Non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and lactulose versus lactitol for the prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis

Background Non-absorbable disaccharides (lactulose and lactitol) are recommended as first-line treatment for hepatic encephalopathy. The previous (second) version of this review included 10 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and eight RCTs evaluating lactulose versus lactitol for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. The review found no evidence to either support or refute the use of the non-absorbable disaccharides and no differences between lactulose versus lactitol. Objectives To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of i) non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and ii) lactulose versus lactitol in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. Search methods We carried out electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to 19 October 2015; manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. Selection criteria We included RCTs, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. Data collection and analysis Two review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We presented the results of meta-analyses as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) and bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. Our analyses included regression analyses of publication bias and other small study effects, Trial Sequential Analyses to detect type 1 and type 2 errors, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Main results We included 38 RCTs with a total of 1828 participants. Eight RCTs had a low risk of bias in the assessment of mortality. All trials had a high risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a beneficial effect of non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention on mortality when including all RCTs with extractable data (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.87; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence) and in the eight RCTs with a low risk of bias (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; 705 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis with the relative risk reduction (RRR) reduced to 30% confirmed the findings when including all RCTs, but not when including only RCTs with a low risk of bias or when we reduced the RRR to 22%. Compared with placebo/no intervention, the non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with beneficial effects on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.69; 1415 participants; 22 RCTs; I2 = 32%; moderate quality evidence). Additional analyses showed that non-absorbable disaccharides can help to reduce serious adverse events associated with the underlying liver disease including liver failure, hepatorenal syndrome, and variceal bleeding (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.60; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We confirmed the results in Trial Sequential Analysis. Tests for subgroup differences showed no statistical differences between RCTs evaluating prevention, overt, or minimal hepatic encephalopathy. The evaluation of secondary outcomes showed a potential beneficial effect of the non-absorbable disaccharides on quality of life, but we were not able to include the data in an overall meta-analysis (very low quality evidence). Non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with non-serious (mainly gastrointestinal) adverse events (very low quality evidence). None of the RCTs comparing lactulose versus lactitol evaluated quality of life. The review found no differences between lactulose and lactitol for the remaining outcomes (very low quality evidence). Authors' conclusions This review includes a large number of RCTs evaluating the prevention or treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. The analyses found evidence that non-absorbable disaccharides may be associated with a beneficial effect on clinically relevant outcomes compared with placebo/no intervention. EnglishCroatianGerman Plain language summary Are non-absorbable disaccharides associated with beneficial or harmful effects in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy? Background Cirrhosis is a chronic disorder of the liver. People with cirrhosis may develop hepatic encephalopathy, a condition that results in poor brain functioning. Hepatic encephalopathy may be clinically obvious (overt) with changes including poor concentration, tremor, and alterations in consciousness. Others have no obvious clinical changes (minimal) but, when tested, some aspects of brain function such as attention and the ability to perform complex tasks are impaired. The reason why people develop hepatic encephalopathy is complex. The accumulation of ammonia plays a key role. The non-absorbable disaccharides, lactulose and lactitol, are indigestible sugars that reduce the levels of ammonia in the blood. Review question We investigated the use of non-absorbable disaccharides for the prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis by reviewing randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Search date The search date was October 2015. Study funding sources Seven RCTs received financial support and 11 RCTs received lactitol or inactive placebo free of charge from a pharmaceutical company. Study characteristics We included 29 RCTs comparing non-absorbable disaccharides with inactive placebo or no intervention and nine RCTs comparing lactulose with lactitol. Seven of the included RCTs evaluated the prevention of hepatic encephalopathy and 31 evaluated the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. Sixteen of the treatment RCTs included people with overt hepatic encephalopathy while 15 included people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy. The duration of treatment varied depending on the type of hepatic encephalopathy from five days to one year. Key results People who received non-absorbable disaccharides were less likely to die than people given a placebo or no treatment. They were also less likely to develop serious complications of their liver disease such as liver failure, bleeding, and infections. The non-absorbable disaccharides were also effective in preventing the development of hepatic encephalopathy and increased the number of participants who recovered from hepatic encephalopathy. There was some evidence from a small number of trials that lactulose has a beneficial effect on the quality of life, but we were unable to include the data in an overall analysis. The non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with adverse events including diarrhoea, nausea, bloating, and flatulence. None of the RCTs comparing lactulose versus lactitol reported quality of life. The analyses showed no differences between the two interventions for the remaining outcomes. Quality of the evidence In the comparison of non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention, we found moderate quality evidence of benefit for the outcomes of death, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious complications. The evidence for the remaining outcomes was of very low quality

Customer satisfaction and firm profits in monopolies: A study of utilities

There is a growing body of evidence that customer satisfaction is predictive of firms’ future financial performance. However, studies of this relationship have been limited to competitive markets, and monopolistic markets have been largely ignored. This study explores the large and important utilities market and exploits its unique regulatory requirements that generate detailed and reliable operating and accounting data to examine the overall relationship between customer satisfaction and utility profit and establish the causal mechanisms involved. Using data from U.S. public utility firms, the authors show that even when customer satisfaction does not affect future revenues, it does positively predict future profitability by reducing utility firm operating costs. More specifically, they find that higher satisfaction reduces the costs of utility firm distribution, customer service, and sales and general administration expenses. These findings and additional post hoc evidence are consistent with the notion that customer satisfaction (1) generates efficiency-enhancing benefits for utility firms by lowering the direct and employee engagement costs of dealing with dissatisfied customers and (2) fosters greater trust and cooperation from customers. This study has important implications for both managers and regulators and provides important new insights for market-based asset theory and regulatory economic theory

L-ornithine L-aspartate for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo, no intervention, or other active interventions for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy

Ammonia scavenging agents for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits and harms of ammonia scavenging agents versus placebo, no intervention, or other active interventions for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy

Evaluation of the incremental cost to the National Health Service of prescribing analogue insulin

Introduction Insulin analogues have become increasingly popular despite their greater cost compared with human insulin. The aim of this study was to calculate the incremental cost to the National Health Service (NHS) of prescribing analogue insulin preparations instead of their human insulin alternatives. Methods Open-source data from the four UK prescription pricing agencies from 2000 to 2009 were analysed. Cost was adjusted for inflation and reported in UK pounds at 2010 prices. Results Over the 10-year period, the NHS spent a total of £2732 million on insulin. The total annual cost increased from £156 million to £359 million, an increase of 130%. The annual cost of analogue insulin increased from £18.2 million (12% of total insulin cost) to £305 million (85% of total insulin cost), whereas the cost of human insulin decreased from £131 million (84% of total insulin cost) to £51 million (14% of total insulin cost). If it is assumed that all patients using insulin analogues could have received human insulin instead, the overall incremental cost of analogue insulin was £625 million. Conclusion Given the high marginal cost of analogue insulin, adherence to prescribing guidelines recommending the preferential use of human insulin would have resulted in considerable financial savings over the period

Healthcare resource utilization and related financial costs associated with glucose lowering with either exenatide or basal insulin: a retrospective cohort study

Aims Type 2 diabetes is a major health problem placing increasing demands on healthcare systems. Our objective was to estimate healthcare resource use and related financial costs following treatment with exenatide‐based regimens prescribed as once‐weekly (EQW) or twice‐daily (EBID) formulations, compared with regimens based on basal insulin (BI). Materials and methods This retrospective cohort study used data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Patients with type 2 diabetes who received exenatide or BI between 2009 and 2014 as their first recorded exposure to injectable therapy were selected. Costs were attributed to primary care contacts, diabetes‐related prescriptions and inpatient admissions using standard UK healthcare costing methods (2014 prices). Frequency and costs were compared between cohorts before and after matching by propensity score using Poisson regression. Results Groups of 8723, 218 and 2180 patients receiving BI, EQW and EBID, respectively, were identified; 188 and 1486 patients receiving EQW and EBID, respectively, were matched 1:1 to patients receiving BI by propensity score. Among unmatched cohorts, total crude mean costs per patient‐year were £2765 for EQW, £2549 for EBID and £4080 for BI. Compared with BI, the adjusted annual cost ratio (aACR) was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91‐0.92) for EQW and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.82‐0.82) for EBID. Corresponding costs for the propensity‐matched subgroups were £2646 vs £3283 (aACR, 0.80, 0.80‐0.81) for EQW vs BI and £2532 vs £3070 (aACR, 0.84, 0.84‐0.84) for EBID vs BI. Conclusion Overall, exenatide once‐weekly and twice‐daily‐based regimens were associated with reduced healthcare resource use and costs compared with basal‐insulin‐based regimens

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 I(2) 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

Non-Response to Antibiotic Treatment in Adolescents for Four Common Infections in UK Primary Care 1991-2012: A Retrospective, Longitudinal Study

We studied non-response rates to antibiotics in the under-reported subgroup of adolescents aged 12 to 17 years old, using standardised criteria representing antibiotic treatment failure. Routine, primary care data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) were used. Annual, non-response rates by antibiotics and by indication were determined. We identified 824,651 monotherapies in 415,468 adolescents: 368,900 (45%) episodes for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), 89,558 (11%) for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), 286,969 (35%) for skin/soft tissue infections (SSTIs) and 79,224 (10%) for acute otitis media (AOM). The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were amoxicillin (27%), penicillin-V (24%), erythromycin (11%), flucloxacillin (11%) and oxytetracycline (6%). In 1991, the overall non-response rate was 9.3%: 11.9% for LRTIs, 9.5% for URTIs, 7.1% for SSTIs, 9.7% for AOM. In 2012, the overall non-response rate was 9.2%. Highest non-response rates were for AOM in 1991–1999 and for LRTIs in 2000–2012. Physicians generally prescribed antibiotics to adolescents according to recommendations. Evidence of antibiotic non-response was less common among adolescents during this 22-year study period compared with an all-age population, where the overall non-response rate was 12%