Atorvastatin for patients with cirrhosis. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension face a high risk of complications. Besides their anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic effects, statins may reduce portal pressure and thus the risk of complications and mortality. We aimed to investigate the effects of atorvastatin on hospital admissions, mortality, inflammation, and lipidomics in cirrhosis with portal hypertension. METHODS: We performed a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial among patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Atorvastatin (10-20 mg/d) was administered for 6 months. We measured splanchnic hemodynamics, analyzed inflammatory markers, and performed lipidomics at baseline and after 6 months. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were randomized, with 38 patients allocated to atorvastatin and 40 patients to placebo. Fifty-nine patients completed 6 months of intervention. Comparisons between changes in each group were calculated. Liver-related complications and mortality were similar between the groups. The HVPG and Model for End-stage Liver Disease score did not change between groups (p=0.95 and 0.87, respectively). Atorvastatin decreased 3 of 42 inflammatory markers, CD62-L-selectin, matrix metalloproteinases-2, and TNF-α (p-values: 0.005, 0.011, and 0.023, respectively), while lipidomics was not significantly changed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cirrhosis, atorvastatin was safe to use, but did not reduce mortality, the risk of liver-related complications, or the HVPG. Atorvastatin induced minor anti-inflammatory effects and minor effects on lipids during a 6-month treatment period.

A Nurse-Led Outpatient Clinic for Patients With Decompensated Liver Cirrhosis: Staffing, Structure, and Patient Satisfaction.

Patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis constitute a growing and vulnerable patient group with a particular need for easy outpatient access and close follow-up. By establishing a nurse-led clinic, we aimed to counter this need in a patient-centered manner within a multidisciplinary rehabilitating framework. This article presents the organization, staffing, and structure of this initiative as well as the patient population demographics and characteristics. Furthermore, patient satisfaction within the clinic was explored. Two complementary substudies are presented: a descriptive, registry-based journal audit, presenting data from the clinic's first years, 2017-2019, and a cross-sectional, descriptive survey, exploring patient satisfaction 2 years later. Different visit types with predefined content constitute an operable structure suitable for meeting patients' current needs. An increase in both the number of patients and visits from the first to second years indicates an existing need for nurse-led support. Data not only support the well-known characteristics of patients with cirrhosis but also add to a broader perspective with more nuances for this patient population. The survey shows an overall high score on satisfaction but also points out areas for improvement. The nurse-led clinic provides both structure and knowledge to facilitate patient-centered treatment and care for those suffering from liver cirrhosis.

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

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

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

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