Role of anthraquinones in Cassia occidentalis induced hepato-myo-encephalopathy.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: The different plant parts of Cassia occidentalis Linn, (CO) such as root, leaves, seeds and pods have traditionally been used in multifarious medicines for the treatment of dysentery, diarrhea, constipation, fever, eczema, cancer and venereal diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of literature has been done in books and scientific databases like Science Direct, Pubmed, Google Scholar and Scopus etc. These sources were used to compile, analyze and review the information regarding the phytochemistry, toxicology and mechanism of toxicity of CO. The various references on this subject are cited in our review ranging from 1956 to 2019. RESULTS: Unintentional exposure of CO causes serious pathological condition in children, known as hepato-myo-encephalopathy (HME). The toxicity after CO consumption is associated with the presence of anthraquinones (AQs), a class of secondary plant metabolites. These AQs at high concentrations are known to cause detrimental effects on essential vital organs such as liver, kidney, spleen, brain, muscle and reproductive organs. The animal studies in rodent models as well as clinical investigations have clearly revealed that CO toxicity is associated with enhanced hepatotoxicity serum markers (ALT, AST, and LDH) and presence of necrotic lesions in liver. Furthermore, CO also causes vacuolization in muscle tissue and increases the level of CPK which is a prominent muscle damage marker. Apart from these target organs, CO consumption also causes neuronal damage via disturbing the levels of different proteins such as (GFAP and b-tubulin III). The mechanistic studies show that AQs present in CO have the potential to disturb the cellular homeostasis via binding to DNA, increasing the production ROS and showing inhibitory effects on essential enzymes etc. Therefore, AQs have been observed to be the primary culprit agents contributing to the toxicity of CO in children and animals. CONCLUSION: Despite its therapeutic potential, CO consumption can be detrimental if consumed in high amounts. A thorough analysis of literature reveals that AQs are the primary factors contributing to toxicity of CO seeds. Exposure to CO seeds causes HME, which is a serious life threatening condition for the malnourished children from lower strata. Multiple mechanisms are involved in the CO induced HME in patients. Lack of appropriate diagnostic measures and a poor understanding of the CO toxicity mechanism in humans and animals complicate the clinical management of CO poisoning subjects. Therefore, development of point of care diagnostic kits shall help in early diagnosis & suitable management of CO poisoning.

Cost-Effectiveness of Rifaximin Treatment in Patients with Hepatic Encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a complication of cirrhosis of the liver causing neuropsychiatric abnormalities. Clinical manifestations of overt HE result in increased health care resource utilization and effects on patient quality of life. While lactulose has historically been the mainstay of treatment for acute HE and maintenance of remission, there is an unmet need for additional therapeutic options with a favorable adverse event profile. Compared with lactulose alone, rifaximin has demonstrated proven efficacy in complete reversal of HE and reduction in the incidence of HE recurrence, mortality, and hospitalizations. Evidence suggests the benefit of long-term prophylactic therapy with rifaximin; however, there is a need to assess the economic impact of rifaximin treatment in patients with HE. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of rifaximin ± lactulose versus lactulose monotherapy in patients with overt HE. METHODS: A Markov model was developed in Excel with 4 health states (remission, overt HE, liver transplantation, and death) to predict costs and outcomes of patients with HE after initiation of maintenance therapy with rifaximin ± lactulose to avoid recurrent HE episodes. Cost-effectiveness of rifaximin was evaluated through estimation of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or life-year (LY) gained. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in results. RESULTS: The rifaximin ± lactulose regimen provided added health benefits despite an additional cost versus lactulose monotherapy. Model results showed an incremental benefit of $29,161 per QALY gained and $27,762 per LY gained with rifaximin ± lactulose versus lactulose monotherapy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the rifaximin ± lactulose regimen was cost-effective ~99% of the time at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY/LY gained, which falls within the commonly accepted threshold for incremental cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical benefit of rifaximin, combined with an acceptable economic profile, demonstrates the advantages of rifaximin maintenance therapy as an important option to consider for patients at risk of recurrent HE. DISCLOSURES: This analysis was funded by Salix Pharmaceuticals, a division of Bausch Health US. Salix and Xcenda collaborated on the methods, and Salix, Xcenda, Jesudian, and Ahmad collaborated on the writing of the manuscript and interpretation of results. Bozkaya and Migliaccio-Walle are employees of Xcenda. Ahmad reports speaker fees from Salix Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. Jesudian reports consulting and speaker fees from Salix Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. The results from this model were presented at AASLD: The Liver Meeting 2014; November 7-11; Boston, MA.

Branched-chain amino acids for people with hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a brain dysfunction with neurological and psychiatric changes associated with liver insufficiency or portal-systemic shunting. The severity ranges from minor symptoms to coma. A Cochrane systematic review including 11 randomised clinical trials on branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) versus control interventions has evaluated if BCAA may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of BCAA versus any control intervention for people with hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through manual and electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, and LILACS (May 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of the bias control, language, or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors independently extracted data based on published reports and collected data from the primary investigators. We changed our primary outcomes in this update of the review to include mortality (all cause), hepatic encephalopathy (number of people without improved manifestations of hepatic encephalopathy), and adverse events. The analyses included random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, regression, and trial sequential analyses to evaluate sources of heterogeneity (including intervention, and participant and trial characteristics), bias (using The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group method), small-study effects, and the robustness of the results after adjusting for sparse data and multiplicity. We graded the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We found 16 randomised clinical trials including 827 participants with hepatic encephalopathy classed as overt (12 trials) or minimal (four trials). Eight trials assessed oral BCAA supplements and seven trials assessed intravenous BCAA. The control groups received placebo/no intervention (two trials), diets (10 trials), lactulose (two trials), or neomycin (two trials). In 15 trials, all participants had cirrhosis. We classed seven trials as low risk of bias and nine trials as high risk of bias (mainly due to lack of blinding or for-profit funding). In a random-effects meta-analysis of mortality, we found no difference between BCAA and controls (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.11; 760 participants; 15 trials; moderate quality of evidence). We found no evidence of small-study effects. Sensitivity analyses of trials with a low risk of bias found no beneficial or detrimental effect of BCAA on mortality. Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size was not reached, suggesting that additional evidence was needed. BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 827 participants; 16 trials; high quality of evidence). We found no small-study effects and confirmed the beneficial effect of BCAA in a sensitivity analysis that only included trials with a low risk of bias (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96). The trial sequential analysis showed that firm evidence was reached. In a fixed-effect meta-analysis, we found that BCAA increased the risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 5.56; 2.93 to 10.55; moderate quality of evidence). We found no beneficial or detrimental effects of BCAA on nausea or vomiting in a random-effects meta-analysis or on quality of life or nutritional parameters. We did not identify predictors of the intervention effect in the subgroup, sensitivity, or meta-regression analyses. In sensitivity analyses that excluded trials with a lactulose or neomycin control, BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92). Additional sensitivity analyses found no difference between BCAA and lactulose or neomycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.30). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this updated review, we included five additional trials. The analyses showed that BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy. We found no effect on mortality, quality of life, or nutritional parameters, but we need additional trials to evaluate these outcomes. Likewise, we need additional randomised clinical trials to determine the effect of BCAA compared with interventions such as non-absorbable disaccharides, rifaximin, or other antibiotics.

Drug Induced Liver Injury at a Tertiary Hospital in India: Etiology, Clinical Features and Predictors of Mortality.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is rare; however, it is one of the important causes of acute liver failure which results in significant morbidity or mortality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with suspected DILI were enrolled based on predefined criteria and followed up for at least 6 months or until normalization of liver tests. Causality assessment was done by applying the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method model. RESULTS: We collected data from 82 individuals diagnosed with DILI at our hospital from 2014 through 2015 (41 men; median age, 38 years). The most commonly implicated drugs were antitubercular therapy (ATT) (49%), antiepileptic drugs (12%), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in 10%, antiretroviral drugs (9%) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (6%). 8 out of 13 deaths were liver related. Also, liver related mortality was significantly higher for ATT DILI (17.5%) vs. those without (2.4%) (P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in overall as well as liver related mortality in hepatocellular, cholestatic or mixed pattern of injury. Laboratory parameters at one week after discontinuation of drug predicted mortality better than those at the time of DILI recognition. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, jaundice, encephalopathy, MELD (Model for end stage liver disease) score and alkaline phosphatase at one week, independently predicted mortality. CONCLUSION: DILI results in significant overall mortality (15.85%). ATT, anti-epileptic drugs, CAM and antiretroviral drugs are leading causes of DILI in India. Presence of jaundice, encephalopathy, MELD score and alkaline phosphatase at one week are independent predictors of mortality.

Do branched chain amino acids improve hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhosis? / ¿Aceleran los aminoácidos de cadena ramificada la recuperación de la encefalopatía hepática en pacientes con cirrosis?

There is controversy about the effectiveness of branched chain amino acids for treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening multiple databases, we identified seven systematic reviews including 32 randomized controlled trials, of which 30 address the question of this article. We extracted results, combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings following the GRADE approach. We concluded branched chain amino acids might improve hepatic encephalopathy, but they probably lead to little or no effect on mortality.

Branched-chain amino acids for people with hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a brain dysfunction with neurological and psychiatric changes associated with liver insufficiency or portal-systemic shunting. The severity ranges from minor symptoms to coma. A Cochrane systematic review including 11 randomised clinical trials on branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) versus control interventions has evaluated if BCAA may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of BCAA versus any control intervention for people with hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through manual and electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index (August 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of the bias control, language, or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors independently extracted data based on published reports and collected data from the primary investigators. We changed our primary outcomes in this update of the review to include mortality (all cause), hepatic encephalopathy (number of people without improved manifestations of hepatic encephalopathy), and adverse events. The analyses included random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, regression, and trial sequential analyses to evaluate sources of heterogeneity (including intervention, and participant and trial characteristics), bias (using The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group method), small-study effects, and the robustness of the results after adjusting for sparse data and multiplicity. We graded the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We found 16 randomised clinical trials including 827 participants with hepatic encephalopathy classed as overt (12 trials) or minimal (four trials). Eight trials assessed oral BCAA supplements and seven trials assessed intravenous BCAA. The control groups received placebo/no intervention (two trials), diets (10 trials), lactulose (two trials), or neomycin (two trials). In 15 trials, all participants had cirrhosis. We classed seven trials as low risk of bias and nine trials as high risk of bias (mainly due to lack of blinding or for-profit funding). In a random-effects meta-analysis of mortality, we found no difference between BCAA and controls (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.11; 760 participants; 15 trials; moderate quality of evidence). We found no evidence of small-study effects. Sensitivity analyses of trials with a low risk of bias found no beneficial or detrimental effect of BCAA on mortality. Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size was not reached, suggesting that additional evidence was needed. BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 827 participants; 16 trials; high quality of evidence). We found no small-study effects and confirmed the beneficial effect of BCAA in a sensitivity analysis that only included trials with a low risk of bias (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96). The trial sequential analysis showed that firm evidence was reached. In a fixed-effect meta-analysis, we found that BCAA increased the risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 5.56; 2.93 to 10.55; moderate quality of evidence). We found no beneficial or detrimental effects of BCAA on nausea or vomiting in a random-effects meta-analysis or on quality of life or nutritional parameters. We did not identify predictors of the intervention effect in the subgroup, sensitivity, or meta-regression analyses. In sensitivity analyses that excluded trials with a lactulose or neomycin control, BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92). Additional sensitivity analyses found no difference between BCAA and lactulose or neomycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.30). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this updated review, we included five additional trials. The analyses showed that BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy. We found no effect on mortality, quality of life, or nutritional parameters, but we need additional trials to evaluate these outcomes. Likewise, we need additional randomised clinical trials to determine the effect of BCAA compared with interventions such as non-absorbable disaccharides, rifaximin, or other antibiotics.

Branched-chain amino acids for people with hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a brain dysfunction with neurological and psychiatric changes associated with liver insufficiency or portal-systemic shunting. The severity ranges from minor symptoms to coma. A Cochrane systematic review including 11 randomised clinical trials on branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) versus control interventions has evaluated if BCAA may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of BCAA versus any control intervention for people with hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through manual and electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index on 2 October 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of the bias control, language, or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors independently extracted data based on published reports and collected data from the primary investigators. We changed our primary outcomes in this update of the review to include mortality (all cause), hepatic encephalopathy (number of people without improved manifestations of hepatic encephalopathy), and adverse events. The analyses included random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, regression, and trial sequential analyses to evaluate sources of heterogeneity (including intervention, and participant and trial characteristics), bias (using The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group method), small-study effects, and the robustness of the results after adjusting for sparse data and multiplicity. We graded the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We found 16 randomised clinical trials including 827 participants with hepatic encephalopathy classed as overt (12 trials) or minimal (four trials). Eight trials assessed oral BCAA supplements and seven trials assessed intravenous BCAA. The control groups received placebo/no intervention (two trials), diets (10 trials), lactulose (two trials), or neomycin (two trials). In 15 trials, all participants had cirrhosis. Based on the combined Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group score, we classed seven trials as low risk of bias and nine trials as high risk of bias (mainly due to lack of blinding or for-profit funding). In a random-effects meta-analysis of mortality, we found no difference between BCAA and controls (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.11; 760 participants; 15 trials; moderate quality of evidence). We found no evidence of small-study effects. Sensitivity analyses of trials with a low risk of bias found no beneficial or detrimental effect of BCAA on mortality. Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size was not reached, suggesting that additional evidence was needed. BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 827 participants; 16 trials; high quality of evidence). We found no small-study effects and confirmed the beneficial effect of BCAA in a sensitivity analysis that only included trials with a low risk of bias (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96). The trial sequential analysis showed that firm evidence was reached. In a fixed-effect meta-analysis, we found that BCAA increased the risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 5.56; 2.93 to 10.55; moderate quality of evidence). We found no beneficial or detrimental effects of BCAA on nausea or vomiting in a random-effects meta-analysis or on quality of life or nutritional parameters. We did not identify predictors of the intervention effect in the subgroup, sensitivity, or meta-regression analyses. In sensitivity analyses that excluded trials with a lactulose or neomycin control, BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92). Additional sensitivity analyses found no difference between BCAA and lactulose or neomycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.30). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this updated review, we included five additional trials. The analyses showed that BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy. We found no effect on mortality, quality of life, or nutritional parameters, but we need additional trials to evaluate these outcomes. Likewise, we need additional randomised clinical trials to determine the effect of BCAA compared with interventions such as non-absorbable disaccharides, rifaximin, or other antibiotics.

A randomized controlled trial of acarbose in hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhosis is contributed to by toxic products deriving from the proteolytic bacterial flora-related degradation of dietary nitrogen substances. Acarbose is a novel hypoglycemic agent acting through the inhibition of glucose absorption in the gut and the promotion of intestinal saccharolytic bacterial flora at the expense of proteolytic flora. We assessed whether acarbose exerts a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy and on postprandial hyperglycemia in cirrhotic patients with low-grade hepatic encephalopathy and type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: One hundred seven cirrhotic patients with grade 1-2 hepatic encephalopathy and type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to acarbose 100 mg 3 times daily or placebo for 8 weeks; after a 2-week washout period, treatments were switched, and patients were followed for 8 more weeks. Ammonia blood levels, Reitan's number connection test, intellectual function, fasting and postprandial glucose levels, glycated hemoglobin values, and C peptide values were determined 2 weeks before and 4, 8, 11, 14, and 18 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: (1) Acarbose significantly decreased ammonia blood levels and improved Reitan's test score and intellectual function score compared with placebo (P < .01). (2) Acarbose caused a 33% decrease in fasting glucose level and an approximately 50% decrease in postprandial glucose level compared with placebo (P < .01). (3) Acarbose significantly lowered glycated hemoglobin values and postprandial C peptide compared with baseline values, whereas placebo did not. (4) No change in biochemical parameters of liver function was observed after acarbose treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Acarbose is a safe and effective drug in cirrhotic patients with low-grade hepatic encephalopathy and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

L-dopa in hepatic coma.

The use of L-Dopa in hepatic coma has been the subject of numerous reports since 1970. The following represents our experience with a rather heterogenous group of patients treated at the Massachusetts General Hospital over the past 4 years. Thirty-five patients with severe liver disease, a mean age of 53 +/- 3.5 years, including nutritional cirrhosis with acute coma and acute hepatitis were treated. Four patients were judged grade III, 31 patients grade IV. All patients had previously been treated with protein restriction, orally administered non-absorbable antibiotics, fluid and electrolytes, and in some cases, steroids. L-Dopa was given orally in 21 patients, and as a retention enema in 14. Thirteen of the 35 patients did not respond to therapy. Seventeen responded, but did not survive, and 5 patients responded and survived. There was no difference between any of the groups as far as dosage of L-Dopa and clinical features. The one striking finding as the differences between groups was the time of initiation of L-Dopa therapy. In Group I, the survivors, therapy was started within 1.4 +/- 0.8 days after the onset of coma. In Group II, there was an initiation of therapy at 6.7 +/- 1.6 days, and in the non-responders 9.5 +/- 1.6 days. These differences are highly significant. The results suggest that coma may pass from a reversible to an irreversible stage, and that L-Dopa therapy initiated early in the course of hepatic coma, may be of some benefit.