Beta-blockers or Placebo for Primary Prophylaxis (BOPPP) of oesophageal varices: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Liver disease is within the top five causes of premature death in adults. Deaths caused by complications of cirrhosis continue to rise, whilst deaths related to other non-liver disease areas are declining. Portal hypertension is the primary sequelae of cirrhosis and is associated with the development of variceal haemorrhage, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and infection, collectively termed hepatic decompensation, which leads to hospitalisation and mortality. It remains uncertain whether administering a non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB), specifically carvedilol, at an earlier stage, i.e. when oesophageal varices are small, can prevent VH and reduce all-cause decompensation (ACD). METHODS/DESIGN: The BOPPP trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients aged 18 years or older with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices that have never bled will be recruited, subject to exclusion criteria. The trial aims to enrol 740 patients across 55 hospitals in the UK. Patients are allocated randomly on a 1:1 ratio to receive either carvedilol 6.25 mg (a NSBB) or a matched placebo, once or twice daily, for 36 months, to attain adequate power to determine the effectiveness of carvedilol in preventing or reducing ACD. The primary outcome is the time to first decompensating event. It is a composite primary outcome made up of variceal haemorrhage (VH, new or worsening ascites, new or worsening hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatorenal syndrome, an increase in Child-Pugh grade by 1 grade or MELD score by 5 points, and liver-related mortality. Secondary outcomes include progression to medium or large oesophageal varices, development of gastric, duodenal, or ectopic varices, participant quality of life, healthcare costs and transplant-free survival. DISCUSSION: The BOPPP trial aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of carvedilol in patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices to determine whether this non-selective beta-blocker can prevent or reduce hepatic decompensation. There is clinical equipoise on whether intervening in cirrhosis, at an earlier stage of portal hypertension, with NSBB therapy is beneficial. Should the trial yield a positive result, we anticipate that the administration and use of carvedilol will become widespread with pathways developed to standardise the administration of the medication in primary care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number: 19/YH/0015). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Participants will be informed of the results via the BOPPP website ( www.boppp-trial.org ) and partners in the British Liver Trust (BLT) organisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUDRACT reference number: 2018-002509-78. ISRCTN reference number: ISRCTN10324656. Registered on April 24 2019.

Preventing variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients with portal vein thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Preventing rebleeding is crucial, but the best prevention technique for patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) remains debatable. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) with endoscopic therapy (ET) plus nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) for preventing variceal rebleeding in this patient population. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from their inception until May 18, 2023. The studies were screened using predetermined criteria, relevant data were extracted, and pooled analyses were performed using the Reviewer Manager 5.4.1 software. RESULTS: We retrieved 1032 studies, of which 5 studies comprising a total of 272 patients were included. The postoperative variceal rebleeding rate was significantly lower in the TIPS group than in the ET + NSBBs group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.11-0.35, P < 0.05, I2 = 0%), but the portal vein recanalization rate was higher (OR = 7.92, 95% CI = 3.04-20.67, P < 0.05, I2 = 0%). The rates of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and mortality did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that TIPS prevents variceal rebleeding without increasing the hepatic encephalopathy risk more effectively than ET plus NSBBs, but this benefit did not translate into improved survival. Thus, it may be preferable to ET plus NSBBs for preventing variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis and PVT. However, more large-scale and multicenter randomized controlled trials involving other patient populations are required to verify the clinical efficacy of both these treatments and ensure generalizability.

Recent advances in promising drugs for primary prevention of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal variceal bleeding is one of the most severe complications of patients with cirrhosis. Although primary prevention drugs, including non-selective ß-blockers, have effectively reduced the incidence of bleeding, their efficacy is limited due to side effects and related contraindications. With recent advances in precision medicine, precise drug treatment provides better treatment efficacy. DATA SOURCES: Literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science for relevant articles published up to May 2022. Information on clinical trials was obtained from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ and http://www.chictr.org.cn/. RESULTS: The in-depth understanding of the pathogenesis and advances of portal hypertension has enabled the discovery of multiple molecular targets for promising drugs. According to the site of action, these drugs could be classified into four classes: intrahepatic, extrahepatic, both intrahepatic and extrahepatic targets and others. All these classes of drugs offer advantages over traditional treatments in prevention of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: This review classified and summarized the promising drugs, which prevent gastroesophageal variceal bleeding by targeting specific markers of pathogenesis of portal hypertension, demonstrating the significance of using the precision medicine strategy to discover and develop promising drugs for the primary prevention of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

Portal hypertension and variceal bleeding in patients with liver cancer: Evidence gaps for prevention and management.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Portal hypertension (PHT) and HCC are 2 major complications of cirrhosis that often coexist in the same patient and impact the prognosis, especially in patients with acute variceal bleeding. In this review, we aim to discuss the best strategy for PHT screening and primary prophylaxis, as well as the management of acute variceal bleeding, to improve the management of PHT in HCC patients. RESULTS: Recent therapeutic advances observed in the management of HCC, notably through the advent of immunotherapy, have led to a clear improvement in the survival of patients. The prevention of complications related to underlying cirrhosis, such as PHT and acute variceal bleeding, is now part of the management of HCC patients. The Baveno VII conference recently redefined screening and prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis. However, data regarding the applicability of these criteria in patients with HCC have been sparse. From our point of view, the Baveno criteria are not appropriate to exclude high-risk esophageal varices (EV) in HCC patients, and endoscopy should be performed except in HCC patients with a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) ≥25 kPa, who should benefit from nonselective beta-blockers (NSSBs) without performing endoscopy. We are also in favor of using NSBBs as primary prophylaxis in patients with EV regardless of the size and with gastric varices since these patients display clinically significant PHT. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate evaluation and treatment of PHT remain major issues in improving the outcomes of HCC patients. Many questions remain unanswered, opening the field to many areas of research.

Pre-emptive TIPS in high-risk acute variceal bleeding. An updated and revised individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A previous individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) showed that compared with drugs+endoscopy, the placement of transjugular portosystemic shunt within 72 hours of admission (pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: p-TIPS) increases the survival of high-risk patients (Child-Pugh B+ active bleeding and Child-Pugh C<14 points) with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding. However, the previous IPD-MA was not a two-stage meta-analysis, did not consider the potential risk of selection bias of observational studies, and did not include the most recent randomized clinical trial. We performed an updated and revised IPD-MA to reassess the efficacy of p-TIPS, addressing all previous issues. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We included all studies from the previous IPD-MA and searched for other possible eligible publications until September 2022. We performed a two-stage IPD-MA of data from 8 studies (4 randomized clinical trials and 4 observational). In addition, we performed a sensitivity analysis excluding those patients dying up to the first 72 hours after admission in the Drugs+Endoscopy arms of the 4 observational studies. The primary end point was the effects of p-TIPS versus Drugs+Endoscopy on 1-year survival.We identified 1389 patients (342 p-TIPS and 1047 Drugs+Endoscopy). The two-stage IPD-MA showed that p-TIPS significantly reduced the mortality in the overall population (HR=0·43, 95% CI: 0.32-0.60, p <0.001. This effect was observed in both subgroups of patients with Child-Pugh. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the survival benefit of p-TIPS. CONCLUSIONS: The updated two-stage IPD-MA confirms the significant survival advantage of p-TIPS in high-risk patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding. As a result, we recommend p-TIPS as the preferred first-choice treatment for these patients.

Improving primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding by adapting therapy to the clinical stage of cirrhosis. A competing-risk meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Non-selective ß-blockers (NSBBs) and endoscopic variceal-ligation (EVL) have similar efficacy preventing first variceal bleeding. Compensated and decompensated cirrhosis are markedly different stages, which may impact treatment outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy of NSBBs vs EVL on survival in patients with high-risk varices without previous bleeding, stratifying risk according to compensated/decompensated stage of cirrhosis. METHODS: By systematic review, we identified RCTs comparing NSBBs vs EVL, in monotherapy or combined, for primary bleeding prevention. We performed a competing-risk, time-to-event meta-analysis, using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Analyses were stratified according to previous decompensation of cirrhosis. RESULTS: Of 25 RCTs eligible, 14 failed to provide IPD and 11 were included, comprising 1400 patients (656 compensated, 744 decompensated), treated with NSBBs (N = 625), EVL (N = 546) or NSBB+EVL (N = 229). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs (subdistribution hazard-ratio (sHR) = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.75-1.49) and with EVL + NSBBs vs either monotherapy, with low heterogeneity (I2 = 28.7%). In compensated patients, mortality risk was higher with EVL vs NSBBs (sHR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.11-2.77) and not significantly lower with NSBBs+EVL vs NSBBs, without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). In decompensated patients, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs and with NSBBs+EVL vs. either monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with compensated cirrhosis and high-risk varices on primary prophylaxis, NSBBs significantly improved survival vs EVL, with no additional benefit noted adding EVL to NSBBs. In decompensated patients, survival was similar with both therapies. The study suggests that NSBBs are preferable when advising preventive therapy in compensated patients.

TIPS prevents further decompensation and improves survival in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension in an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Further decompensation represents a prognostic stage of cirrhosis associated with higher mortality compared with first decompensation. A transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is indicated to prevent variceal rebleeding and for refractory ascites, but its overall efficacy to prevent further decompensations is unknown. This study assessed the incidence of further decompensation and mortality after TIPS vs. standard of care (SOC). METHODS: Controlled studies assessing covered TIPS compared with SOC for the indication of refractory ascites and prevention of variceal rebleeding published from 2004 to 2020 were considered. We collected individual patient data (IPD) to perform an IPD meta-analysis and to compare the treatment effect in a propensity score (PS)-matched population. Primary outcome was the incidence of further decompensation and the secondary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS: In total, 3,949 individual patient data sets were extracted from 12 controlled studies and, after PS matching, 2,338 patients with similar characteristics (SOC = 1,749; TIPS = 589) were analysed. The 2-year cumulative incidence function of further decompensation in the PS-matched population was 0.48 (95% CI 0.43-0.52) in the TIPS group vs. 0.63 (95% CI 0.61-0.65) in the SOC group (stratified Gray's test, p <0.0001), considering mortality and liver transplantation as competing events. The lower further decompensation rate with TIPS was confirmed by adjusted IPD meta-analysis (hazard ratio 0.44; 95% CI 0.37-0.54) and was consistent across TIPS indication subgroups. The 2-year cumulative survival probability was higher with TIPS than with SOC (0.71 vs. 0.63; p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of TIPS for refractory ascites and for prevention of variceal rebleeding reduces the incidence of a further decompensation event compared with SOC and increases survival in highly selected patients. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: A further decompensation (new or worsening ascites, variceal bleeding or rebleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, jaundice, hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis) in patients with cirrhosis is associated with a poor prognosis. Besides the known role of TIPS in portal hypertension-related complications, this study shows that TIPS is also able to decrease the overall risk of a further decompensation and increase survival compared with standard of care. These results further support the role of TIPS in the management of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension-related complications.

Direct-Acting Antivirals Reduce the De Novo Development of Esophageal Varices in Patients with Hepatitis C Virus Related Liver Cirrhosis.

The real-world benefits of direct-acting antiviral (DAA)-induced sustained virologic response (SVR) on the de novo occurrence and progression of esophageal varices (EV) remain unclear in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver cirrhosis (LC). This is a retrospective cohort study evaluating all patients with Child-Pugh class A HCV-related LC during 2013 to 2020 in the Chang Gung Medical System. A total of 215 patients fit the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. Of them, 132 (61.4%) patients achieved DAA induced-SVR and 83 (38.6%) did not receive anti-viral treatment. During a median follow-up of 18.4 (interquartile range, 10.1−30.9) months, the 2-year incidence of de novo EV occurrence was 8 (7.0%) in the SVR group and 7 (12.7%) in the treatment-naïve group. Compared to the treatment-naïve group, the SVR group was associated with a significantly lower incidence of EV occurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.47, p = 0.030) and a significantly lower incidence of EV progression (aHR: 0.55, p = 0.033). The risk of EV progression was strongly correlated with the presence of baseline EV (p < 0.001). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that DAA-induced SVR is associated with decreased risk of de novo EV occurrence and progression in the real world.

Review article: controversies surrounding the use of carvedilol and other beta blockers in the management of portal hypertension and cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Advanced chronic liver disease is an increasing cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the UK. Portal hypertension is the primary driver of decompensation, including the development of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and variceal haemorrhage. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) reduce portal pressure and are well established in the prevention of variceal haemorrhage. Carvedilol, a newer NSBB, is more effective at reducing portal pressure due to additional α-adrenergic blockade and has additional anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects. AIM: To summarise the available evidence on the use of beta blockers, specifically carvedilol, in cirrhosis, focussing on when and why to start METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed for relevant publications. RESULTS: International guidelines advise the use of NSBB in primary prophylaxis against variceal haemorrhage in those with high-risk varices, with substantial evidence of efficacy comparable with endoscopic band ligation (EBL). NSBB are also well established in secondary prophylaxis, in combination with EBL. More controversial is their use in patients without large varices, but with clinically significant portal hypertension. However, there is gathering evidence that NSBB, particularly carvedilol, reduce the risk of decompensation and improve survival. While caution is advised in patients with advanced cirrhosis and refractory ascites, recent evidence suggests that NSBB can continue to be used safely, and that premature discontinuation may be detrimental. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing evidence of benefit independent of variceal bleeding, namely retardation of decompensation and improvement in survival, it is time to consider whether carvedilol should be offered to all patients with advanced chronic liver disease.

Carvedilol reduces the risk of decompensation and mortality in patients with compensated cirrhosis in a competing-risk meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Whether non-selective ß-blockers can prevent decompensation of cirrhosis warrants clarification. Carvedilol might be particularly effective since its intrinsic vasodilatory activity may ameliorate hepatic vascular resistance, a major mechanism of portal hypertension in early cirrhosis. We assessed whether carvedilol may prevent decompensation and improve survival in patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). METHODS: By systematic review we identified randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carvedilol vs. control therapy (no-active treatment or endoscopic variceal ligation [EVL]) in patients with cirrhosis and CSPH without previous bleeding. We performed a competing-risk time-to-event meta-analysis using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Only compensated patients were included. Primary outcomes were prevention of decompensation (liver transplantation and death were competing events) and death (liver transplantation was a competing event). Models were adjusted using propensity scores for baseline covariates with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach. RESULTS: Among 125 full-text studies evaluated, 4 RCTs were eligible. The 4 provided IPD and were included, comprising 352 patients with compensated cirrhosis, 181 treated with carvedilol and 171 controls (79 received EVL and 92 placebo). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Standardized differences were <10% by IPTW. The risk of developing decompensation of cirrhosis was lower with carvedilol than in controls (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.506; 95% CI 0.289-0.887; p = 0.017; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.880), mainly due to a reduced risk of ascites (SHR 0.491; 95% CI 0.247-0.974; p = 0.042; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.384). The risk of death was also lower with carvedilol (SHR 0.417; 95% CI 0.194-0.896; p = 0.025; I2 = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.989). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term carvedilol therapy reduced decompensation of cirrhosis and significantly improved survival in compensated patients with CSPH. This suggests that screening patients with compensated cirrhosis for CSPH to enable the prompt initiation of carvedilol could improve outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019144786. LAY SUMMARY: The transition from compensated cirrhosis to decompensated cirrhosis is associated with markedly reduced life expectancy. Therefore, preventing decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis would be associated with greatly improved patient outcomes. There has been controversy regarding the use of non-selective ß-blockers (portal pressure-lowering medications) in patients with cirrhosis and elevated portal blood pressure (portal hypertension). Herein, using a competing-risk meta-analysis to optimize sample size and properly investigate cirrhosis as a multistate disease and outcomes as time-dependent events, we show that carvedilol (a non-selective ß-blocker) is associated with a reduced risk of decompensating events and improved survival in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

Molecular Profiling of Decompensated Cirrhosis by a Novel MicroRNA Signature.

Noninvasive staging of decompensated cirrhosis is an unmet clinical need. The aims of this study were to characterize and validate a novel microRNA (miRNA) signature to stage decompensated cirrhosis and predict the portal pressure and systolic cardiac response to nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs). Serum samples from patients with decompensated cirrhosis (n = 36) and healthy controls (n = 36) were tested for a novel signature of five miRNAs (miR-452-5p, miR-429, miR-885-5p, miR-181b-5p, and miR-122-5p) identified in the secretome of primary human hepatocytes and for three miRNAs (miR-192-5p, miR-34a-5p, and miR-29a-5p) previously discovered as biomarkers of chronic liver disease. All patients had ascites, which was refractory in 18 (50%), and were placed on NSBBs for variceal bleeding prophylaxis. In all patients, serum miRNAs, hepatic venous pressure gradient, and an echocardiogram study were performed before and 1 month after NSBBs. Patients with cirrhosis had lower serum levels of miR-429, miR-885-5p, miR-181b-5p, miR-122-5p, miR-192-5p, and miR-29a-5p (P < 0.05). Baseline serum miR-452-5p and miR-429 levels were lower in NSBB responders (P = 0.006). miR-181b-5p levels were greater in refractory ascites than in diuretic-sensitive ascites (P = 0.008) and correlated with serum creatinine. miR-452-5p and miR-885-5p were inversely correlated with baseline systemic vascular resistance (ρ = -0.46, P = 0.007; and ρ = -0.41, P = 0.01, respectively) and with diminished systolic contractility (ρ = -0.55, P = 0.02; and ρ = -0.55, P = 0.02, respectively) in patients with refractory ascites after NSBBs. Conclusion: Analysis of a miRNA signature in serum discriminates between patients with decompensated cirrhosis who show more severe systemic circulatory dysfunction and compromised systolic function after beta-blockade and those more likely to benefit from NSBBs.

The Use of Rifaximin in Patients With Cirrhosis.

Rifaximin is an oral nonsystemic antibiotic with minimal gastrointestinal absorption and broad-spectrum antibacterial activity covering both gram-positive and gram-negative organisms. Rifaximin is currently used worldwide in patients with cirrhosis for preventing recurrent HE because its efficacy and safety have been proven by large randomized clinical trials. In the last decade, experimental and clinical evidence suggest that rifaximin could have other beneficial effects on the course of cirrhosis by modulating the gut microbiome and affecting the gut-liver axis, which in turn can interfere with major events of the pathophysiological cascade underlying decompensated cirrhosis, such as systemic inflammatory syndrome, portal hypertension, and bacterial infections. However, the use of rifaximin for prevention or treatment of other complications, including spontaneous bacterial peritonitis or other bacterial infections, is not accepted because evidence by clinical trials is still very weak. The present review deals in the first part with the potential impact of rifaximin on pathogenic mechanisms in liver diseases, whereas in the second part, its clinical effects are critically discussed. It clearly emerges that, because of its potential activity on multiple pathogenic events, the efficacy of rifaximin in the prevention or management of complications other than HE deserves to be investigated extensively. The results of double-blinded, adequately powered randomized clinical trials assessing the effect of rifaximin, alone or in combination with other drugs, on hard clinical endpoints, such as decompensation of cirrhosis, acute-on-chronic liver failure, and mortality, are therefore eagerly awaited.