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

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

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

Likely country of origin in publications on randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials during the last 60 years

BACKGROUND: The number of publications on clinical trials is unknown as well as the countries publishing most trial reports. To try to examine these questions we performed an ecological study. METHODS: We searched the 454,449 records on publications in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2005 (CD-ROM version) for possible country of origin. We inspected a random sample of 906 records for information on country and type of trial. RESULTS: There was an exponential growth of publications on randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials since 1946, but the growth seems to have seized since 2000. We identified the possible country of origin of 210,974 publications (46.4%). The USA is leading with about 46,789 publications followed by UK, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, and France. Sweden becomes the leader with 891 publications per million inhabitants during the last 60 years followed by Denmark (n = 864), New Zealand (n = 791), Finland (n = 781), the Netherlands (n = 570), Switzerland (n = 547), and Norway (n = 543). In depth assessment of the random sample backed these findings. CONCLUSION: Many records lacked country of origin, even after the additional scrutiny. The number of publications on clinical trials increased exponentially until the turn of the century. Rather small, democratic, and wealthy countries take the lead when the number of publications on clinical trials is calculated based on million inhabitants. If all countries produced the same number of trials as these countries, this could mean thousands of new effective treatments during the next 60 years

Typical investigational medicinal products follow relatively uniform regulations in 10 European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In order to facilitate multinational clinical research, regulatory requirements need to become international and harmonised. The EU introduced the Directive 2001/20/EC in 2004, regulating investigational medicinal products in Europe.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a survey in order to identify the national regulatory requirements for major categories of clinical research in ten European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries-Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom-covering approximately 70% of the EU population. Here we describe the results for regulatory requirements for typical investigational medicinal products, in the ten countries.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our results show that the ten countries have fairly harmonised definitions of typical investigational medicinal products. Clinical trials assessing typical investigational medicinal products require authorisation from a national competent authority in each of the countries surveyed. The opinion of the competent authorities is communicated to the trial sponsor within the same timelines, i.e., no more than 60 days, in all ten countries. The authority to which the application has to be sent to in the different countries is not fully harmonised.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Directive 2001/20/EC defined the term 'investigational medicinal product' and all regulatory requirements described therein are applicable to investigational medicinal products. Our survey showed, however, that those requirements had been adopted in ten European countries, not for investigational medicinal products overall, but rather a narrower category which we term 'typical' investigational medicinal products. The result is partial EU harmonisation of requirements and a relatively navigable landscape for the sponsor regarding typical investigational medicinal products.</p

Differential inflammasome activation predisposes to acute-on-chronic liver failure in human and experimental cirrhosis with and without previous decompensation

OBJECTIVE Systemic inflammation predisposes acutely decompensated (AD) cirrhosis to the development of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). Supportive treatment can improve AD patients, becoming recompensated. Little is known about the outcome of patients recompensated after AD. We hypothesise that different inflammasome activation is involved in ACL F development in compensated and recompensated patients. DESIGN 249 patients with cirrhosis, divided into compensated and recompensated (previous AD), were followed prospectively for fatal ACL F development. Two external cohorts (n=327) (recompensation, AD and ACL F) were included. Inflammasome-driving interleukins (ILs), IL-1α (caspase-4/11-dependent) and IL-1β (caspase-1- dependent), were measured. In rats, bile duct ligationinduced cirrhosis and lipopolysaccharide exposition were used to induce AD and subsequent recompensation. IL-1α and IL-1β levels and upstream/downstream gene expression were measured. RESULTS Patients developing ACL F showed higher baseline levels of ILs. Recompensated patients and patients with detectable ILs had higher rates of ACL F development than compensated patients. Baseline CLIF-­C (European Foundation for the study of chronic liver failure consortium) AD, albumin and IL-1α were independent predictors of ACL F development in compensated and CLIF-­C AD and IL-1β in recompensated patients. Compensated rats showed higher IL-1α gene expression and recompensated rats higher IL-1β levels with higher hepatic gene expression. Higher IL-1β detection rates in recompensated patients developing ACL F and higher IL-1α and IL-1β detection rates in patients with ACL F were confirmed in the two external cohorts. CONCLUSION Previous AD is an important risk factor for fatal ACL F development and possibly linked with inflammasome activation. Animal models confirmed the results showing a link between ACL F development and IL-1α in compensated cirrhosis and IL-1β in recompensated cirrhosi