Benzodiazepine receptor antagonists for hepatic encephalopathy

Update on pharmacotherapy of hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a central nervous system disease caused by serious liver diseases or various portal vein systemic circulation abnormalities. The pathogenesis and pathophysiology of HE have not been fully elucidated yet, and among others, the most important is still the theory of ammonia intoxication proposed in the 1930s. Therefore, reducing blood ammonia is currently the main therapeutic strategy for HE, along with improving nervous system function. Thanks to the clarification of the mechanism underlying ammonia-induced brain cell injury in recent years, researchers have proposed some novel therapeutic targets and related drugs. This work will make a brief summary regarding the update of HE drugs with regard to ammonia reduction, nervous system improvement, and intervention of ammonia toxicity targets.

Acetyl-L-carnitine for patients with hepatic encephalopathy

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy is a common and devastating neuropsychiatric complication of acute liver failure or chronic liver disease. Ammonia content in the blood seems to play a role in the development of hepatic encephalopathy. Treatment for hepatic encephalopathy is complex. Acetyl-L-carnitine is a substance that may reduce ammonia toxicity. This review assessed the benefits and harms of acetyl-L-carnitine for patients with hepatic encephalopathy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of acetyl-L-carnitine for patients with hepatic encephalopathy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomised clinical trials. We sought additional randomised clinical trials from the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We performed all electronic searches until 10 September 2018. We looked through the reference lists of retrieved publications and review articles, and we searched the FDA and EMA websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised clinical trials in any setting, recruiting people with hepatic encephalopathy. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared acetyl-L-carnitine plus standard care (e.g. antibiotics, lactulose) versus placebo or no acetyl-L-carnitine plus standard care. We are well aware that by selecting randomised clinical trials, we placed greater focus on potential benefits than on potential harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected randomised clinical trials, assessed risk of bias in eight domains, and extracted data in a duplicate and independent fashion. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using I² and D² statistics. We subjected our analyses to fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses. We assessed bias risk domains to control systematic errors. We assessed overall quality of the data for each individual outcome by using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five randomised clinical trials involving 398 participants. All trials included only participants with cirrhosis as the underlying cause of hepatic encephalopathy. Trials included participants with covert or overt hepatic encephalopathy. All trials were conducted in Italy by a single team and assessed acetyl-L-carnitine compared with placebo. Oral intervention was the most frequent route of administration. All trials were at high risk of bias and were underpowered. None of the trials were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.None of the identified trials reported information on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, or days of hospitalisation. Only one trial assessed quality of life using the Short Form (SF)-36 scale (67 participants; very low-quality evidence). The effects of acetyl-L-carnitine compared with placebo on general health at 90 days are uncertain (MD -6.20 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.51 to -2.89). Results for additional domains of the SF-36 are also uncertain. One trial assessed fatigue using the Wessely and Powell test (121 participants; very low-quality evidence). The effects are uncertain in people with moderate-grade hepatic encephalopathy (mental fatigue: MD 0.40 points, 95% CI -0.21 to 1.01; physical fatigue: MD -0.20 points, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.52) and mild-grade hepatic encephalopathy (mental fatigue: -0.80 points, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.12; physical fatigue: 0.20 points, 95% CI -0.72 to 1.12). Meta-analysis showed a reduction in blood ammonium levels favouring acetyl-L-carnitine versus placebo (MD -13.06 mg/dL, 95% CI -17.24 to -8.99; 387 participants; 5 trials; very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether acetyl-L-carnitine versus placebo increases the risk of non-serious adverse events (8/126 (6.34%) vs 3/120 (2.50%); RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.68 to 9.22; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). Overall, adverse events data were poorly reported and harms may have been underestimated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane systematic review analysed a heterogeneous group of five trials at high risk of bias and with high risk of random errors conducted by only one research team. We assessed acetyl-L-carnitine versus placebo in participants with cirrhosis with covert or overt hepatic encephalopathy. Hence, we have no data on the drug for hepatic encephalopathy in acute liver failure. We found no information about all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, or days of hospitalisation. We found no clear differences in effect between acetyl-L-carnitine and placebo regarding quality of life, fatigue, and non-serious adverse events. Acetyl-L-carnitine reduces blood ammonium levels compared with placebo. We rated all evidence as of very low quality due to pitfalls in design and execution, inconsistency, small sample sizes, and very few events. The harms profile for acetyl-L-carnitine is presently unclear. Accordingly, we need further randomised clinical trials to assess acetyl-L-carnitine versus placebo conducted according to the SPIRIT statements and reported according to the CONSORT statements.

L-ornithine L-aspartate in bouts of overt hepatic encephalopathy

High-quality data on the efficacy of L-ornithine L-aspartate (LOLA) in patients with cirrhosis and bouts of overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) are missing. We evaluated the efficacy of intravenous LOLA in the reversal of bouts of OHE in patients with cirrhosis. In this prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at two tertiary care institutes in India, 370 patients with cirrhosis and bouts of OHE were screened. After exclusion, 193 (52.16%) patients were randomized to receive either intravenous infusions of LOLA (n = 98), 30 g daily, or placebo (n = 95) for 5 days. Standard of care treatment (including lactulose and ceftriaxone) was given in both groups. Randomization was done centrally (http://www.sealedenvelope.com/). All study personnel were blinded to the treatment assignment. Fasting venous ammonia levels were estimated daily from 0 to 5 days. Serum tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukins, hemogram, and liver and renal function tests were performed at days 0 and 5. Primary outcome was mental state grade at day 5 of treatment. The grade of OHE was significantly lower in the LOLA group (compared to placebo) on days 1-4 but not on day 5. The mean time taken for recovery was lower in the LOLA group compared to the placebo group (1.92 ± 0.93 versus 2.50 ± 1.03 days, P = 0.002; 95% confidence interval -0.852 to -0.202). Venous ammonia at day 5 and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the LOLA group. No significant difference in interleukins was seen between the groups. Conclusion: In patients with bouts of OHE, intravenous LOLA (as an add-on therapy to lactulose and ceftriaxone) significantly improves the grade of OHE over days 1-4, but not on day 5, and decreases venous ammonia, time of recovery, and length of hospital stay. (Hepatology 2018;67:700-710).

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

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis which results in poor brain functioning. The spectrum of changes associated with hepatic encephalopathy ranges from the clinically 'indiscernible' or minimal hepatic encephalopathy to the clinically 'obvious' or overt hepatic encephalopathy. Flumazenil is a synthetic benzodiazepine antagonist with high affinity for the central benzodiazepine recognition site. Flumazenil may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy through an indirect negative allosteric modulatory effect on gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor function. The previous version of this review, which included 13 randomised clinical trials, found no effect of flumazenil on all-cause mortality, based on an analysis of 10 randomised clinical trials, but found a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy, based on an analysis of eight randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and LILACS; meeting and conference proceedings; and bibliographies in May 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE; evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses; and conducted trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 eligible randomised clinical trials with 867 participants, the majority of whom had an acute episode of overt hepatic encephalopathy. In addition, we identified one ongoing randomised clinical trial. We were unable to gather outcome data from two randomised clinical trials with 25 participants. Thus, our analyses include 842 participants from 12 randomised clinical trials comparing flumazenil versus placebo. We classified one randomised clinical trial at low risk of bias in the overall assessment and the remaining randomised clinical trials at high risk of bias. The duration of follow-up ranged from a few minutes to two weeks, but it was less than one day in the majority of the trials.In total, 32/433 (7.4%) participants allocated to flumazenil versus 38/409 (9.3%) participants allocated to placebo died (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; 11 randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis and the one randomised clinical trial assessed as low risk of bias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.53) found no beneficial or harmful effects of flumazenil on all-cause mortality. The methods used to evaluate hepatic encephalopathy included several different clinical scales, electrophysiological variables, and psychometric tests. Flumazenil was associated with a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.80; 824 participants; nine randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence), or just the trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.84; 527 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis supported a beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy. The randomised clinical trials included little information about causes of death and little information on non-fatal serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low quality evidence suggesting a short-term beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis, but no evidence of an effect on all-cause mortality. Additional evidence from large, high quality randomised clinical trials is needed to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of flumazenil in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

Hepatic encephalopathy: a critical current review

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a serious neuropsychiatric complication of cirrhosis and/or porto-systemic shunting. The clinical symptoms are widely variable, extending from subtle impairment in mental state to coma. The utility of categorizing the severity of HE accurately and efficiently serves not only to provide practical functional information about the current clinical status of the patient but also gives valuable prognostic information. In the past 20–30 years, there has been rapid progress in understanding the pathophysiological basis of HE; however, the lack of direct correlation between pathogenic factors and the severity of HE make it difficult to select appropriate therapy for HE patients. In this review, we will discuss the classification system and its limitations, the neuropsychometric assessments and their challenges, as well as the present knowledge on the pathophysiological mechanisms. Despite the many prevalent hypotheses around the pathogenesis of the disease, most treatments focus on targeting and lowering the accumulation of ammonia as well as inflammation. However, treatment of minimal HE remains a huge unmet need and a big concerted effort is needed to better define this condition to allow the development of new therapies. We review the currently available therapies and future approaches to treat HE as well as the scientific and clinical data that support their effectiveness.

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

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis which results in poor brain functioning. The spectrum of changes associated with hepatic encephalopathy ranges from the clinically 'indiscernible' or minimal hepatic encephalopathy to the clinically 'obvious' or overt hepatic encephalopathy. Flumazenil is a synthetic benzodiazepine antagonist with high affinity for the central benzodiazepine recognition site. Flumazenil may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy through an indirect negative allosteric modulatory effect on gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor function. The previous version of this review, which included 13 randomised clinical trials, found no effect of flumazenil on all-cause mortality, based on an analysis of 10 randomised clinical trials, but found a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy, based on an analysis of eight randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and LILACS; meeting and conference proceedings; and bibliographies in May 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE; evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses; and conducted trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 eligible randomised clinical trials with 867 participants, the majority of whom had an acute episode of overt hepatic encephalopathy. In addition, we identified one ongoing randomised clinical trial. We were unable to gather outcome data from 2 randomised clinical trials with 25 participants. Thus, our analyses include 842 participants from 12 randomised clinical trials comparing flumazenil versus placebo. We classified one randomised clinical trial at low risk of bias in the overall assessment and the remaining randomised clinical trials at high risk of bias. The duration of follow-up ranged from a few minutes to two weeks, but it was less than one day in the majority of the trials.In total, 32/433 (7.4%) participants allocated to flumazenil versus 38/409 (9.3%) participants allocated to placebo died (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; 11 randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis and the one randomised clinical trial assessed as low risk of bias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.53) found no beneficial or harmful effects of flumazenil on all-cause mortality. The methods used to evaluate hepatic encephalopathy included several different clinical scales, electrophysiological variables, and psychometric tests. Flumazenil was associated with a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.80; 824 participants; 9 randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence), or just the trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.84; 527 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis supported a beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy. The randomised clinical trials included little information about causes of death and little information on non-fatal serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low quality evidence suggesting a short-term beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis, but no evidence of an effect on all-cause mortality. Additional evidence from large, high quality randomised clinical trials is needed to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of flumazenil in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

Probiotics for people with hepatic encephalopathy

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy is a disorder of brain function as a result of liver failure or portosystemic shunt or both. Both hepatic encephalopathy (clinically overt) and minimal hepatic encephalopathy (not clinically overt) significantly impair patient's quality of life and daily functioning, and represent a significant burden on healthcare resources. Probiotics are live micro-organisms, which when administered in adequate amounts, may confer a health benefit on the host.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of probiotics in any dosage, compared with placebo or no intervention, or with any other treatment for people with any grade of acute or chronic hepatic encephalopathy. This review did not consider the primary prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, conference proceedings, reference lists of included trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials that compared probiotics in any dosage with placebo or no intervention, or with any other treatment in people with hepatic encephalopathy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We conducted random-effects model meta-analysis due to obvious heterogeneity of participants and interventions. We defined a P value of 0.05 or less as significant. We expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials with 1420 participants, of these, 14 were new trials. Fourteen trials compared a probiotic with placebo or no treatment, and seven trials compared a probiotic with lactulose. The trials used a variety of probiotics; the most commonly used group of probiotic was VSL#3, a proprietary name for a group of eight probiotics. Duration of administration ranged from 10 days to 180 days. Eight trials declared their funding source, of which six were independently funded and two were industry funded. The remaining 13 trials did not disclose their funding source. We classified 19 of the 21 trials at high risk of bias.We found no effect on all-cause mortality when probiotics were compared with placebo or no treatment (7 trials; 404 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.44; low-quality evidence). No-recovery (as measured by incomplete resolution of symptoms) was lower for participants treated with probiotic (10 trials; 574 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.79; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events were lower for participants treated with probiotic than with no intervention when considering the development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (10 trials; 585 participants; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.51; low-quality evidence), but effects on hospitalisation and change of/or withdrawal from treatment were uncertain (hospitalisation: 3 trials, 163 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.00; very low-quality evidence; change of/or withdrawal from treatment: 9 trials, 551 participants; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.07; very low-quality evidence). Probiotics may slightly improve quality of life compared with no intervention (3 trials; 115 participants; results not meta-analysed; low-quality evidence). Plasma ammonia concentration was lower for participants treated with probiotic (10 trials; 705 participants; MD -8.29 μmol/L, 95% CI -13.17 to -3.41; low-quality evidence). There were no reports of septicaemia attributable to probiotic in any trial.When probiotics were compared with lactulose, the effects on all-cause mortality were uncertain (2 trials; 200 participants; RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 102.00; very low-quality evidence); lack of recovery (7 trials; 430 participants; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21; very low-quality evidence); adverse events considering the development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (6 trials; 420 participants; RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.17; very low-quality evidence); hospitalisation (1 trial; 80 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.07; very low-quality evidence); intolerance leading to discontinuation (3 trials; 220 participants; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.43; very low-quality evidence); change of/or withdrawal from treatment (7 trials; 490 participants; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.82; very low-quality evidence); quality of life (results not meta-analysed; 1 trial; 69 participants); and plasma ammonia concentration overall (6 trials; 325 participants; MD -2.93 μmol/L, 95% CI -9.36 to 3.50; very low-quality evidence). There were no reports of septicaemia attributable to probiotic in any trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The majority of included trials suffered from a high risk of systematic error ('bias') and a high risk of random error ('play of chance'). Accordingly, we consider the evidence to be of low quality. Compared with placebo or no intervention, probiotics probably improve recovery and may lead to improvements in the development of overt hepatic encephalopathy, quality of life, and plasma ammonia concentrations, but probiotics may lead to little or no difference in mortality. Whether probiotics are better than lactulose for hepatic encephalopathy is uncertain because the quality of the available evidence is very low. High-quality randomised clinical trials with standardised outcome collection and data reporting are needed to further clarify the true efficacy of probiotics.

Flumazenil for the Treatment of Refractory Hypersomnolence: Clinical Experience with 153 Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Patients with central disorders of hypersomnolence sometimes do not achieve satisfactory symptom control with currently available wake-promoting medications. Based on the finding that the cerebrospinal fluid from some patients with hypersomnolence demonstrates potentiation of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-A receptors in excess of that of controls, a finding that reverses with flumazenil, we initiated prescribing compounded flumazenil to carefully selected, treatment-refractory hypersomnolent patients.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review evaluated the first 153 consecutive patients treated with transdermal and/or sublingual flumazenil by physicians at our center from 2013 through January 2015.

RESULTS

Patients were 35.5 y old (± 14.4) and 92 (60.1%) were women. Mean Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores prior to flumazenil were 15.1 (± 4.5) despite prior or current treatment with traditional wake-promoting therapies. Symptomatic benefit was noted by 96 patients (62.8%), with a mean reduction in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score of 4.7 points (± 4.7) among responders. Of these, 59 remained on flumazenil chronically, for a mean of 7.8 mo (± 6.9 mo). Female sex and presence of reported sleep inertia differentiated flumazenil responders from nonresponders. Adverse events were common, but often did not result in treatment discontinuation. Serious adverse events included a transient ischemic attack and a lupus vasculopathy, although whether these events occurred because of flumazenil administration is unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

This chart review demonstrates that sublingual and transdermal flumazenil provided sustained clinical benefit to 39% of patients with treatment-refractory hypersomnolence. Prospective, controlled studies of this GABA-A receptor antagonist for the treatment of hypersomnolence are needed.

COMMENTARY

A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 1321.

Hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) represents a continuum of transient and reversible neurologic and psychiatric dysfunction. It is a reversible state of impaired cognitive function or altered consciousness in patients with liver disease or portosystemic shunting. Over the last several years, high-quality studies have been conducted on various pharmacologic therapies for HE; as more data emerge, it is hoped that HE will become a more easily treated complication of decompensated liver disease. In the interim, it is important that physicians continue to screen for minimal HE and treat patients early in addition to continuing to provide current treatments of overt HE.

Management of overt hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a potentially reversible state of impaired cognitive function or altered consciousness in patients with liver disease or portosystemic shunting. Overt HE is a particularly pressing problem. Given the many targets of treatment and lack of a clear singular cause of overt HE, there is no consensus on a single best treatment. Over the past several years, high-quality studies have been conducted on the various pharmacologic therapies for HE and, as more data emerge, hopefully HE will become a much more easily treated complication of decompensated liver disease.

Theories of the pathogenesis of hepatic encephalopathy

The earliest hypothesis of the pathogenesis of HE implicated ammonia, although effects of appreciable concentrations of this neurotoxin did not resemble HE. Altered eurotransmission in the brain was suggested by similarities between increased GABA-mediated inhibitory neurotransmission and HE, specifically decreased consciousness and impaired motor function. Evidence of increased GABAergic tone in models of HE has accumulated; potential mechanisms include increased synaptic availability of GABA and accumulation of natural benzodiazepine receptor ligands with agonist properties. Pathophysiological concentrations of ammonia associated with HE, have the potential of enhancing GABAergic tone by mechanisms that involve its interactions with the GABAa receptor complex.

A current review of the diagnostic and treatment strategies of hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a serious and potentially fatal complication in patients with cirrhotic liver disease. It is a spectrum ranging from minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) without recognizable clinical symptoms or signs, to overt HE with risk of cerebral edema and death. HE results in diminished quality of life and survival. The broad range of neuropsychiatric manifestations reflects the range of pathophysiological mechanisms and impairment in neurotransmission that are purported to cause HE including hyperammonemia, astrocyte swelling, intra-astrocytic glutamine, upregulation of 18-kDa translocator protein (TSPO) (formerly known as peripheral benzodiazepine receptor or PBTR), and manganese. There is a myriad of diagnostic tools including simple bedside clinical assessment, and more complex neuropsychological batteries and neurophysiological tests available today. Current treatment strategies are directed at reducing ammonia, with newer agents showing some early promise. This paper describes the pathophysiology of the disease and summarises current diagnostic and treatment therapies available.

Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a neuropsychiatric disorder seen in patients with advanced liver disease or porto-systemic shunts. Based on etiology and severity of HE, the World Congress of Gastroenterology has divided HE into categories and sub-categories. Many user-friendly computer-based neuropsychiatric tests are being validated for diagnosing covert HE. Currently, emphasis is being given to view HE deficits as a continuous spectrum rather than distinct stages. Ammonia is believed to play crucial role in pathogenesis of HE via astrocyte swelling and cerebral edema. However, evidence has been building up which supports the synergistic role of oxidative stress, inflammation and neurosteroids in pathogenesis of HE. At present, treatment of HE aims at decreasing the production and intestinal absorption of ammonia. But as the role of new pathogenetic mechanisms becomes clear, many potential new treatment strategies may become available for clinician.

Endoscopic sedation of patients with chronic liver disease

Endoscopic procedures are often necessary in patients with chronic liver disease. The preprocedure evaluation of such patients should include an assessment of hepatic synthetic function and identification of neuropsychiatric findings suggestive of hepatic encephalopathy. It may be possible, in some cases, to perform diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy without administration of sedation; this is desirable to eliminate the risks of sedation, especially encephalopathy. Nonetheless, most patients undergoing upper and lower endoscopy require sedation. Currently, the use of propofol is preferred to benzodiazepines and opioids for endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and low risk of provoking hepatic encephalopathy. In appropriately selected patients, gastroenterologist-directed propofol administration seems safe.

Pathoetiological model of delirium: a comprehensive understanding of the neurobiology of delirium and an evidence-based approach to prevention and treatment

Delirium is the most common complication found in the general hospital setting. Yet, we know relatively little about its actual pathophysiology. This article contains a summary of what we know to date and how different proposed intrinsic and external factors may work together or by themselves to elicit the cascade of neurochemical events that leads to the development delirium. Given how devastating delirium can be, it is imperative that we better understand the causes and underlying pathophysiology. Elaborating a pathoetiology-based cohesive model to better grasp the basic mechanisms that mediate this syndrome will serve clinicians well in aspiring to find ways to correct these cascades, instituting rational treatment modalities, and developing effective preventive techniques.

Mechanisms of neurologic failure in critical illness

Critical illness frequently is associated with neurologic failure that may involve the central and peripheral nervous systems. Central nervous system failure is associated with a spectrum of neurobehavioral changes including delirium, coma, and long-term cognitive dysfunction. Peripheral neurologic failure, or critical illness neuromuscular abnormalities, is suggested by diffuse arreflexic weakness and protracted respiratory insufficiency, and may also persist long after the acute hospitalization. While the burden of neurological disease complicating critical illness is considerable, preventive or therapeutic options are limited. This article provides an overview of research evaluating the relationship between critical illness and neurologic function, with a special emphasis on underlying mechanisms.

Chronic treatment with flumazenil enhances binding sites for convulsants at recombinant alpha(1)beta(2)gamma(2S) GABA(A) receptors

GABA(A) receptors mediate most of the fast inhibitory neurotransmission in the brain. Prolonged occupancy of these receptors by ligands leads to regulatory changes often resulting in reduction of receptor function. The mechanism of these changes is still unknown. In this study, stably transfected human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293 cells were used as a model to study the effects of prolonged flumazenil (antagonist of benzodiazepine binding sites at GABA(A) receptors) exposure on the recombinant alpha(1)beta(2)gamma(2S) GABA(A) receptors, the most common type of GABA(A) receptors found in the brain. Exposure (48 h) of HEK 293 cells stably expressing recombinant alpha(1)beta(2)gamma(2S) GABA(A) receptors to flumazenil (1 or 5 microM) in the presence of GABA (1 microM), enhanced the maximum number (B(max)) without affecting the affinity (K(d)) of [(3)H]TBOB labeled binding sites for convulsants. Diazepam (1 nM-1 mM) in the presence of GABA (1 microM) modulated [(3)H]TBOB binding to control and flumazenil pretreated cells according to a two-site model. No significant differences between the groups were observed in either the potency or efficacy of diazepam to modulate [(3)H]TBOB binding, as evidenced by a lack of significant changes between their IC(50) and I(max) values. The results suggest that chronic exposure of HEK 293 cells stably expressing recombinant alpha(1)beta(2)gamma(2S) GABA(A) receptors to flumazenil up-regulates the binding sites for convulsants, but it does not appear to affect the functional coupling between these sites and benzodiazepine binding sites. Along with our recent data, these results suggest that chronic treatment with flumazenil enhances the number of GABA(A) receptors.

Neuron-astrocyte interactions: partnership for normal function and disease in the central nervous system

Interactions between neurons and astrocytes are critical for signaling, energy metabolism, extracellular ion homeostasis, volume regulation, and neuroprotection in the central nervous system. Astrocytes face the synapses, send end-foot processes that enwrap the brain capillaries, and form an extensive network interconnected by gap junctions. Astrocytes express several membrane proteins and enzymes that are critical for uptake of glutamate at the synapses, ammonia detoxification, buffering of extracellular K+, and volume regulation. They also participate in detection, propagation, and modulation of excitatory synaptic signals, provide metabolic support to the active neurons, and contribute to functional hyperemia in the active brain tissue. Disturbances of these neuron-astrocyte interactions are likely to play an important role in neurologic disorders including cerebral ischemia, neurodegeneration, migraine, cerebral edema, and hepatic encephalopathy.