Glucose levels show independent and dose-dependent association with worsening acute pancreatitis outcomes: Post-hoc analysis of a prospective, international cohort of 2250 acute pancreatitis cases.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic risk factors, such as obesity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia are independent risk factors for the development of various complications in acute pancreatitis (AP). Hypertriglyceridemia dose-dependently elicits pancreatotoxicity and worsens the outcomes of AP. The role of hyperglycemia, as a toxic metabolic factor in the clinical course of AP, has not been examined yet. METHODS: We analyzed a prospective, international cohort of 2250 AP patients, examining associations between (1) glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), (2) on-admission glucose, (3) peak in-hospital glucose and clinically important outcomes (mortality, severity, complications, length of hospitalization (LOH), maximal C-reactive protein (CRP)). We conducted a binary logistic regression accounting for age, gender, etiology, diabetes, and our examined variables. Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC) was applied to detect the diagnostic accuracy of the three variables. RESULTS: Both on-admission and peak serum glucose are independently associated with AP severity and mortality, accounting for age, gender, known diabetes and AP etiology. They show a dose-dependent association with severity (p < 0.001 in both), mortality (p < 0.001), LOH (p < 0.001), maximal CRP (p < 0.001), systemic (p < 0.001) and local complications (p < 0.001). Patients with peak glucose >7 mmol/l had a 15 times higher odds for severe AP and a five times higher odds for mortality. We found a trend of increasing HbA1c with increasing LOH (p < 0.001), severity and local complications. CONCLUSIONS: On-admission and peak in-hospital glucose are independently and dose-dependently associated with increasing AP severity and mortality. In-hospital laboratory control of glucose and adequate treatment of hyperglycemia are crucial in the management of AP.

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

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

Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and COVID-19-Two Pandemics Hitting at the Same Time.

The COVID-19 pandemic was and still is a global burden with more than 178,000,000 cases reported so far. Although it mainly affects respiratory organs, COVID-19 has many extrapulmonary manifestations, including, among other things, liver injury. Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain direct and indirect impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 virus on the liver. Studies have shown that around 15-30% of patients with COVID-19 have underlying liver disease, and 20-35% of patients with COVID-19 had altered liver enzymes at admission. One of the hypotheses is reactivation of an underlying liver disease, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Some studies have shown that NAFLD is associated with severe COVID-19 and poor outcome; nevertheless, other studies showed no significant difference between groups in comparing complications and clinical outcomes. Patients with NAFLD may suffer severe COVID-19 due to other comorbidities, especially cardiovascular diseases. The link between NAFLD and COVID-19 is not clear yet, and further studies and research are needed.

OPPORTUNISTIC SCREENING FOR COLORECTAL CANCER IN HIGH-RISK PATIENTS IN FAMILY MEDICINE PRACTICES IN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA.

Colorectal cancer is a malignant neoplasm which has an increasing incidence and represents a global public health problem. The majority of patients are diagnosed after the age of 50, and the risk of developing it over lifetime is 5%. Development of preventive, diagnostic and treatment methods has resulted in a significant reduction in mortality and other negative clinical outcomes. Precisely because of the efficient method of prevention and early detection of this disease, numerous countries, including Croatia, have organized national colorectal cancer screening and monitoring programs. However, these programs are primarily organized for the population with the usual, i.e. average risk of developing colorectal cancer. High-risk groups include persons with endoscopically detected and removed colon polyps, persons surgically treated for colon cancer, persons with a positive family history of colorectal cancer, persons with inflammatory bowel diseases, individuals and families with hereditary disorders or genetic mutations that increase the risk of this disease several fold, persons with acromegaly, and patients who have undergone ureterosigmoidostomy. Recommendations for the detection and monitoring of high-risk groups are often not defined clearly, and some of the existing ones are based mostly on scarce scientific evidence. It is commonly accepted that screening in high-risk groups should start at an earlier age, with shorter intervals between follow-ups. The basic diagnostic method for screening and monitoring in these patient groups is endoscopic monitoring, or colonoscopy. The aim of this review paper is to present the characteristics of the abovementioned risk groups and provide clear screening recommendations.

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

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

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

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

Diagnostic Accuracy of Abdominal Ultrasound for Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal ultrasound (US) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA), in terms of sensitivity, specificity and post-test probabilities for positive and negative result. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane library and Science Citation Index Expanded from January 1994 to October 2014 was performed. Two authors independently evaluated studies for inclusion, extracted data and performed analyses. The reference standard for evaluation of final diagnosis was pathohistological report on tissue obtained at appendectomy. Summary sensitivity, specificity and post-test probability of AA after positive and negative result of US with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Out of 3306 references identified through electronic searches, 17 reports met the inclusion criteria, with 2841 included participants. The summary sensitivity and specificity of US for diagnosis of AA were 69% (95% CI 59-78%) and 81% (95% CI 73-88%), respectively. At the median pretest probability of AA of 76.4%, the post-test probability for a positive and negative result of US was 92% (95% CI 88-95%) and 55% (95% CI 46-63%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal ultrasound does not seem to have a role in the diagnostic pathway for diagnosis of AA in suspected patients. The summary sensitivity and specificity of US do not exceed that of physical examination. Patients that require additional diagnostic workup should be referred to more sensitive and specific diagnostic procedures, such as computed tomography.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

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

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

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

Enteral nutrition formulations for acute pancreatitis.

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

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and IOC. OBJECTIVES: To determine and compare the accuracy of ERCP and IOC for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. To identify additional studies, we searched the references of included studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ERCP or IOC. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones; with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently collected data from each study. We used the bivariate model to summarise the sensitivity and specificity of the tests. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five studies including 318 participants (180 participants with and 138 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and five studies including 654 participants (125 participants with and 529 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of IOC. Most studies included people with symptoms (participants with jaundice or pancreatitis) suspected of having common bile duct stones based on blood tests, ultrasound, or both, prior to the performance of ERCP or IOC. Most studies included participants who had not previously undergone removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy). None of the included studies was of high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool (quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies). The sensitivities of ERCP ranged between 0.67 and 0.94 and the specificities ranged between 0.92 and 1.00. For ERCP, the summary sensitivity was 0.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.90) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). The sensitivities of IOC ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.96 and 1.00. For IOC, the summary sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). For ERCP, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35 estimated from the included studies (i.e., 35% of people suspected of having common bile duct stones were confirmed to have gallstones by the reference standard), the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and negative test results was 0.09 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.14). For IOC, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35, the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.98 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.00) and negative test results was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.10). There was weak evidence of a difference in sensitivity (P value = 0.05) with IOC showing higher sensitivity than ERCP. There was no evidence of a difference in specificity (P value = 0.7) with both tests having similar specificity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the sensitivity of IOC appeared to be better than that of ERCP, this finding may be unreliable because none of the studies compared both tests in the same study populations and most of the studies were methodologically flawed. It appears that both tests were fairly accurate in guiding further invasive treatment as most people diagnosed with common bile duct stones by these tests had common bile duct stones. Some people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ERCP or IOC result. Such people may have to be re-tested if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms or persistently abnormal liver function tests. However, the results should be interpreted with caution given the limited quantity and quality of the evidence.

Ultrasound versus liver function tests for diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound and liver function tests (serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase) are used as screening tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests. OBJECTIVES: To determine and compare the accuracy of ultrasound versus liver function tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ultrasound, serum bilirubin, or serum alkaline phosphatase. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test result, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test result as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently collected data from each study. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used the bivariate model to summarise sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies including 523 participants reported the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound. One studies (262 participants) compared the accuracy of ultrasound, serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase in the same participants. All the studies included people with symptoms. One study included only participants without previous cholecystectomy but this information was not available from the remaining studies. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. The sensitivities for ultrasound ranged from 0.32 to 1.00, and the specificities ranged from 0.77 to 0.97. The summary sensitivity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) and the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.95). At the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.408, the post-test probability (95% CI) associated with positive ultrasound tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91), and negative ultrasound tests was 0.17 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.33).The single study of liver function tests reported diagnostic accuracy at two cut-offs for bilirubin (greater than 22.23 µmol/L and greater than twice the normal limit) and two cut-offs for alkaline phosphatase (greater than 125 IU/L and greater than twice the normal limit). This study also assessed ultrasound and reported higher sensitivities for bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase at both cut-offs but the specificities of the markers were higher at only the greater than twice the normal limit cut-off. The sensitivity for ultrasound was 0.32 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.54), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 µmol/L) was 0.84 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.95), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.99). The specificity for ultrasound was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 µmol/L) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). No study reported the diagnostic accuracy of a combination of bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase, or combinations with ultrasound. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Many people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ultrasound or liver function test. Such people may have to be re-tested with other modalities if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms. False-positive results are also possible and further non-invasive testing is recommended to confirm common bile duct stones to avoid the risks of invasive testing.It should be noted that these results were based on few studies of poor methodological quality and the results for ultrasound varied considerably between studies. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.

Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in patients suspected of having common bile duct stones prior to undergoing invasive treatment. There has been no systematic review of the accuracy of EUS and MRCP in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones using appropriate reference standards. OBJECTIVES: To determine and compare the accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov until September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and of systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for EUS or MRCP. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct or symptom free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test, as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors independently screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently collected the data from each study. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 18 studies involving 2366 participants (976 participants with common bile duct stones and 1390 participants without common bile duct stones). Eleven studies evaluated EUS alone, and five studies evaluated MRCP alone. Two studies evaluated both tests. Most studies included patients who were suspected of having common bile duct stones based on abnormal liver function tests; abnormal transabdominal ultrasound; symptoms such as obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, or pancreatitis; or a combination of the above. The proportion of participants who had undergone cholecystectomy varied across studies. Not one of the studies was of high methodological quality. For EUS, the sensitivities ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.85 and 1.00. The summary sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) and specificity (95% CI) of the 13 studies that evaluated EUS (1537 participants; 686 cases and 851 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99). For MRCP, the sensitivities ranged between 0.77 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.73 and 0.99. The summary sensitivity and specificity of the seven studies that evaluated MRCP (996 participants; 361 cases and 635 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98). There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity or specificity between EUS and MRCP (P value = 0.5). From the included studies, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 41% the post-test probabilities (with 95% CI) associated with positive and negative EUS test results were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). At the same pre-test probability, the post-test probabilities associated with positive and negative MRCP test results were 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both EUS and MRCP have high diagnostic accuracy for detection of common bile duct stones. People with positive EUS or MRCP should undergo endoscopic or surgical extraction of common bile duct stones and those with negative EUS or MRCP do not need further invasive tests. However, if the symptoms persist, further investigations will be indicated. The two tests are similar in terms of diagnostic accuracy and the choice of which test to use will be informed by availability and contra-indications to each test. However, it should be noted that the results are based on studies of poor methodological quality and so the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that are of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

Pancreatic Iodine Density and Fat Fraction on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography in Acute Pancreatitis.

The aim of our study was to investigate iodine density (ID) and fat fraction (FF) on dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). This retrospective study included 72 patients with clinically confirmed AP and 62 control subjects with DECT of the abdomen. Two radiologists assessed necrosis and measured attenuation values, ID, and FF in three pancreatic segments. We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to determine the optimal threshold for ID for the differentiation between AP groups. The ID was significantly higher in interstitial edematous AP compared to necrotizing AP and the control group (both p < 0.05). The ROC curve analysis revealed the thresholds of ID for detecting pancreatic necrosis ≤ 2.2, ≤2.3, and ≤2.4 mg/mL (AUC between 0.880 and 0.893, p > 0.05) for the head, body, and tail, respectively. The FF was significantly higher for pancreatitis groups when compared with the control group in the head and body segments (both p < 0.001). In the tail, the difference was significant in necrotizing AP (p = 0.028). The ID values were independent of attenuation values correlated with the FF values in pancreatic tissue. Iodine density values allow for differentiation between morphologic types of AP.

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

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

A case of postpartum eosinophilic gastroenteritis and review of the literature.

Eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EG) is a rare disease of unknown etiology that can involve any area of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. It can be classified into three major types: predominantly mucosal, muscularis, or subserosal form. Diagnosis of EG is confirmed after the exclusion of other disorders having similar features, such as parasitic infection, carcinoma, allergy, and autoimmune conditions such as Churg-Strauss disease. Correct diagnosis hinges on the presence of eosinophilic infiltration of one or more areas of the GI tract, without extraintestinal involvement. We present the case of a 30-year-old female with symptoms of EG 26 days after delivery. After corticosteroid and montelukast treatment for 2 weeks, all symptoms and objective clinical findings disappeared. Although numerous cases of this disorder have been described, to our knowledge this is the first case of postpartum EG. This case highlights the need to include this entity in the differential diagnosis of postpartum GI disorders.

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.

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.