderate quality evidence according to the GRADE instrument). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) of the 18 vitamin D trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. We did not observe substantial differences in the effect of vitamin D on cancer in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared to trials at high risk of bias; of trials with no risk of for-profit bias compared to trials with risk of for-profit bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared to trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D levels below 20 ng/mL at entry compared to trials including participants with vitamin D levels of 20 ng/mL or more at entry; or of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared to trials without calcium. Vitamin D decreased all-cause mortality (1854/24,846 (7.5%) versus 2007/25,020 (8.0%); RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98); P = 0.009; I² = 0%; 15 trials; 49,866 participants; moderate quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1918/24,908 (7.7%) recipients of vitamin D3 versus 1933/24,983 (7.7%) in recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 14 trials; 49,891 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA of the vitamin D3 trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. Vitamin D3 decreased cancer mortality (558/22,286 (2.5%) versus 634/22,206 (2.8%); RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 4 trials; 44,492 participants; low quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 3 trials; 42,753 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA, however, indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. We did not find any data on health-related quality of life or health economics in the randomised trials included in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no firm evidence that vitamin D supplementation decreases or increases cancer occurrence in predominantly elderly community-dwelling women. Vitamin D3 supplementation decreased cancer mortality and vitamin D supplementation decreased all-cause mortality, but these estimates are at risk of type I errors due to the fact that too few participants were examined, and to risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants. Combined vitamin D3 and calcium supplements increased nephrolithiasis, whereas it remains unclear from the included trials whether vitamin D3, calcium, or both were responsible for this effect. We need more trials on vitamin D supplementation, assessing the benefits and harms among younger participants, men, and people with low vitamin D status, and assessing longer duration of treatments as well as higher dosages of vitamin D. Follow-up of all participants is necessary to reduce attrition bias.

Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults.

BACKGROUND: Available evidence on the effects of vitamin D on mortality has been inconclusive. In a recent systematic review, we found evidence that vitamin D3 may decrease mortality in mostly elderly women. The present systematic review updates and reassesses the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation used in primary and secondary prophylaxis of mortality. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in healthy adults and adults in a stable phase of disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index-Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (all up to February 2012). We checked references of included trials and pharmaceutical companies for unidentified relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials that compared any type of vitamin D in any dose with any duration and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adult participants. Participants could have been recruited from the general population or from patients diagnosed with a disease in a stable phase. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)) or as an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol) or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six review authors extracted data independently. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). To account for trials with zero events, we performed meta-analyses of dichotomous data using risk differences (RDs) and empirical continuity corrections. We used published data and data obtained by contacting trial authors.To minimise the risk of systematic error, we assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Trial sequential analyses controlled the risk of random errors possibly caused by cumulative meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 159 randomised clinical trials. Ninety-four trials reported no mortality, and nine trials reported mortality but did not report in which intervention group the mortality occurred. Accordingly, 56 randomised trials with 95,286 participants provided usable data on mortality. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 107 years. Most trials included women older than 70 years. The mean proportion of women was 77%. Forty-eight of the trials randomly assigned 94,491 healthy participants. Of these, four trials included healthy volunteers, nine trials included postmenopausal women and 35 trials included older people living on their own or in institutional care. The remaining eight trials randomly assigned 795 participants with neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory or rheumatoid diseases. Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of 4.4 years. More than half of the trials had a low risk of bias. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Forty-five trials (80%) reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants based on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Participants in 19 trials had vitamin D adequacy (at or above 20 ng/mL). Participants in the remaining 26 trials had vitamin D insufficiency (less than 20 ng/mL).Vitamin D decreased mortality in all 56 trials analysed together (5,920/47,472 (12.5%) vs 6,077/47,814 (12.7%); RR 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.99); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%). More than 8% of participants dropped out. 'Worst-best case' and 'best-worst case' scenario analyses demonstrated that vitamin D could be associated with a dramatic increase or decrease in mortality. When different forms of vitamin D were assessed in separate analyses, only vitamin D3 decreased mortality (4,153/37,817 (11.0%) vs 4,340/38,110 (11.4%); RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98); P = 0.002; I(2) = 0%; 75,927 participants; 38 trials). Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol did not significantly affect mortality. A subgroup analysis of trials at high risk of bias suggested that vitamin D2 may even increase mortality, but this finding could be due to random errors. Trial sequential analysis supported our finding regarding vitamin D3, with the cumulative Z-score breaking the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, corresponding to 150 people treated over five years to prevent one additional death. We did not observe any statistically significant differences in the effect of vitamin D on mortality in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared with trials at high risk of bias; of trials using placebo compared with trials using no intervention in the control group; of trials with no risk of industry bias compared with trials with risk of industry bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared with trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D level below 20 ng/mL at entry compared with trials including participants with vitamin D levels equal to or greater than 20 ng/mL at entry; of trials including ambulatory participants compared with trials including institutionalised participants; of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared with trials without calcium; of trials using a dose below 800 IU per day compared with trials using doses above 800 IU per day; and of trials including only women compared with trials including both sexes or only men. Vitamin D3 statistically significantly decreased cancer mortality (RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 44,492 participants; 4 trials). Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased the risk of nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 42,876 participants; 4 trials). Alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased the risk of hypercalcaemia (RR 3.18 (95% CI 1.17 to 8.68); P = 0.02; I(2) = 17%; 710 participants; 3 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D3 seemed to decrease mortality in elderly people living independently or in institutional care. Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol had no statistically significant beneficial effects on mortality. Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis. Both alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased hypercalcaemia. Because of risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants and of outcome reporting bias due to a number of trials not reporting on mortality, as well as a number of other weaknesses in our evidence, further placebo-controlled randomised trials seem warranted.

Effects of primary or secondary prevention with vitamin A supplementation on clinically important outcomes: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised trials evaluated the preventive effects of vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention on clinically important outcomes, in people of any age. METHODS: We searched different electronic databases and other resources for randomised clinical trials that had compared vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention (last search 16 April 2024). We used Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs), with 95% CIs. We analysed individually and cluster randomised trials separately. Our primary outcomes were mortality, adverse events and quality of life. We assessed risks of bias in the trials and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 120 randomised trials (1 671 672 participants); 105 trials allocated individuals and 15 allocated clusters. 92 trials included children (78 individually; 14 cluster randomised) and 28 adults (27 individually; 1 cluster randomised). 14/105 individually randomised trials (13%) and none of the cluster randomised trials were at overall low risk of bias. Vitamin A did not reduce mortality in individually randomised trials (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I²=32%; p=0.19; 105 trials; moderate certainty), and this effect was not affected by the risk of bias. In individually randomised trials, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in children (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; I²=24%; p=0.28; 78 trials, 178 094 participants) nor in adults (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.13; I²=24%; p=0.27; 27 trials, 61 880 participants). Vitamin A reduced mortality in the cluster randomised trials (0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93; I²=66%; p=0.0008; 15 trials, 14 in children and 1 in adults; 364 343 participants; very low certainty). No trial reported serious adverse events or quality of life. Vitamin A slightly increased bulging fontanelle of neonates and infants. We are uncertain whether vitamin A influences blindness under the conditions examined. CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate certainty of evidence, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in the individually randomised trials. Very low certainty evidence obtained from cluster randomised trials suggested a beneficial effect of vitamin A on mortality. If preventive vitamin A programmes are to be continued, supporting evidence should come from randomised trials allocating individuals and assessing patient-meaningful outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104347.

The activities of acid DNase and 5'nucleotidase in erosive reflux esophagitis and Barrett's epithelium.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The study examines the relationship between activity of acid DNase and 5'nucleotidase (5'NT) and histological changes in reflux esophagitis. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-three patients were examined, 15 of whom with mild esophagitis, 12 with severe esophagitis and 6 with Barrett's epithelium. Patients were classified into 3 groups, according to Ismail-Beigi histological criteria: mild esophagitis group (ME); severe esophagitis group (SE); Barrett's esophagitis group (BE). DNase and 5'NT levels were measured biochemically both in healthy and injured tissue samples. RESULTS: Difference of acid DNase and 5'NT activity in healthy tissue versus injured tissue samples was the lowest in ME group: 0.55±4.47 U/g for acid DNase and 11.56±37.11 U/g for 5'NT, the difference increased to 4.43±1.64 U/g for acid DNase and 105.57±54.11 U/g for 5'NT in the SE group, while 6.07±2.92 U/g for acid DNase and 109.83±14.02 U/g for 5'NT as the highest levels were measured in the BE group. Difference in BE group is statistically significantly higher (p <0.05) compared to the ME group, confirmed by ANOVA with Dunnett's post hoc test. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows significant decrease of apotosis level that is detectable even before metaplasia was morphologically defined.

Diagnostic significance of nitrates and nitrites and L-arginine, in development of hepatorenal syndrome in patients with end stage alcoholic liver cirrhosis.

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) represents a complication of the end-stage liver cirrhosis. The aim of the present study was to analyze concentrations of nitrates and nitrites (NO2 + NO3) and L-arginine in patients with liver cirrhosis and HRS as a possible predictive marker for the development of HRS. The research was performed in a group of 28 patients with cirrhosis and HRS, a group of 22 patients suffering from cirrhosis without HRS and a control group comprised of 42 healthy voluntary blood donors. In patients with end-stage alcoholic liver cirrhosis, with HRS, the concentrations of NO2 + NO3 increased and correlated with the degree of cirrhosis progression, compared to patients without HRS and significantly higher compared to the control group. The level of NO2 + NO3 was in a positive correlation with the degree of liver damage de Ritis coefficient (HRS = 0.72; cirrhosis: = 0.55; control = -0.10). Significant positive correlation was found between NO2 + NO3 concentration and inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (HRSC = 0.75; cirrhosis = 0.70, control = -0.25). The correlation between NO2 + NO3 concentration and creatinine concentration in patients with HRS was significantly higher compared to patients without HRS (HRS = 0.82; cirrhosis = 0.32; control = -0.25). By using binary regression analysis, on the basis of clinical criteria of HRS diagnosis, the strongest independent positive predictor for HRS development was NO2 + NO3, associated with 45.02 times higher incidence of HRS, compared to arginine (12.7 times higher incidence), creatinine (13.1 times higher incidence), and AST/ALT ratio (10.55 higher incidence of HRS). Since the determination of NO2 + NO3 represents a reliable and easily applicable method, it may be used as an early predictive marker for HRS development.

Antioxidant supplements to prevent mortality.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Are antioxidant supplements associated with higher or lower all-cause mortality? BOTTOM LINE: Antioxidant supplements are not associated with lower all-cause mortality. Beta carotene, vitamin E, and higher doses of vitamin A may be associated with higher all-cause mortality.

Narrow band imaging versus conventional white light colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that narrow band imaging colonoscopy (NBI) might be better for detection of colorectal polyps than white light colonoscopy (WLC). OBJECTIVES: To compare standard or high definition white light colonoscopy with narrow band imaging colonoscopy for detection of colorectal polyps. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to August 2011. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and wrote to experts for additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two authors (NA and GB) independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted the data to all potential studies without blinding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors extracted data independently. Trials with adequate randomisation, allocation concealment, and complete outcome data reporting, as well as without selective outcome reporting or other bias were classified as having a lowest risk of bias. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 randomised trials comparing WLC with NBI for detection of colorectal polyps. In total eight randomised trials with 3673 participants provided data for our analyses. There was no statistically significant difference between WLC (standard definition and high definition pooled) and NBI for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps (6 trials, n = 2832, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04), patients with colorectal adenomas (8 trials, n = 3673, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), or patients with colorectal hyperplastic polyps (2 trials, n = 645, RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.00). Number of patients with at least one colorectal adenoma was not significantly different between WLC and NBI group irrespective of adenoma size (< 5 mm:RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08, I(2) = 56%; 6 to 9 mm: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.39, I(2) = 0%; ≥ 10 mm: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.45, I(2) = 0%). Number of patients with at least one colorectal polyp, or colorectal adenoma was significantly lower in the standard definition WLC group compared to NBI group in fixed-effect meta-analysis (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, I(2) = 78%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99, I(2) = 0%, respectively), but not significantly different in random-effects meta-analysis (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.10, I(2) = 78%). There was no statistically significant difference between high definition WLC and NBI in the number of patiens with at least one colorectal polyp or colorectal adenoma (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.28; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99, I(2) = 0%, respectively). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We could not find convincing evidence that NBI is significantly better than high definition WLC for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps, or colorectal adenomas. We found evidence that NBI might be better than standard definition WLC and equal to high definition WLC for detection the patients with colorectal polyps, or colorectal adenomas.

Bezafibrate for primary biliary cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis is complicated. There are studies suggesting that bezafibrate, alone or in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), is effective in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis, but no systematic review has summarised the evidence yet. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bezafibrate in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: 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, LILACS, Clinicaltrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and full text searches were conducted until November 2011. The searches in Chinese Bio-medical Literature Database, China Network Knowledge Information, Chinese Science Journal Database, Chinese Medical Citation Index, Wanfang Database, and full text searches were conducted until January 2011. Manufacturers and authors were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials comparing bezafibrate at any dose or regimen in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis with placebo or no intervention, or with another drug. Any concomitant interventions were allowed if received equally by all treatment groups in a trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological domains were used to assess risk of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to control for random errors (play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: Six trials with 151 Japanese patients were included. All trials had high risk of bias. Four trials compared bezafibrate plus UDCA with no intervention plus UDCA (referenced as bezafibrate versus no intervention in the remaining text), and two trials compared bezafibrate with UDCA. No patient died and no patient developed liver-related complications in any of the included trials. Bezafibrate was without significant effects on the occurrence of adverse events compared with no intervention (5/32 (16%) versus 0/28 (0%)) (RR 5.40, 95% CI 0.69 to 42.32; 3 trials with 60 patients; I² = 0%) or with UDCA (2/32 (6%) versus 0/37 (0%)) (RR 6.19, 95% CI 0.31 to 122.05; 2 trials with 69 patients; I² = 0%). Bezafibrate significantly decreased the activity of serum alkaline phosphatases compared with no intervention (MD -186.04 U/L, 95% CI -249.03 to -123.04; 4 trials with 79 patients; I² = 34%) and when compared with UDCA (MD -162.90 U/L, 95% CI -199.68 to -126.12; 2 trials with 48 patients; I² = 0%). These results were supported by trial sequential analyses. Bezafibrate compared with no intervention significantly decreased plasma immunoglobulin M (MD -164.00 mg/dl, 95% CI -259.47 to -68.53; 3 trials with 50 patients; I² = 46%) and serum bilirubin concentration (MD -0.19 mg/dl, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.00; 2 trials with 34 patients; I² = 0%). However, the latter two results were not supported by trial sequential analyses. Bezafibrate compared with no intervention had no significant effect on the activity of serum gamma-glutamyltransferase (MD -1.22 U/L, 95% CI -11.97 to 9.52; 4 trials with 79 patients; I² = 42%) and serum alanine aminotransferase (MD -5.61 U/L, 95% CI -24.50 to 13.27; 2 trials with 35 patients; I² = 34%). Bezafibrate compared with UDCA had no significant effect on the activity of serum gamma-glutamyltransferase (MD 38.44 U/L, 95% CI -180.67 to 257.55; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 89%), serum alanine aminotransferase (MD -2.34 U/L, 95% CI -34.73 to 30.06; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 95%), and plasma immunoglobulin M concentration (MD -20.23 mg/dl, 95% CI -218.71 to 178.25; 2 trials with 41 patients; I² = 90%) in random-effects model meta-analyses, but bezafibrate significantly decreased the activity of serum gamma-glutamyltransferase (MD -58.18, 95% CI -76.49 to -39.88; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 89%), serum alanine aminotransferase (MD -13.94, 95% CI -18.78 to -9.09; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 95%), and plasma immunoglobulin M concentration (MD -99.90, 95% CI -130.72 to -69.07; 2 trials with 41 patients; I² = 90%) in fixed-effect model meta-analyses. One patient had bezafibrate withdrawn due to an adverse event compared to no intervention (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.16; 2 trials with 60 patients; I² = 0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review did not demonstrate any effect of bezafibrate versus no intervention on mortality, liver-related morbidity, adverse events, and pruritus in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Furthermore, we found no significant effects of bezafibrate on mortality, liver-related morbidity, or adverse events when compared with ursodeoxycholic acid, None of the trials assessed quality of life or fatigue. The data seem to indicate a possible positive intervention effect of bezafibrate on some liver biochemistry measures compared with the control group, but the observed effects could be due to systematic errors or random errors. We need more randomised clinical trials on the effects of bezafibrate on primary biliary cirrhosis with low risks of systematic errors and random errors.

Ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Ursodeoxycholic acid is administered to patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, a chronic progressive inflammatory autoimmune-mediated liver disease with unknown aetiology. Despite its controversial effects, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved its usage for primary biliary cirrhosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of ursodeoxycholic acid in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for eligible randomised trials in 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, LILACS, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The literature search was performed until January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo or 'no intervention' in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. Continuous data were analysed using mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD). Dichotomous data were analysed using risk ratio (RR). Meta-analyses were conducted using both a random-effects model and a fixed-effect model, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random-effects model meta-regression was used to assess the effects of covariates across the trials. Trial sequential analysis was used to assess risk of random errors (play of chance). Risks of bias (systematic error) in the included trials were assessed according to Cochrane methodology bias domains. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen randomised clinical trials with 1447 patients with primary biliary cirrhosis were included. One trial had low risk of bias, and the remaining fifteen had high risk of bias. Fourteen trials compared ursodeoxycholic acid with placebo and two trials compared ursodeoxycholic acid with 'no intervention'. The percentage of patients with advanced primary biliary cirrhosis at baseline varied from 15% to 83%, with a median of 51%. The duration of the trials varied from 3 to 92 months, with a median of 24 months. The results showed no significant difference in effect between ursodeoxycholic acid and placebo or 'no intervention' on all-cause mortality (45/699 (6.4%) versus 46/692 (6.6%); RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, I² = 0%; 14 trials); on all-cause mortality or liver transplantation (86/713 (12.1%) versus 89/706 (12.6%); RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25, I² = 15%; 15 trials); on serious adverse events (94/695 (13.5%) versus 107/687 (15.6%); RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.12, I² = 23%; 14 trials); or on non-serious adverse events (27/643 (4.2%) versus 18/634 (2.8%); RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.56, I² = 0%; 12 trials). The random-effects model meta-regression showed that the risk of bias of the trials, disease severity of patients at entry, ursodeoxycholic acid dosage, and trial duration were not significantly associated with the intervention effects on all-cause mortality, or on all-cause mortality or liver transplantation. Ursodeoxycholic acid did not influence the number of patients with pruritus (168/321 (52.3%) versus 166/309 (53.7%); RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09, I² = 0%; 6 trials) or with fatigue (170/252 (64.9%) versus 174/244 (71.3%); RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00, I² = 62%; 4 trials). Two trials reported the number of patients with jaundice and showed a significant effect of ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo or no intervention in a fixed-effect meta-analysis (5/99 (5.1%) versus 15/99 (15.2%); RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.90, I² = 51%; 2 trials). The result was not supported by the random-effects meta-analysis (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.95). Portal pressure, varices, bleeding varices, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy were not significantly affected by ursodeoxycholic acid. Ursodeoxycholic acid significantly decreased serum bilirubin concentration (MD -8.69 µmol/l, 95% CI -13.90 to -3.48, I² = 0%; 881 patients; 9 trials) and activity of serum alkaline phosphatases (MD -257.09 U/L, 95% CI -306.25 to -207.92, I² = 0%; 754 patients, 9 trials) compared with placebo or no intervention. These results were supported by trial sequential analysis. Ursodeoxycholic acid also seemed to improve serum levels of gamma-glutamyltransferase, aminotransferases, total cholesterol, and plasma immunoglobulin M concentration. Ursodeoxycholic acid seemed to have a beneficial effect on worsening of histological stage (random; 66/281 (23.5%) versus 103/270 (38.2%); RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.88, I² = 35%; 7 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review did not demonstrate any significant benefits of ursodeoxycholic acid on all-cause mortality, all-cause mortality or liver transplantation, pruritus, or fatigue in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Ursodeoxycholic acid seemed to have a beneficial effect on liver biochemistry measures and on histological progression compared with the control group. All but one of the included trials had high risk of bias, and there are risks of outcome reporting bias and risks of random errors as well. Randomised trials with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors examining the effects of ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis are needed.

Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases.

BACKGROUND: Our systematic review has demonstrated that antioxidant supplements may increase mortality. We have now updated this review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to February 2011. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked pharmaceutical companies for additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all primary and secondary prevention randomised clinical trials on antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors extracted data. Random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were conducted. Risk of bias was considered in order to minimise the risk of systematic errors. Trial sequential analyses were conducted to minimise the risk of random errors. Random-effects model meta-regression analyses were performed to assess sources of intertrial heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-eight randomised trials with 296,707 participants were included. Fifty-six trials including 244,056 participants had low risk of bias. Twenty-six trials included 215,900 healthy participants. Fifty-two trials included 80,807 participants with various diseases in a stable phase. The mean age was 63 years (range 18 to 103 years). The mean proportion of women was 46%. Of the 78 trials, 46 used the parallel-group design, 30 the factorial design, and 2 the cross-over design. All antioxidants were administered orally, either alone or in combination with vitamins, minerals, or other interventions. The duration of supplementation varied from 28 days to 12 years (mean duration 3 years; median duration 2 years). Overall, the antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on mortality in a random-effects model meta-analysis (21,484 dead/183,749 (11.7%) versus 11,479 dead/112,958 (10.2%); 78 trials, relative risk (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.05) but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05). Heterogeneity was low with an I(2)- of 12%. In meta-regression analysis, the risk of bias and type of antioxidant supplement were the only significant predictors of intertrial heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis did not find a significant difference in the estimated intervention effect in the primary prevention and the secondary prevention trials. In the 56 trials with a low risk of bias, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (18,833 dead/146,320 (12.9%) versus 10,320 dead/97,736 (10.6%); RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07). This effect was confirmed by trial sequential analysis. Excluding factorial trials with potential confounding showed that 38 trials with low risk of bias demonstrated a significant increase in mortality (2822 dead/26,903 (10.5%) versus 2473 dead/26,052 (9.5%); RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15). In trials with low risk of bias, beta-carotene (13,202 dead/96,003 (13.8%) versus 8556 dead/77,003 (11.1%); 26 trials, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09) and vitamin E (11,689 dead/97,523 (12.0%) versus 7561 dead/73,721 (10.3%); 46 trials, RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05) significantly increased mortality, whereas vitamin A (3444 dead/24,596 (14.0%) versus 2249 dead/16,548 (13.6%); 12 trials, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18), vitamin C (3637 dead/36,659 (9.9%) versus 2717 dead/29,283 (9.3%); 29 trials, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.07), and selenium (2670 dead/39,779 (6.7%) versus 1468 dead/22,961 (6.4%); 17 trials, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) did not significantly affect mortality. In univariate meta-regression analysis, the dose of vitamin A was significantly associated with increased mortality (RR 1.0006, 95% CI 1.0002 to 1.001, P = 0.002). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Beta-carotene and vitamin E seem to increase mortality, and so may higher doses of vitamin A. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered as medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing.

Antioxidant supplements for liver diseases.

BACKGROUND: Several liver diseases have been associated with oxidative stress. Accordingly, antioxidants have been suggested as potential therapeutics for various liver diseases. The evidence supporting these suggestions is equivocal. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of antioxidant supplements for patients with liver diseases. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to January 2011. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion randomised trials that compared antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, C, E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention for autoimmune liver diseases, viral hepatitis, alcoholic liver disease, and cirrhosis (any aetiology). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcome measures were all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, liver-related morbidity, biochemical indices at maximum follow-up in the individual trials as well as adverse events, quality-of-life measures, and cost-effectiveness. For patients with hepatitis B or C we also considered end of treatment and sustained virological response. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. Results were presented as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Twenty randomised trials with 1225 participants were included. The trials assessed beta-carotene (3 trials), vitamin A (2 trials), vitamin C (9 trials), vitamin E (15 trials), and selenium (8 trials). The majority of the trials had high risk of bias and showed heterogeneity. Overall, the assessed antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.19, I(2) = 0%), or liver-related mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.05, I(2) = 37%). Stratification according to the type of liver disease did not affect noticeably the results. Antioxidant supplements significantly increased activity of gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (MD 24.21 IU/l, 95% CI 6.67 to 41.75, I(2) = 0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support or refute antioxidant supplements in patients with liver disease. Antioxidant supplements may increase liver enzyme activity.

Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in primary biliary cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are widely used for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Patients with primary biliary cirrhosis often have osteoporosis - either postmenopausal or secondary to the liver disease. No systematic review or meta-analysis has assessed the effects of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in primary biliary cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: 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, LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and full text searches were conducted until November 2011. Manufacturers and authors were contacted for additional studies during the conductance of the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials of bisphosphonates in primary biliary cirrhosis compared with placebo or no intervention, or another bisphosphonate, or any other drug. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components were used to assess risk of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was also used to control for random errors (play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were included. Three trials with 106 participants, of which two trials with high risk of bias, did not demonstrate significant effects of bisphosphonates (etidronate or alendronate) versus placebo or no intervention regarding mortality (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12, I² = 0%), fractures (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.66, I² = 0%), or adverse events (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.04). Two trials with 62 participants with high risk of bias compared one bisphosphonate (etidronate or alendronate) versus another (alendronate or ibandronate) and found no significant difference regarding mortality (RD -0.03; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.07, I² = 0%), fractures (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 5.06, I² = 0%), or adverse events (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.04, I² = 0%). Bisphosphonates had no significant effect on liver-related mortality, liver transplantation, or liver-related morbidity compared with placebo or no intervention, or another bisphosphonate. Bisphosphonates had no significant effect on bone mineral density compared with placebo or no intervention, or another bisphosphonate. Bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no intervention seem to decrease the urinary amino telopeptides of collagen I (NTx) concentration (MD -16.93 nmol bone collagen equivalents/mmol creatinine; 95% CI -23.77 to -10.10; 2 trials with 88 patients; I² = 0%) and serum osteocalcin (SMD -0.81; 95% CI -1.22 to -0.39; 3 trials with 100 patients; I² = 34 %) concentration. The former result was supported by trial sequential analysis, but not the latter. Alendronate compared with another bisphosphonate (ibandronate) had no significant effect on serum osteocalcin concentration (MD -3.61 ng/ml, 95% CI -9.41 to 2.18; 2 trials with 47 patients; I² = 82%) in a random-effects meta-analysis, but it significantly decreased serum osteocalcin (MD -4.40 ng/ml, 95% CI -6.75 to -2.05; 2 trials with 47 patients; I² = 82%), the procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (MD -8.79 ng/ml, 95% CI -15.96 to -1.63; 2 trials with 47 patients; I² = 38%), and NTx concentration (MD -14.07 nmol bone collagen equivalents/mmol creatinine, 95% CI -24.23 to -3.90; 2 trials with 46 patients; I²=0%) in a fixed-effect model. The latter two results were not supported by trial sequential analyses. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients having bisphosphonates withdrawn due to adverse events compared with placebo or no intervention (RD -0.04; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.12; 2 trials with 46 patients; I² = 0%), or another bisphosphonate (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.14 to 2.17; 2 trials with 62 patients; I² = 0%). One trial with 32 participants and with high risk of bias compared etidronate versus sodium fluoride without finding significant difference regarding mortality, fractures, adverse events, or bone mineral density. Etidronate compared with sodium fluoride significantly decreased serum osteocalcin, urinary hydroxyproline, and parathyroid hormone concentration. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence to support or refute the use of bisphosphonates for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. The data seem to indicate a possible positive intervention effect of bisphosphonates on decreasing urinary amino telopeptides of collagen I concentration compared with placebo or no intervention with no risk of random error. There is need for more randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis on patient-relevant outcomes in primary biliary cirrhosis.