Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

An Unusual Instigator of Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis: Salmonella typhimurium

Salmonella is an unusual cause of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). It is commonly seen in asymptomatic patients with normal or high ascitic fluid protein levels and an immunocompromised state such as AIDS and hematological and solid organ malignancies other than liver. SBP from non-typhoidal Salmonella species should be considered, even in the absence of underlying immunosuppression. Our patient presented with a history of high-grade fever and frequent loose stools with decompensated alcoholic liver cirrhosis. While evaluating the SBP etiology, ascitic fluid turned out positive for the non-typhoidal Salmonella species, which was red, turbid, and hemorrhagic due to portal vein and superior mesenteric vein thrombosis. We thus report an extremely rare case of SBP caused by Salmonella typhimurium in our patient.

Chronic Liver Disease in the Older Patient-Evaluation and Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As our population ages, the number of elderly patients with advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) will increase. In this review we explore risk factors for liver injury, noninvasive assessment of liver disease, complications of cirrhosis, and management of frailty and sarcopenia in the older patient with ACLD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple guidelines regarding ACLD have been updated over the past few years. New cutoffs for FIB-4 and NAFLD (MASLD - Metabolic Dysfunction Associated Steatotic Liver Disease) fibrosis scores for elderly patients are being validated. Older patients with MASLD benefit from caloric restriction, exercise programs, and GLP-1 agonists. Patients with ACLD need to be screened for alcohol use disorder with modified scoring systems, and if positive, benefit from referral to chemical dependency programs. Carvedilol and diuretics may safely be used in the elderly for portal hypertension and ascites, respectively, with careful monitoring. Malnutrition, frailty, sarcopenia, and bone mineral disease are common in older patients with ACLD, and early intervention may improve outcomes. Early identification of ACLD in elderly patients allows us to manage risk factors for liver injury, screen for complications, and implement lifestyle and pharmacological therapy to reduce decompensation and death. Future studies may clarify the role of noninvasive imaging in assessing liver fibrosis in the elderly and optimal interventions for nutrition, frailty, sarcopenia, bone health in addition to reevaluation of antibiotic prophylaxis for liver conditions with rising antibiotic resistance.

Norfloxacin versus alternative antibiotics for prophylaxis of spontaneous bacteria peritonitis in cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a life-threatening complication in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Prophylactic Norfloxacin used to be considered effective in SBP prevention, but in recent years its efficacy has been partially compromised by increasing quinolone-resistant bacteria. However, whether the effects of alternative prophylactic regimens are superior to norfloxacin remains controversial. The goal of this study is to compare the effects of norfloxacin with other antibiotics in SBP prophylaxis for cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Databases. Two reviewers independently identified relevant random control trials (RCTs) comparing the role of norfloxacin and other antibiotics in SBP prevention.

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising 1043 cirrhotic patients were included in this study. Norfloxacin and alternative antibiotics displayed comparable effects in SBP prophylaxis, survival benefit, overall infection prevention, and safety. Subgroup analyses revealed that rifaximin prophylaxis could reduce the recurrence of SBP with fewer adverse events but failed to improve overall survival compared with norfloxacin.

CONCLUSIONS

Other antibiotics are a reasonable alternative to norfloxacin in the prophylaxis of SBP. Rifaximin prophylaxis could be an alternative choose of antibiotic for SBP prevention because of its better protective effect and safety.

Rifaximin for prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy describes the spectrum of neuropsychiatric changes that may complicate the course of cirrhosis and detrimentally affect outcomes. Ammonia plays a key role in its development. Rifaximin is a non-absorbable antibiotic that inhibits urease-producing bacteria and reduces absorption of dietary and bacterial ammonia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of rifaximin versus placebo, no intervention, or non-absorbable disaccharides for: (i) the prevention of hepatic encephalopathy, and (ii) the treatment of minimal and overt hepatic encephalopathy, in people with cirrhosis, both when used alone and when combined with a non-absorbable disaccharide.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Clinical Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, the reference lists of identified papers, and relevant conference proceedings. We wrote to authors and pharmaceutical companies for information on other published, unpublished, or ongoing trials. Searches were performed to January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials assessing prevention or treatment of hepatic encephalopathy with rifaximin alone, or with a non-absorbable disaccharide, versus placebo/no intervention, or a non-absorbable disaccharide alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six authors independently searched for studies, extracted data, and validated findings. We assessed the design, bias risk, and participant/intervention characteristics of the included studies. We assessed mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatic encephalopathy, non-serious adverse events, blood ammonia, Number Connection Test-A, and length of hospital stay.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 trials involving 4545 people with, or at risk for, developing hepatic encephalopathy. We excluded 89 trials and identified 13 ongoing studies. Some trials involved participants with more than one type of hepatic encephalopathy or more than one treatment comparison. Hepatic encephalopathy was classed as acute (13 trials), chronic (7 trials), or minimal (8 trials), or else participants were considered at risk for its development (13 trials). The control groups received placebo (12 trials), no/standard treatment (1 trial), or a non-absorbable disaccharide (14 trials). Eighteen trials assessed rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide versus a non-absorbable disaccharide alone. We classified 11 trials as at high risk of overall bias for mortality and 28 for non-mortality outcomes, mainly due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Compared to placebo/no intervention, rifaximin likely has no overall effect on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.38; P = 48, I2 = 0%; 13 trials, 1007 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and there may be no overall effect when compared to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.97; P = 0.97, I2 = 0%; 10 trials, 786 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there is likely a reduction in the overall risk of mortality when comparing rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide to a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 22; P = 0.001, I2 = 0%; 14 trials, 1946 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is likely no effect on the overall risk of serious adverse events when comparing rifaximin to placebo/no intervention (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.32; P = 68, I2 = 0%; 9 trials, 801 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and there may be no overall effect when compared to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.40; P = 85, I2 = 0%; 8 trials, 681 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was very low-certainty evidence that use of rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide may be associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events than use of a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; P = 0.04, I2 = 60%; 7 trials, 1076 participants). Rifaximin likely results in an overall effect on health-related quality of life when compared to placebo/no intervention (mean difference (MD) -1.43, 95% CI -2.87 to 0.02; P = 0.05, I2 = 81%; 4 trials, 214 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may benefit health-related quality of life in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MD -2.07, 95% CI -2.79 to -1.35; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 176 participants). The overall effect on health-related quality of life when comparing rifaximin to non-absorbable disaccharides is very uncertain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.98; P = 0.62, I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 249 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the combined rifaximin/non-absorbable disaccharide trials reported on this outcome. There is likely an overall beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin to placebo/no intervention (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; NNTB = 5; P < 0.001, I2 = 68%; 13 trials, 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This effect may be more marked in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.52; NNTB = 3; P < 0.001, I2 = 10%; 6 trials, 364 participants) and in prevention trials (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.91; NNTB = 10; P = 0.007, I2 = 36%; 4 trials, 474 participants). There may be little overall effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; P = 0.13, I2 = 0%; 13 trials, 921 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there may be an overall beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide to a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71; NNTB = 5; P < 0.001, I2 = 62%; 17 trials, 2332 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo/no intervention, rifaximin likely improves health-related quality of life in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy, and may improve hepatic encephalopathy, particularly in populations with minimal hepatic encephalopathy and when it is used for prevention. Rifaximin likely has no overall effect on mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or hepatic encephalopathy compared to non-absorbable disaccharides. However, when used in combination with a non-absorbable disaccharide, it likely reduces overall mortality risk, the risk of serious adverse events, improves hepatic encephalopathy, reduces the length of hospital stay, and prevents the occurrence/recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy. The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low to moderate; further high-quality trials are needed.

Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis in Decompensated Liver Cirrhosis—A Literature Review

Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is defined as a bacterial infection of the ascitic fluid without a surgically treatable intra-abdominal infection source. SBP is a common, severe complication in cirrhosis patients with ascites, and if left untreated, in-hospital mortality may exceed 90%. However, the incidence of SBP has been lowered to approx. 20% through early diagnosis and antibiotic therapy. Clinical awareness, prompt diagnosis, and immediate treatment are advised when caring for these patients to reduce mortality and morbidity. Aim: To discuss important issues comprising types of SBP, pathogenesis, bacteriology, including the emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) microorganisms, prompt diagnosis, risk factors, prognosis, treatment strategies, as well as recurrence prevention through antibiotic prophylaxis until liver transplantation and future trends in treating and preventing SBP in detail. Methods: This article is a literature review and appraisal of guidelines, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and other review articles found on PubMed from between 1977 and 2022. Results: There are three types of SBP. Bacterial translocation from GI tract is the most common source of SBP. Therefore, two thirds of SBP cases were caused by Gram-negative bacilli, of which Escherichia coli is the most frequently isolated pathogen. However, a trend of Gram-positive cocci associated SBP has been demonstrated in recent years, possibly related to more invasive procedures and long-term quinolone prophylaxis. A diagnostic paracentesis should be performed in all patients with cirrhosis and ascites who require emergency room care or hospitalization, who demonstrate or report consistent signs/symptoms in order to confirm evidence of SBP. Distinguishing SBP from secondary bacterial peritonitis is essential because the conditions require different therapeutic strategies. The standard treatment for SBP is prompt broad-spectrum antibiotic administration and should be tailored according to community-acquired SBP, healthcare-associated or nosocomial SBP infections and local resistance profile. Albumin supplementation, especially in patients with renal impairment, is also beneficial. Selective intestinal decontamination is associated with a reduced risk of bacterial infection and mortality in high-risk group. Conclusions: The standard treatment for SBP is prompt broad-spectrum antibiotic administration and should be tailored according to community-acquired SBP, healthcare-associated or nosocomial SBP infections and local resistance profile. Since the one-year overall mortality rates for SBP range from 53.9 to 78%, liver transplantation should be seriously considered for SBP survivors who are good candidates for transplantation. Further development of non-antibiotic strategies based on pathogenic mechanisms are also urgently needed.

Prophylaxis against spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: Too much or too little?

Prophylaxis against spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is recommended for select patients with cirrhosis, but long-term antibiotic therapy has risks. We evaluated concordance with guideline recommendations in 179 veterans with cirrhosis; 55% received guideline-concordant management of SBP prophylaxis. Despite stable guideline recommendations since 2012, guideline adherence remains low.

Human Amnion-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: A New Potential Treatment for Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales in Decompensated Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a severe and often fatal infection in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and ascites. The only cure for SBP is antibiotic therapy, but the emerging problem of bacterial resistance requires novel therapeutic strategies. Human amniotic mesenchymal stromal cells (hA-MSCs) possess immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties that can be harnessed as a therapy in such a context.

METHODS

An in vitro applications of hA-MSCs in ascitic fluid (AF) of cirrhotic patients, subsequently infected with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, was performed. We evaluated the effects of hA-MSCs on bacterial load, innate immunity factors, and macrophage phenotypic expression.

RESULTS

hA-MSCs added to AF significantly reduce the proliferation of both bacterial strains at 24 h and diversely affect M1 and M2 polarization, C3a complement protein, and ficolin 3 concentrations during the course of infection, in a bacterial strain-dependent fashion.

CONCLUSION

This study shows the potential usefulness of hA-MSC in treating ascites infected with carbapenem-resistant bacteria and lays the foundation to further investigate antibacterial and anti-inflammatory roles of hA-MSC in in vivo models.

A One-Week Course of Levofloxacin/Dexamethasone Eye Drops: A Review on a New Approach in Managing Patients After Cataract Surgery

A new fixed-dose combination of dexamethasone and levofloxacin eye drops has recently been approved for the prevention and treatment of inflammation, and the prevention of infection associated with cataract surgery in adults. This combination has been developed to respond to a series of unmet needs in the practical management of patients undergoing cataract surgery. Namely, despite updated guidelines, many ophthalmologists employ protocols mainly based on their personal experience. As a result, the choice of drugs, treatment duration, and drug association is not evidence-based medicine (EBM)-oriented. In addition, antibiotic resistance may occur since antibiotics are used for an extended length of time, even with tapering. Corticosteroids are also prescribed for prolonged periods, frequently without follow-up. Therefore, patient adherence to postsurgical self-care is low, and mainly affects older patients who are the majority undergoing cataract surgery. In both rabbit and human trials, it has been demonstrated that both active ingredients penetrate the ocular system without pharmacokinetic interaction between the two. The concentrations of both ingredients in aqueous humor after their ocular instillation are high enough at the site of action to carry out their expected potent anti-inflammatory and antibiotic activity. Tested in a pivotal study aimed at investigating efficacy and safety of the intended indication, the mixture/compound was non-inferior to a 2-week treatment with dexamethasone/tobramycin in preventing or reducing inflammation and in preventing infection when administered for 1 week, followed by the administration of dexamethasone alone for another week. The outcomes obtained by this study suggest that a 1-week course of levofloxacin/dexamethasone eye drops is sufficient to resolve inflammation and prevent infection in patients undergoing cataract surgery. In addition, this study underlines that a follow-up visit after 1 week allows for a decision about whether to stop or continue a treatment in patients still experiencing symptoms or inflammation. In conclusion, this new dose combination could represent a turning point in managing patients after cataract surgery, while mostly avoiding antibiotic resistance and improving treatment adherence.

Prevention of Cirrhosis Complications: Looking for Potential Disease Modifying Agents

The current therapeutic strategies for the management of patients with cirrhosis rely on the prevention or treatment of specific complications. The removal of the causative agents (i.e., viruses or alcohol) prevents decompensation in the vast majority of patients with compensated cirrhosis. In contrast, even when etiological treatment has been effective, a significant proportion of patients with decompensated cirrhosis remains at risk of further disease progression. Therefore, therapies targeting specific key points in the complex pathophysiological cascade of decompensated cirrhosis could represent a new approach for the management of these severely ill patients. Some of the interventions currently employed for treating or preventing specific complications of cirrhosis or used in other diseases (i.e., poorly absorbable oral antibiotics, statins, albumin) have been proposed as potential disease-modifying agents in cirrhosis (DMAC) since clinical studies have shown their capacity of improving survival. Additional multicenter, large randomized clinical trials are awaited to confirm these promising results. Finally, new drugs able to antagonize key pathophysiological mechanisms are under pre-clinical development or at the initial stages of clinical assessment.

The Use of Rifaximin in Patients With Cirrhosis

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

Antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis: Current evidence for clinical practice

Patients with cirrhosis show an increased susceptibility to infection due to disease-related immune-dysfunction. Bacterial infection therefore represents a common, often detrimental event in patients with advanced liver disease, since it can worsen portal hypertension and impair the function of hepatic and extra-hepatic organs. Among pharmacological strategies to prevent infection, antibiotic prophylaxis remains the first-choice, especially in high-risk groups, such as patients with acute variceal bleeding, low ascitic fluid proteins, and prior episodes of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Nevertheless, antibiotic prophylaxis has to deal with the changing bacterial epidemiology in cirrhosis, with increased rates of gram-positive bacteria and multidrug resistant rods, warnings about quinolones-related side effects, and low prescription adherence. Short-term antibiotic prophylaxis is applied in many other settings during hospitalization, such as before interventional or surgical procedures, but often without knowledge of local bacterial epidemiology and without strict adherence to antimicrobial stewardship. This paper offers a detailed overview on the application of antibiotic prophylaxis in cirrhosis, according to the current evidence.

Serum and ascitic D-dimer in cirrhotic patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis

Aim of the study

The study aimed to investigate serum and ascitic fluid D-dimer level in patients with liver cirrhosis with and without ascites and to evaluate the impact of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) on circulating serum and ascitic fluid D-dimer levels.

Material and methods

This study was conducted on 60 subjects who were further subdivided into group I comprising 15 patients with liver cirrhosis and no ascites, group II comprising 15 cirrhotic patients with ascites, group III comprising 15 cirrhotic patients with ascites and SBP, and group IV comprising 15 healthy controls. All patients were subjected to full history taking, physical examination, laboratory investigations, and measurement of serum D-dimer in all groups and ascitic fluid D-dimer in groups II and III. The diagnostic performance of serum D-dimer was tested to detect SBP.

Results

Serum D-dimer differed significantly between groups III and IV, whilst no significant differences were detected between the other groups and group IV. Moreover, group III showed a significantly higher level of serum D-dimer. Ascitic fluid D-dimer mean levels showed no statistically significant differences. A statistically significant positive correlation was found between serum D-dimer level and ascitic fluid D-dimer in group III, r = 0.682. Using a sensitivity and specificity level of 80%, a cut-off value (COV) of > 323.2 ng/ml could differentiate between patients with SBP and patients with ascites only.

Conclusions

Serum D-dimer significantly correlated with ascitic fluid D-dimer in patients with SBP, whereas no significant correlation was found in patients with cirrhotic ascites without bacterial infection. D-dimer showed good diagnostic performance for SBP among patients with liver cirrhosis.

D, Hassan AS, Zahran FE, Abdelghany RS, Siddik RI, Abdel-Hamed AR. The Role of MicroRNAs (miRNA 155, miRNA-146b) and Procalcitonin as Novel Markers for the Diagnosis of Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis

Background:

MircoRNAs are endogenous, small non-coding RNA molecules that have been recognized as important modulators of gene expression. MicroRNA is considered one of the potential biomarkers of infection and inflammation. Our study aims to identify the potential role of miRNA-155, miRNA-146b, and Procalcitonin (PCT) in the early detection of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic liver patients. miRNA-155 and 146b are molecular biomarkers , while procalcitonin is a serum marker in ascites patients complicated with Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis (SBP) .

Methods:

This study was conducted on 199 patients, 101 of them have ascites complicated with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and 98 patients without spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (control group). Ascitic fluid samples were collected from patients with SBP undergoing paracentesis at National Hepatology Institute in Egypt. MicroRNAs were determined in the serum using qPCR (quantitative polymerase chain reaction), while procalcitonin has been assessed in serum samples using ELISA (Enzyme-linked immune assay) technique.

Results:

Serum levels of miRNA-146b & miRNA-155 were significantly higher (p<0.001) in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis patients (79.2% and 97.0% respectively) than ascites patients (17.3% and 7.1%, respectively). Furthermore, the serum level of procalcitonin was significantly higher (p<0.001) in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis patients than that in ascites patients (68.3% and 27.6%, respectively).

Conclusion:

miRNA-155, miRNA-146b and procalcitonin can be used as early markers for the detection of SBP in hepatic patients with ascites.

Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 2.5% of all hospitalisations in people with liver cirrhosis are for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is associated with significant short-term mortality; therefore, it is important to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people at high risk of developing it. Antibiotic prophylaxis forms the mainstay preventive method, but this has to be balanced against the development of drug-resistant spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, which is difficult to treat, and other adverse events. Several different prophylactic antibiotic treatments are available; however, there is uncertainty surrounding their relative efficacy and optimal combination.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different prophylactic antibiotic treatments for prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with liver cirrhosis using a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different prophylactic antibiotic treatments according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to November 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis at risk of developing spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis undergoing prophylactic treatment to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation, or were receiving antibiotics for treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis or other purposes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 randomised clinical trials (3896 participants; nine antibiotic regimens (ciprofloxacin, neomycin, norfloxacin, norfloxacin plus neomycin, norfloxacin plus rifaximin, rifaximin, rufloxacin, sparfloxacin, sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim), and 'no active intervention' in the review. Twenty-three trials (2587 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies, with or without other features of decompensation, having ascites with low protein or previous history of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 1 to 12 months. Many of the trials were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was low or very low. Overall, approximately 10% of trial participants developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and 15% of trial participants died. There was no evidence of differences between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in terms of mortality (very low certainty) or number of serious adverse events (very low certainty). However, because of the wide CrIs, clinically important differences in these outcomes cannot be ruled out. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or the proportion of people with serious adverse events. There was no evidence of differences between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in terms of proportion of people with 'any adverse events' (very low certainty), liver transplantation (very low certainty), or the proportion of people who developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (very low certainty). The number of 'any' adverse events per participant was fewer with norfloxacin (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CrI 0.59 to 0.94; 4 trials, 546 participants; low certainty) and sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim (rate ratio 0.19, 95% CrI 0.02 to 0.81; 1 trial, 60 participants; low certainty) versus no active intervention. There was no evidence of differences between the other antibiotics and no intervention in the number of 'any' adverse events per participant (very low certainty). There were fewer other decompensation events with rifaximin versus no active intervention (rate ratio 0.61, 65% CrI 0.46 to 0.80; 3 trials, 575 participants; low certainty) and norfloxacin plus neomycin (rate ratio 0.06, 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.33; 1 trial, 22 participants; low certainty). There was no evidence of differences between the other antibiotics and no intervention in the number of decompensations events per participant (very low certainty). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or development of symptomatic spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. One would expect some correlation between the above outcomes, with interventions demonstrating effectiveness across several outcomes. This was not the case. The possible reasons for this include sparse data and selective reporting bias, which makes the results unreliable. Therefore, one cannot draw any conclusions from these inconsistent differences based on sparse data. There was no evidence of any differences in the subgroup analyses (performed when possible) based on whether the prophylaxis was primary or secondary.

FUNDING

the source of funding for five trials were organisations who would benefit from the results of the study; six trials received no additional funding or were funded by neutral organisations; and the source of funding for the remaining 18 trials was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence, there is considerable uncertainty about whether antibiotic prophylaxis is beneficial, and if beneficial, which antibiotic prophylaxis is most beneficial in people with cirrhosis and ascites with low protein or history of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered, employ blinding, avoid postrandomisation dropouts (or perform intention-to-treat analysis), and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health-related quality of life, and decompensation events.