Nutritional support in liver disease - an updated systematic review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The association of malnutrition and a poor prognosis does not prove that providing nutrition support improves that prognosis. The proof of such efficacy requires its demonstration in well designed and executed randomized trials. A systematic review of 40 such trials in 2014 failed to make such a finding. The purpose of this work is to update that review. RECENT FINDINGS: A search of multiple databases identified 12 new trials (3 of enteral nutrition and 9 of nutritional supplements) comparing the nutritional intervention to standard care. Meta-analyses suggested that the provision of enteral nutrition reduced infection rates in patients undergoing liver transplantation and total complication rates after hepatic resections. Supplement usage appeared to improve mortality in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or transplanted livers and reduce rates of ascites in patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma as well as improve encephalopathy resolution in those with cirrhosis. However, the risks of bias, some study designs, and the use of potentially pharmacologically active micronutrients limit the reliability of these observations. SUMMARY: There is inadequate evidence for clinicians to be sure that nutrition support is actually of benefit to patients with liver disease.

Aspirin use is associated with reduced risk for hepatocellular carcinoma.

SOURCE CITATION: Wang Y, Wang M, Liu C, et al. Aspirin use and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2022. [Epub ahead of print.] 35316225.

In patients having transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, rifaximin prevented overt hepatic encephalopathy.

SOURCE CITATION: Bureau C, Thabut D, Jezequel C, et al. The use of rifaximin in the prevention of overt hepatic encephalopathy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:633-40. 33524293.

USPSTF recommends screening adults 18 to 79 years for hepatitis C virus infection (moderate certainty).

SOURCE CITATION: Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al. Screening for hepatitis C virus infection in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2020;323:970-5. 32119076.

Letter to Editor: Response to AASLD Editorial/Message from the President.

A commentary [1] criticized our systematic review regarding the use of direct-acting agents (DAAs) in chronic hepatitis C [2]. The following represents our major disagreements. Sustained virological response (SVR) is a non-validated surrogate outcome. The principles of evidence-based medicine require that it be validated in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by showing parallel benefits in clinical outcomes [3]. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Probiotics in Gastroenterology: How Pro Is the Evidence in Adults?

Probiotic usage has become popular with both medical practitioners and the community in general; patients commonly seek advice regarding what, if any, such preparation would be useful for their own diseases. Since such advice should be evidence-based, identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for a number of gastrointestinal conditions were reviewed; the data were organized by individual probiotic genera/species. Only trials in adults were considered. Most of the identified RCTs were small and low-quality, so any conclusions to be drawn will be limited at least by methodologic problems. Using the GRADE system to consider the reliability of the evidence generated from these RCTs, it did appear that the use of fecal microbial transplantation to treat recurrent Clostridium difficile infection is well justified. Given the methodologic issues, there was moderately good evidence for preventing antibiotic-associated diarrhea with Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus, or Saccharomyces boulardii and for using Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, or Saccharomyces as adjunct therapy in the treatment of Helicobacter pylori. There were other conditions for which some supportive evidence was available. These conditions include VSL#3 for maintaining remissions in patients with pouchitis or treating active ulcerative colitis (UC), fecal microbial transplantation for treating active UC, Bifidobacterium for treating patients with UC in remission, Lactobacillus in patients with painful diverticulosis, a variety of probiotics (Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus, or VSL#3) in patients with minimal hepatic encephalopathy, and providing synbiotics to patients postoperatively after liver transplantation. Unfortunately, other limitations in the evidence made it very likely that future research will have an effect on the estimated benefit; these interventions cannot yet be recommended for routine use.

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.

The evidence for the use of nutritional support in liver disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although there is a well established association between malnutrition and poorer clinical outcomes in patients with liver disease, that fact alone does not prove that improving the malnutrition will improve outcome. The best way to determine if nutritional interventions are effective is to compare them to untreated control groups in well designed and executed randomized clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: A recent systematic review assessed 37 trials that compared parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or nutritional supplements to no nutritional therapy in patients with a variety of liver diseases. Since the publication of that review, an additional three trials have become available. Whereas all but one of the trials did have methodologic shortcomings that may have allowed the introduction of bias (which usually results in an overestimation of benefit), the trials failed to show much, if any, benefit. In fact, the single trial at low risk of bias found that more deaths occurred in the recipients of the supplements. SUMMARY: Although malnutrition may be associated with a poor outcome, the current best evidence indicates that the provision of adjunctive nutritional support (parenteral or enteral nutrition, or nutritional supplements) to patients with a variety of liver diseases (alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver surgery, liver transplantation, obstructive jaundice, hepatitis C antiviral treatment) does not improve clinical outcomes.

Interferon for interferon nonresponding and relapsing patients with chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: The widely-accepted treatment outcome for chronic hepatitis C is the sustained viral response (that is, no measurable viral RNA in blood six months after treatment). However, this surrogate outcome (as well as the previously employed biochemical and histologic ones) has never been validated. This situation exists because there are very few randomized clinical trials that have used clinical events (mortality or manifestations of decompensated cirrhosis) as outcomes, because those clinical events only occur after many years of infection. Patients in whom initial therapy fails to produce sustained viral responses do become potential candidates for retreatment; some of these individuals are not candidates for ribavirin or protease inhibitors and consideration could be given to retreatment with interferon alone. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interferon monotherapy retreatment in chronic hepatitis C patients and to validate the currently employed surrogate outcomes in this group of patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until 16 August 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials comparing interferon versus placebo or no treatment in chronic hepatitis C nonresponders and relapsers to previous interferon. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were mortality (all-cause and hepatic), quality of life, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were liver-related morbidity, sustained viral responses, biochemical responses, histologic improvements, and costs. We used both fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses, reporting only the former if no difference existed. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials were identified. Two of them were at low risk of bias (the HALT-C and EPIC3 trials) and included 1676 patients. Both of these trials addressed the role of long-term low-dose pegylated interferon therapy in patients with severe fibrosis (demonstrated on liver biopsy) and were designed to assess the clinical outcomes. The remaining five trials included 300 patients and were at high risk of bias. Based on all trials reporting the outcomes, no significant difference was observed in either all-cause mortality (78/843 (9.3%) versus 62/867 (7.2%); risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.79; 3 trials) or hepatic mortality (41/532 (7.7%) versus 40/552 (7.2%); RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.63; 2 trials); however, when only the two trials at low risk of bias were combined, all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the recipients of the pegylated interferon (78/828 (9.4%) versus 57/848 (6.7%); RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.96) although trial sequential analysis could not exclude the possibility of random error. There was less variceal bleeding in the recipients of the interferon (4/843 (0.5%) versus 18/867 (2.1%); RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 3 trials), although again trial sequential analysis could not exclude the presence of a type I error and the effect could not be confirmed in a random-effects model meta-analysis. No significant differences were seen with regard to the development of ascites, encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, or the need for liver transplantation. One trial reported quality of life data; the pain score was significantly worse in the recipients of the pegylated interferon. Adverse effects tended to be more common in the interferon recipients; the ones that were significantly more common included hematologic complications, infections, flu-like symptoms, and rash. The recipients of interferon had significantly more sustained viral responses (20/557 (3.6%) versus 1/579 (0.2%); RR 15.38, 95% CI 2.93 to 80.71; 4 trials) and a type I error was excluded by trial sequential analysis. The METAVIR activity score also improved (36/55 (65%) versus 20/46 (43.5%); RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.18; 2 trials). No significant differences were seen with regard to histologic fibrosis assessments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The clinical data were limited to patients with histologic evidence of severe fibrosis who were retreated with pegylated interferon. In this scenario, retreatment with interferon did not appear to provide significant clinical benefit and, when only the trials at low risk of bias were considered, retreatment for several years may even have increased all-cause mortality. Such treatment also produced adverse events. On the other hand, the treatment did result in improvement in some surrogate outcomes, namely sustained viral responses and histologic evidence of inflammation. Interferon monotherapy retreatment cannot be recommended for these patients. No clinical data are available for patients with less severe fibrosis. The sustained viral response cannot be used as a surrogate marker for hepatitis C treatment in this clinical setting with low sustained viral response rates and needs to be validated in others in which higher sustained viral response rates are reported.

Nutritional support for liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Weight loss and muscle wasting are commonly found in patients with end-stage liver disease. Since there is an association between malnutrition and poor clinical outcome, such patients (or those at risk of becoming malnourished) are often given parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements. These interventions have costs and adverse effects, so it is important to prove that their use results in improved morbidity or mortality, or both. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, and oral nutritional supplements on the mortality and morbidity of patients with underlying liver disease. SEARCH METHODS: The following computerised databases were searched: the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded (January 2012). In addition, reference lists of identified trials and review articles and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Trials identified in a previous systematic handsearch of Index Medicus were also considered. Handsearches of a number of medical journals, including abstracts from annual meetings, were done. Experts in the field and manufacturers of nutrient formulations were contacted for potential references. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (parallel or cross-over design) comparing groups of patients with any underlying liver disease who received, or did not receive, enteral or parenteral nutrition or oral nutritional supplements were identified without restriction on date, language, or publication status. Six categories of trials were separately considered: medical or surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or supplements. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The following data were sought in each report: date of publication; geographical location; inclusion and exclusion criteria; the type of nutritional support and constitution of the nutrient formulation; duration of treatment; any nutrition provided to the controls; other interventions provided to the patients; number, sex, age of the study participants; hospital or outpatient status; underlying liver disease; risks of bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome reporting, intention-to-treat analysis, selective outcome reporting, others (vested interests, baseline imbalance, early stopping)); mortality; hepatic morbidity (development or resolution of ascites or hepatic encephalopathy, occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding); quality of life scores; adverse events; infections; lengths of stay in the hospital or intensive care unit; costs; serum bilirubin; postoperative complications (surgical trials only); and nutritional outcomes (nitrogen balance, anthropometric measurements, body weight). The primary outcomes of this review were mortality, hepatic morbidity, quality of life, and adverse events. Data were extracted in duplicate; differences were resolved by consensus.Data for each outcome were combined in a meta-analysis (RevMan 5.1). Estimates were reported using risk ratios or mean differences, along with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Both fixed-effect and random-effects models were employed; fixed-effect models were reported unless one model, but not the other, found a significant difference (in which case both were reported). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Chi(2) test and I(2) statistic. Subgroup analyses were planned to assess specific liver diseases (alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma), acute or chronic liver diseases, and trials employing standard or branched-chain amino acid formulations (for the hepatic encephalopathy outcomes). Sensitivity analyses were planned to compare trials at low and high risk of bias and trials reported as full papers. The following exploratory analyses were undertaken: 1) medical and surgical trials were combined for each nutritional intervention; 2) intention-to-treat analyses in which missing dichotomous data were imputed as best- and worst-case scenarios; 3) all trials were combined to assess mortality; 4) effects were estimated by absolute risk reductions. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven trials were identified; only one was at low risk of bias. Most of the analyses failed to find any significant differences. The significant findings that were found were the following: 1) icteric medical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced serum bilirubin (mean difference (MD) -2.86 mg%, 95% CI -3.82 mg% to -1.89 mg%, 3 trials) and better nitrogen balance (MD 3.60 g/day, 95% CI 0.86 g/day to 6.34 g/day, 1 trial); 2) surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced incidence of postoperative ascites only in the fixed-effect model (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.87, 2 trials, I(2) = 70%) and one trial demonstrated a reduction in postoperative complications, especially infections (pneumonia in particular); 3) enteral nutrition may have improved nitrogen balance in medical patients (although a combination of the three trials was not possible); 4) one surgical trial of enteral nutrition found a reduction in postoperative complications; and 5) oral nutritional supplements had several effects in medical patients (reduced occurrence of ascites (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88, 3 trials), possibly (significant differences only seen in the fixed-effect model) reduced rates of infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99, 3 trials, I(2) = 14%), and improved resolution of hepatic encephalopathy (RR 3.75, 95% CI 1.15 to 12.18, 2 trials, I(2) = 79%). While there was no overall effect of the supplements on mortality in medical patients, the one low risk of bias trial found an increased risk of death in the recipients of the supplements. Three trials of supplements in surgical patients failed to show any significant differences. No new information was derived from the various subgroup or sensitivity analyses. The exploratory analyses were also unrevealing except for a logical conundrum. There was no difference in mortality when all of the trials were combined, but the trials of parenteral nutrition found that those recipients had better survival (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.98, 10 trials). Either the former observation represents a type II error or the latter one a type I error. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data do not compellingly justify the routine use of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements in patients with liver disease. The fact that all but one of these trials were at high risks of bias even casts doubt on the few benefits that were demonstrated. Data from well-designed and executed randomised trials that include an untreated control group are needed before any such recommendation can be made. Future trials have to be powered adequately to see small, but clinically important, differences.