Improved survival in patients receiving medical therapy as compared with banding ligation for the prevention of esophageal variceal rebleeding

Carvedilol and traditional nonselective beta blockers for the secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage and portal hypertension related complications among patients with decompensated cirrhosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Carvedilol has limited research on decompensated cirrhosis. This study compared the effects of carvedilol, traditional nonselective beta blockers (NSBBs), including propranolol and nadolol, and other interventions in patients using carvedilol or traditional NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage (VH) and portal hypertension (PH)-related complications.

METHODS

A systematic search of databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, was conducted through October 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating carvedilol or traditional NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of VH were included. The outcomes were the occurrence of VH and portal PH-related complications, including new or worsening ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and hepatorenal syndrome. A network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 60 RCTs involving 5,600 patients with a median Child Pugh score of 8.0 (range 6.8-10) were included. The risk of carvedilol plus variceal band ligation (VBL) on VH was lower than placebo (relative risk (RR) 0.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10-0.57), and the risk of carvedilol on new or worsening ascites was lower than placebo (RR = 0.10, 95%CI; 0.01-0.93). Traditional NSBBs plus VBL also had preventive effects on VH compared to placebo (RR = 0.31, 95%CI; 0.18-0.54). However, there were no differences between carvedilol and traditional NSBBs in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol can prevent PH-related complications, including VH and new or worsening ascites, in cirrhosis patients with a history of VH. No significant differences were observed between the effects of carvedilol and traditional NSBBs, both combined with VBL.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and non-selective beta-blockers act as friends or foe in decompensated cirrhosis: A comparative review

The management of portal hypertension and its complications, such as variceal bleeding, in patients with cirrhosis often involves the use of nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Both treatment modalities have demonstrated efficacy; however, each presents distinct challenges and benefits. NSBBs, including propranolol, nadolol, and carvedilol, effectively reduce portal pressure, but are associated with side effects such as bradycardia, hypotension, fatigue, and respiratory issues. Additionally, NSBBs can exacerbate conditions such as refractory ascites, hepatorenal syndrome, and hepatic encephalopathy. In contrast, TIPS effectively reduces the incidence of variceal rebleeding, controlling refractory ascites. However, it is associated with a significant risk of hepatic encephalopathy, shunt dysfunction, and procedure-related complications including bleeding and infection. The high cost of TIPS, along with the need for regular follow-up and potential re-intervention, poses additional challenges. Furthermore, patient selection for TIPS is critical, as inappropriate candidates may experience suboptimal outcomes. Future studies comparing NSBBs and TIPS should focus on refining the patient selection criteria, enhancing procedural techniques, optimising combination therapies, and conducting long-term outcome studies. Personalised treatment approaches, cost-effectiveness analyses, and improved patient education and support are essential for maximising the use of these therapies.

Effect of midodrine on HVPG in advanced chronic liver disease and acute-on-chronic liver failure-A pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB) are the mainstay for treatment of portal hypertension (PH), but require caution in decompensated cirrhosis (DC) or acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) with hypotension, hyponatremia, acute kidney injury (AKI) or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome (HRS). Midodrine is oral, rapidly acting, α1-adrenergic agonist. We evaluated acute effects of midodrine on hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) in DC and ACLF with contraindications to NSBB.

METHODS

Patients of DC (n = 30) with grade III ascites and serum sodium (Na) <130/systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90/type II HRS (group I) and ACLF patients (n = 30) with Na <130/SBP <90/AKI (group II) were included. HVPG was done at baseline and repeated 3 h after 10 mg midodrine. Primary outcome was HVPG response (reduction by >20% or to <12 mmHg).

RESULTS

In group I, midodrine significantly reduced HVPG (19.2 ± 4.6 to 17.8 ± 4.2, p = .02) and heart rate (HR) (86.3 ± 11.6 to 77.9 ± 13.1, p < .01) and increased mean arterial pressure (MAP) (74.1 ± 6.9 to 81.9 ± 6.6 mmHg, p < .01). In group II also, midodrine reduced HVPG (19.1 ± 4.1 to 17.0 ± 4.2) and HR (92.4 ± 13.7 to 84.6 ± 14.1) and increased MAP (85.4 ± 7.3 to 91.2 ± 7.6 mmHg), p < .01 for all. HVPG response was achieved in 3/30 (10%) in group I and 8/30 (26.7%) in group II. On logistic regression analysis, prerenal AKI (OR 11.04, 95% CI 1.83-66.18, p < .01) and increase in MAP (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03-1.43, p = .02) were independent predictors of response. Increase in MAP by 8.5 mmHg with midodrine had best cut-off with AUROC of .76 for response.

CONCLUSION

In decompensated cirrhosis and ACLF patients with contraindications to NSBB, midodrine is useful in decreasing HVPG. Dose of midodrine should be titrated to increase MAP atleast by 8.5 mmHg.

Non-selective beta-blockers and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a serious complication of cirrhosis. Currently, non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are commonly used to treat portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis. The latest research shows that NSBBs can induce apoptosis and S-phase arrest in liver cancer cells and inhibit the development of hepatic vascular endothelial cells, which may be effective in preventing HCC in cirrhosis patients. Aim: To determine the relationship between different NSBBs and HCC incidence in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We searched the Cochrane database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Cohort studies, case‒control studies, and randomized controlled trials were included if they involved cirrhosis patients who were divided into an experimental group using NSBBs and a control group with any intervention. Based on heterogeneity, we calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effect models. We also conducted subgroup analysis to explore the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias detection were performed. Results: A total of 47 studies included 38 reporting HCC incidence, 26 reporting HCC-related mortality, and 39 reporting overall mortality. The HCC incidence between the experimental group and the control group was OR = 0.87 (0.69 and 1.10), p = 0.000, and I2 = 81.8%. There was no significant association between propranolol (OR = 0.94 and 95%CI 0.62-1.44) or timolol (OR = 1.32 and 95%CI 0.44-3.95) and HCC incidence, while the risk of HCC decreased by 26% and 38% with nadolol (OR = 0.74 and 95%CI 0.64-0.86) and carvedilol (OR = 0.62 and 95%CI 0.52-0.74), respectively. Conclusion: Different types of NSBB have different effects on the incidence of patients with cirrhosis of the liver, where nadolol and carvedilol can reduce the risk. Also, the effect of NSBBs may vary in ethnicity. Propranolol can reduce HCC incidence in Europe and America. Systematic Review Registration: identifier https://CRD42023434175, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

Isolated Subclinical Right Ventricle Systolic Dysfunction in Patients after Liver Transplantation

Although hemodynamic alterations in end-stage liver disease (ESLD) and its association with porto-pulmonary hypertension have been well-established, the long-term effects of ESLD on RV systolic function in patients without porto-pulmonary hypertension remain disregarded. Here we aimed to assess the long-term effect of ESLD on RV function and its relationship with the use of NSBBs and clinical, laboratory and imaging parameters in end-stage liver disease. The use of NSBBs is still controversial due to concerns about reduced cardiac contractility and the possibility of increased mortality. Thirty-four liver transplant recipients were included. Demographic characteristics, laboratory and baseline echocardiography measures were obtained. Patients were recalled for transthoracic echocardiographic evaluation after transplantation. Right ventricle dysfunction was identified by having at least one value below the reference levels of RV S’, or TAPSE. Isolated subclinical RV dysfunction was observed at 20.6% of the sample population. The present study demonstrates hemodynamic circulation in cirrhosis and increased preload and afterload might have long-term effects on RV function, even the lack of porto-pulmonary hypertension. These findings underline the significance of cardiac function follow-up in cirrhotic patients after transplantation. In this study, patients treated with propranolol seemed to have better RV function and less gastrointestinal bleeding. We speculated that preoperative propranolol treatment might help preserve RV function by providing RAS suppression, improving endothelial function and hyperdynamic circulation seen in ESLD. This potential protective relationship between the use of propranolol and RV function might improve mortality or graft-failure during OLT and after liver transplantation in patients with cirrhosis.

Review article: controversies surrounding the use of carvedilol and other beta blockers in the management of portal hypertension and cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Advanced chronic liver disease is an increasing cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the UK. Portal hypertension is the primary driver of decompensation, including the development of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and variceal haemorrhage. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) reduce portal pressure and are well established in the prevention of variceal haemorrhage. Carvedilol, a newer NSBB, is more effective at reducing portal pressure due to additional α-adrenergic blockade and has additional anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects.

AIM

To summarise the available evidence on the use of beta blockers, specifically carvedilol, in cirrhosis, focussing on when and why to start METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed for relevant publications.

RESULTS

International guidelines advise the use of NSBB in primary prophylaxis against variceal haemorrhage in those with high-risk varices, with substantial evidence of efficacy comparable with endoscopic band ligation (EBL). NSBB are also well established in secondary prophylaxis, in combination with EBL. More controversial is their use in patients without large varices, but with clinically significant portal hypertension. However, there is gathering evidence that NSBB, particularly carvedilol, reduce the risk of decompensation and improve survival. While caution is advised in patients with advanced cirrhosis and refractory ascites, recent evidence suggests that NSBB can continue to be used safely, and that premature discontinuation may be detrimental.

CONCLUSIONS

With increasing evidence of benefit independent of variceal bleeding, namely retardation of decompensation and improvement in survival, it is time to consider whether carvedilol should be offered to all patients with advanced chronic liver disease.

Beta-blockers in patients with liver cirrhosis: Pragmatism or perfection?

With increasing decompensation, hyperdynamic circulatory disturbance occurs in liver cirrhosis despite activation of vasoconstrictors. Here, the concept of a therapy with non-selective beta-blockers was established decades ago. They lower elevated portal pressure, protect against variceal hemorrhage, and may also have pleiotropic immunomodulatory effects. Recently, the beneficial effect of carvedilol, which blocks alpha and beta receptors, has been highlighted. Carvedilol leads to "biased-signaling" via recruitment of beta-arrestin. This effect and its consequences have not been sufficiently investigated in patients with liver cirrhosis. Also, a number of questions remain open regarding the expression of beta-receptors and its intracellular signaling and the respective consequences in the intra- and extrahepatic tissue compartments. Despite the undisputed role of non-selective beta-blockers in the treatment of liver cirrhosis, we still can improve the knowledge as to when and how beta-blockers should be used in which patients.

Use of non-selective B-blockers is safe in hospitalised decompensated cirrhosis patients and exerts a potential anti-inflammatory effect: Data from the ATTIRE trial

BACKGROUND

Nonselective B-blockers (NSBBs) are believed to have pleiotropic effects beyond reducing portal pressure. However, studies also report potential harm in patients hospitalized with cirrhosis and ascites. We therefore investigated whether NSBB use at ATTIRE trial entry (Albumin to prevent infection in chronic liver failure, 2016-19) was associated with increased renal or cardiovascular dysfunction, compared the incidence of infection and plasma markers of systemic inflammation, and examined mortality at 28-days, 3 and 6-months.

METHODS

In ATTIRE patients grouped by NSBB use at trial entry, we studied infection at baseline, hospital acquired infection and organ dysfunction during trial treatment period and mortality, with propensity score matching to account for differences in disease severity.

FINDINGS

There were no differences in renal or cardiovascular dysfunction between patients treated with NSBBs or not, during days 3-15 of hospitalization, despite elevated serum creatinine in NSBB patients at hospitalisation. Use of NSBBs was associated with a significant reduction in infection at hospitalization (p = 0.006), lower white cell counts throughout hospital stay (p < 0.001) and reduced plasma procalcitonin (p = 0.009) and interlukin-8 levels (p = 0.04) at baseline, but markers of bacterial translocation and systemic inflammation were the same in treatment groups. There was no reduction in hospital acquired infections in patients taking NSBBs and no beneficial impact on mortality at 28-days, 3 and 6-months.

INTERPRETATIONS

Our real-world data from a completed randomised trial show that use of NSBBs in decompensated cirrhosis patients is safe during hospitalisation. We also show a potential anti-inflammatory role for NSBBs which may be mediated by a downregulation of IL-8 induced leucocytosis, that was associated with reduced infection at baseline but not a survival benefit.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust and Department of Health and Social Care.

Carvedilol versus endoscopic band ligation for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding-long-term follow-up of a randomised control trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Carvedilol reduces rates of variceal bleeding and rebleeding by lowering portal pressure. However, an associated pleiotropic survival benefit has been proposed. We aimed to assess long-term survival in a cohort of patients previously randomised to receive either carvedilol or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) following oesophageal variceal bleeding (OVB).

METHODS

The index study randomised 64 cirrhotic patients with OVB between 2006 and 2011 to receive either carvedilol or EBL. Follow-up was undertaken to April 2020 by review of electronic patient records. The primary outcome was survival. Other outcomes including variceal rebleeding and liver decompensation events were compared.

RESULTS

26 out of 33 participants received carvedilol in the follow-up period and 28 out of 31 attended regular EBL sessions. The median number of follow-up days for all patients recruited was 1459 (SE = 281.74). On the intention to treat analysis, there was a trend towards improved survival in the carvedilol group (p = 0.09). On per-protocol analysis, carvedilol use was associated with improved long-term survival (p = 0.005, HR 3.083, 95% CI 1.397-6.809), fewer liver-related deaths (0% vs 22.57%, p = 0.013, OR ∞, 95%CI 1.565-∞) and fewer admissions with decompensated liver disease (12% vs 64.29%, p = 0.0002, OR 13.2, 95% CI 3.026-47.23) compared to the EBL group. There was no statistically significant difference in variceal rebleeding rates.

CONCLUSION

Following OVB in cirrhotic patients, carvedilol use is associated with survival benefit, fewer liver-related deaths and fewer hospital admissions with decompensated liver disease. Further studies are needed to validate this finding.

Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Patients With Portal Hypertension and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Viral hepatitis are one of the main causes of liver cirrhosis. The treatment of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis is difficult and diverse, and the therapeutic effect is unknown. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, including a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic therapy, surgical therapy and medications. Methods: Eligible articles were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception until June 2020. Using the "gemtc-0.8.4" package in R v.3.6.3 software and the Just Another Gibbs Sampler v.4.2.0 program, network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. The odds ratios for all-cause rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, overall survival (OS), treatment failure and hepatic encephalopathy were determined within the Bayesian framework. Results: Forty randomized controlled trials were identified, including 4,006 adult patients and nine treatment strategies. Our results showed that distal splenorenal shunt and TIPS provided the best control of hemorrhage. Endoscopic variceal ligation with medication resulted in the highest OS rate. Medication alone resulted in poor OS and treatment failure. Conclusions: We performed a systematic comparison of diverse treatments for cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Our meta-analysis indicated that a TIPS and distal splenorenal shunt resulted in lower rates of rebleeding than did other therapies. Furthermore, drugs are more suitable for combination therapy than monotherapy.

Clinical course of hepatitis C virus-positive patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis in the era of direct-acting antiviral treatment

AIM

The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical course in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis after direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have been used for HCV infection.

METHODS

This multicenter study prospectively analyzed a registered cohort composed of 73 HCV-positive patients with decompensated cirrhosis who attended our 11 institutions between January 2018 and July 2018. Prognoses, including changes in the liver reserve, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), decompensation events, and survival, were analyzed up to July 2020, as was the initiation of DAA treatment.

RESULTS

Sixty-four (87.7%) and nine (12.3%) patients had Child-Pugh class (C-P) B and C at baseline, respectively. Within 2 years after enrollment, 17 patients (23.3%) received treatment with DAAs, and 31 patients (42.5%) developed uncontrolled HCC, switched to palliative care, or died. Patients who received DAA treatment were significantly younger and had significantly higher alanine aminotransferase levels and lower platelet counts than the patients who did not receive DAA treatment. The rates of overall survival, cumulative HCC occurrence, and cumulative hospitalization for any hepatic decompensation event at 2 years were 64.8%, 13.1%, and 65.6%, respectively. Overall survival was significantly shorter and the HCC occurrence and hospitalization rates were significantly higher in C-P C patients than in C-P B patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Among HCV-positive patients with decompensated cirrhosis, approximately one-fourth received DAA treatment, but more than 40% of the patients lost the opportunity for treatment with DAAs.

Splenic non-infarction volume determines a clinically significant hepatic venous pressure gradient response to partial splenic embolization in patients with cirrhosis and hypersplenism

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate changes in the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) by partial splenic embolization (PSE) and to identify the determinants of a clinically meaningful postoperative HVPG reduction.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients with cirrhosis and hypersplenism who underwent PSE at our department between September 2007 and June 2020 were included. The HVPG was evaluated pre- and immediately post-PSE. The patients were divided into three groups according to their preprocedural HVPG: low-HVPG (< 10 mmHg, n = 22), intermediate-HVPG (10 mmHg ≤ HVPG < 16 mmHg, n = 33), and high-HVPG (≥ 16 mmHg, n = 13).

RESULTS

Overall, PSE significantly reduced HVPG from 12.2 ± 4.0 to 9.4 ± 3.6 mmHg (p < 0.01) with a relative decrease of 22.2 ± 20.4%. In addition, HVPG reductions were 19.4 ± 28.7%, 24.0 ± 15.9%, and 22.5 ± 13.3% in the low-, intermediate-, and high-HVPG groups, respectively, indicating no significant difference in HVPG reduction between the groups. An HVPG decrease of ≥ 20% from the baseline, defined in this study as a clinically significant HVPG response to PSE, was achieved in 55.9% of all patients. Multivariate logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses identified splenic non-infarction volume as an independent determinant of a 20% decrease in HVPG (p < 0.05), with a cut-off of 139.2 cm³ (sensitivity, 76.3%; specificity, 60.0%; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The splenic non-infarction volume, namely the residual functional spleen volume, independently determines a clinically significant HVPG response to PSE in patients with cirrhosis and hypersplenism.

Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention 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 until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios 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 a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Carvedilol is associated with improved survival in patients with cirrhosis: a long-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Primary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage with non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) or variceal band ligation (VBL) is now standard of care in patients with cirrhosis with portal hypertension. NSBB, and particularly carvedilol, may be associated with improved survival.

AIM

To assess mortality in a cohort of patients previously randomised to either carvedilol or VBL.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 152 patients recruited to a multi-centre randomised controlled trial between 7 April 2000 and 24 June 2006 designed to assess the efficacy of VBL versus carvedilol in preventing first variceal bleed. We used electronic records to undertake long-term follow-up (up to 20 years) with the primary outcome of all-cause mortality and secondary end points of liver-related mortality and decompensation events (ascites, encephalopathy, variceal bleeding).

RESULTS

We included 152 patients in analysis with baseline characteristics well matched between the carvedilol (n = 77) and VBL (n = 75) groups. In the intention-to-treat analysis, carvedilol offered a significant survival advantage with median survival of 7.8 years compared to 4.2 years in the VBL group (P = 0.03). This survival benefit was maintained in per-protocol analysis when patients who crossed between treatment arms were excluded (P = 0.02). Transplant-free survival, liver-related mortality and decompensation events were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that carvedilol offers a significant survival benefit for patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. The difference in all-cause and liver-related mortality suggests that this survival benefit may not be entirely liver-related. Prospective, studies are required to confirm these important findings.

Significant improvement in portal-systemic liver failure symptoms and successful management of portal-splenic venous hemodynamics by the combination of interventional radiology and pharmacotherapy

This study describes a case of hepatitis C virus-related decompensated cirrhosis with portal-systemic liver failure and refractory encephalopathy. It was successfully managed with a combination of interventional radiology and pharmacotherapy, to improve hepatic function, including hyperammonemia and to control portal-splenic venous hemodynamics with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) monitoring. A man in his late 50s presented with a Child-Pugh score of 13, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-sodium (MELD-Na) score of 19 and blood ammonia level of 185 μg/dL. He underwent balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) followed by partial splenic embolization (PSE) and non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB) administration. BRTO induced drastic changes in the portal-splenic venous hemodynamics, resulting in dramatically improved hepatic function and reduced hyperammonemia. However, the procedure resulted in increased HVPG from 13.6 mmHg at baseline to 23.5 mmHg at 1-month post-BRTO, accompanied by ascites retention and development of portal hypertensive gastropathy. Thereafter, PSE was performed, followed by NSBB administration, to control the elevated portal venous pressure following BRTO. Postoperatively, the patient's ascites and portal hypertensive gastrophy improved after splenic artery embolization, which eventually disappeared after the additional administration of NSBBs 1 month later. The HVPG finally decreased to 16.9 mmHg; the Child-Pugh score, MELD-Na score and blood ammonia level improved to 7, 11 and 22 μg/dL, respectively, after all therapies. BRTO significantly improved the symptoms of portal-systemic liver failure with refractory encephalopathy. PSE and NSBB administration could contribute to additional amelioration of hepatic function and successful management of complications induced by portal hemodynamic changes following BRTO.

Beta-blockers in cirrhosis: Evidence-based indications and limitations

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the mainstay of treatment for portal hypertension in the setting of liver cirrhosis. Randomised controlled trials demonstrated their efficacy in preventing initial variceal bleeding and subsequent rebleeding. Recent evidence indicates that NSBBs could prevent liver decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Despite solid data favouring NSBB use in cirrhosis, some studies have highlighted relevant safety issues in patients with end-stage liver disease, particularly with refractory ascites and infection. This review summarises the evidence supporting current recommendations and restrictions of NSBB use in patients with cirrhosis.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of carvedilol versus variceal band ligation in primary prevention of variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis (CALIBRE trial)

INTRODUCTION

Liver cirrhosis is the fifth largest cause of adult deaths, and a major complication, variceal bleeding is associated with a 1-year mortality of 40%. There is uncertainty on the first-line therapy for prevention of variceal bleeding owing to a lack of adequately powered trials comparing non-selective beta blockers, in particular carvedilol, with variceal band ligation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

CALIBRE is a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled, open-label trial with an internal pilot. The two interventions are carvedilol 12.5 mg od or variceal band ligation (VBL). Patients with liver cirrhosis and medium to large oesophageal varices that have never bled are eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome is any variceal bleeding within 1 year of randomisation. Secondary endpoints include time to variceal bleed, mortality, transplant-free survival, adverse events, complications of cirrhosis, health-related quality of life, use of healthcare resources, patient preference and use of alternative or crossover therapies. The sample size is 2630 patients over a 4-year recruitment period, across 66 hospitals in the UK.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by a National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number 18/NE/0296). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. Participants will be informed via a link to a preview of the publication. A lay summary will also be provided via email or posted to participants prior to publication (ISRCTN reference number: 73887615).

Lowering hepatic venous pressure agent carvedilol versus variceal banding ligation for clinical outcomes of cirrhotic portal hypertension

OBJECTIVE

Carvedilol is nonselective beta-blocker with a mild anti-alpha-1-adrenergic effect. Several studies proposed improved hemodynamic effects of carvedilol compared with propanolol. Our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials comparing carvedilol with variceal banding ligation (VBL).

METHODS

Studies were searched on online databases MEDLINE, EMBASE(Ovid), the Cochrane Library, Chinese Wanfang Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure between January 2000 and May 2018. Incidence of bleeding and mortality were main outcome measures. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to ensure the robustness of pooled estimates.

RESULTS

Ten randomized control trials including 1,269 cirrhotic patients were chosen. Compared with VBL, carvedilol showed similar preventive efficacy of risk ratios (RRs) in variceal bleeding, and bleeding-related mortality over different follow-up periods from 6 months to 24 months. Also, significant differences between carvedilol and VBL in overall mortality and other causes of mortality were failed to be found. Carvedilol achieved a lower incidence of portal hypertension gastropathy in both 6 months (RR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.38-0.64, P<0.00001) and 12 months (RR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.26-0.47, P<0.00001). Two trials compared combination of carvedilol and VBL with VBL alone; however, the results failed to find an improved preventive efficacy of bleeding (RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.15-3.30, P=0.67).

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol is equivalent to invasive VBL for variceal bleeding prevention. It can be well tolerated and may be of benefit to portal hypertension gastropathy. However, available data during 24 months follow-up did not support a potential advantage of carvedilol for prognosis as a lowering hepatic venous pressure agent.

Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices

Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is a serious complication in patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Although there has been significance improvement in the prognosis of variceal bleeding with advancement in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for its management, mortality rate still remains high. Therefore, appropriate prevention and rapid, effective management of bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is very important. Recently, various studies about management of gastoesophageal varices, including prevention of development and aggravation of varices, prevention of first variceal bleeding, management of acute variceal bleeding, and prevention of variceal rebleeding, have been published. The present article reviews published articles and practice guidelines to present the most optimal management of patients with gastroesophageal varices.

Endoscopic treatments for portal hypertension

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage is a dreaded complication of portal hypertension. Its management has evolved rapidly in recent years. Endoscopic therapy is often employed to arrest bleeding varices as well as to prevent early rebleeding. The combination of vasoconstrictor and endoscopic therapy is superior to vasoconstrictor or endoscopic therapy alone for control of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. After control of acute variceal bleeding, combination of banding ligation and beta-blockers is generally recommended to prevent variceal rebleeding. To prevent the catastrophic event of acute variceal bleeding, endoscopic banding ligation is an important tool in the prophylaxis of first bleeding. Endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate is usually utilized to arrest acute gastric variceal hemorrhage as well as to prevent rebleeding. It can be concluded that endoscopic therapies play a pivotal role in management of portal hypertensive bleeding.

Rifaximin treatment is associated with reduced risk of cirrhotic complications and prolonged overall survival in patients experiencing hepatic encephalopathy

BACKGROUND

Rifaximin might decrease the risk of portal hypertension-related complications by controlling small intestinal bacterial overgrowth.

AIM

To evaluate whether rifaximin was associated with the risk of death and cirrhotic complications.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study that included 1042 patients experiencing hepatic encephalopathy (HE): 421 patients without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; the non-HCC cohort) and 621 patients with HCC (the HCC cohort). The primary endpoint was overall survival and secondary endpoints were recurrence of HE and the development of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) and variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

In the non-HCC cohort, 145 patients received rifaximin plus lactulose (the rifaximin group) and 276 patients received lactulose alone (the control group). The multivariate analysis revealed that rifaximin was significantly associated with lower risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.697; P = .024) and reduced the risk of recurrent HE (aHR, 0.452; P < .001), SBP (aHR, 0.210; P < .001) and variceal bleeding (aHR, 0.425; P = .011) but not HRS (aHR, 0.598; P = .08). In the HCC cohort, 173 patients received rifaximin plus lactulose and 448 patients received lactulose. Rifaximin was not associated with the risk of death (aHR, 1.177; P = .121). Rifaximin was associated with lower risk of SBP (aHR, 0.323; P < .001) but not with variceal bleeding (aHR, 0.660; P = .104) or recurrent HE (aHR, 0.689; P = .057). The risk of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea was not different between the groups (aHR, 0.028; P = .338).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients without HCC, rifaximin treatment was significantly associated with prolonged overall survival and reduced risks of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, variceal bleeding and recurrent hepatic encephalopathy.

Stratifying risk in the prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage: Results of an individual patient meta-analysis

Endoscopic variceal ligation plus beta-blockers (EVL+BB) is currently recommended for variceal rebleeding prophylaxis, a recommendation that extends to all patients with cirrhosis with previous variceal bleeding irrespective of prognostic stage. Individualizing patient care is relevant, and in published studies on variceal rebleeding prophylaxis, there is a lack of information regarding response to therapy by prognostic stage. This study aimed at comparing EVL plus BB with monotherapy (EVL or BB) on all-source rebleeding and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and previous variceal bleeding stratified by cirrhosis severity (Child A versus B/C) by means of individual time-to-event patient data meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials. The study used individual data on 389 patients from three trials comparing EVL plus BB versus BB and 416 patients from four trials comparing EVL plus BB versus EVL. Compared with BB alone, EVL plus BB reduced overall rebleeding in Child A (incidence rate ratio 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.89; P = 0.025) but not in Child B/C, without differences in mortality. The effect of EVL on rebleeding was different according to Child (P for interaction <0.001). Conversely, compared with EVL, EVL plus BB reduced rebleeding in both Child A and B/C, with a significant reduction in mortality in Child B/C (incidence rate ratio 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.85; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of therapies to prevent variceal rebleeding differ depending on cirrhosis severity: in patients with preserved liver function (Child A), combination therapy is recommended because it is more effective in preventing rebleeding, without modifying survival, while in patients with advanced liver failure (Child B/C), EVL alone carries an increased risk of rebleeding and death compared with combination therapy, underlining that BB is the key element of combination therapy. (Hepatology 2017;66:1219-1231).

Non-selective beta-blockers are not associated with increased mortality in cirrhotic patients with ascites

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Controversy exists on the impact of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) on survival in patients with ascites. We assessed whether NSBB treatment affects survival in a cohort of 316 consecutive patients with ascites undergoing evaluation for liver transplantation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with cirrhosis and ascites assessed for liver transplantation between 2011 and 2014 were retrospectively evaluated. Competing risk Cox regression analysis in the whole population and in propensity score matched patients were performed to identify predictors of survival.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixteen patients were evaluated: males 229 (73%), mean age 54 years, median follow-up: 7 months. Refractory ascites was diagnosed in 124 (39%) patients. Patients receiving NSBBs (n=128, 40.5%) had a higher frequency of previous spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (27% vs 17%, P=.025), lower frequency of refractory ascites (32% vs 44%, P=.03) but similar MELD and UKELD scores. Overall 80 (25%) patients died: 20 (16%) in the NSBB group vs. 60 (32%) in the non-NSBB group (P=.002). In multivariate competing risk Cox regression analysis, NSBB use was associated with reduced mortality (HR=0.55, 95% CI=0.33-0.94) along with prophylactic antibiotic use (HR=0.33, 95% CI=0.14-0.74), MELD score (HR=1.10, 95% CI=1.06-1.14) and sodium levels (HR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98). No impact on survival was found when considering only patients with refractory ascites (NSBB use: HR=0.43, 95% CI=0.20-1.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ascites on NSBBs did not have impaired survival compared to those not receiving NSSBs and interestingly this observation was also confirmed in the subgroup with refractory ascites. Our results suggest that NSBBs are not detrimental, but instead seem safe even in more advanced stages of cirrhosis in patients on a transplant waiting list.

Combination therapy versus pharmacotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation, or the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Patients with liver cirrhosis and variceal hemorrhage are at increased risk of rebleeding. We performed a meta-analysis toassess the clinical efficacy of combination therapy (pharmacotherapy and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL)) compared with pharmacotherapy, EVL, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) alone in the prevention of rebleeding and mortality. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, up until November 2016, identified relevant randomized controlled trials. Data analysis was performed using Stata 12.0. Regarding overall mortality, combination therapy was as effective as EVL, pharmacotherapy, and TIPS (relative risk (RR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-1.08, RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.68-1.63, and RR=1.39, 95% CI: 0.92-2.09, respectively). Combination therapy was as effective as EVL and pharmacotherapy alone in reducing blood-related mortality (RR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.15-1.25, and RR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.17-1.06), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=5.66, 95% CI: 1.02-31.40). This was also the case for rebleeding; combination therapy was more effective than EVL and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.41-0.79, and RR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88), whereas TIPS was more effective than combination therapy (RR=9.42, 95% CI: 2.99-29.65). Finally, regarding rebleeding from esophageal varices, combination therapy was as effective as EVL alone (RR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.33-1.06) and was more effective than pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.85), although was less effective than TIPS (RR=2.20, 95% CI: 1.22-3.99). TIPS was recommended as the first choice of therapy in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding.

A randomized trial to assess whether portal pressure guided therapy to prevent variceal rebleeding improves survival in cirrhosis

Monitoring the hemodynamic response of portal pressure (PP) to drug therapy accurately stratifies the risk of variceal rebleeding (VRB). We assessed whether guiding therapy with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) monitoring may improve survival by preventing VRB. Patients with cirrhosis with controlled variceal bleeding were randomized to an HVPG-guided therapy group (N = 84) or to a control group (N = 86). In both groups, HVPG and acute β-blocker response were evaluated at baseline and HVPG measurements were repeated at 2-4 weeks to determine chronic response. In the HVPG-guided group, acute responders were treated with nadolol and acute nonresponders with nadolol+nitrates. Chronic nonresponders received nadolol+prazosin and had a third HVPG study. Ligation sessions were repeated until response was achieved. The control group was treated with nadolol+nitrates+ligation. Between-group baseline characteristics were similar. During long-term follow-up (median of 24 months), mortality was lower in the HVPG-guided therapy group than in the control group (29% vs. 43%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35-0.99). Rebleeding occurred in 19% versus 31% of patients, respectively (HR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.29-0.98), and further decompensation of cirrhosis occurred in 52% versus 72% (HR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.46-0.99). The survival probability was higher with HVPG-guided therapy than in controls, both in acute (HR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.32-1.08) and chronic nonresponders (HR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.23-0.99). HVPG-guided patients had a greater reduction of HVPG and a lower final value than controls (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HVPG monitoring, by stratifying risk and targeting therapy, improves the survival achieved with currently recommended treatment to prevent VRB using β-blockers and ligation. HVPG-guided therapy achieved a greater reduction in PP, which may have contributed to reduce the risk of rebleeding and of further decompensation of cirrhosis, thus contributing to a better survival. (Hepatology 2017;65:1693-1707).

The 35-year odyssey of beta blockers in cirrhosis: any gender difference in sight?

Cirrhosis is the end-stage of chronic liver disease and leads to the development of portal hypertension and its complications such as esophagogastric varices. Non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) are the keystone for the treatment of portal hypertension since the 1980s and, over the decades, several studies have confirmed their beneficial effect on the prevention of variceal (re)bleeding. Pharmacological studies showed effects of gender, sex hormones, oral contraceptives, and pregnancy on cytochrome P450 (CYPs) enzymes that metabolise NSBB, suggesting that gender differences might exist in the effect of NSBB. In this review, we focused on the 35-year knowledge about the use of beta blockers in cirrhosis and potential gender differences. We specifically examined the role of NSBB in pre-primary, primary and secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, compared two commonly used NSBB (i.e., Propranolol and Carvedilol), and present the current controversies about the window of treatment in advanced cirrhosis with a specific focus on gender differences in NSBB effects. NSBB are not currently recommended in pre-primary prophylaxis of varices mainly because of lack of proven efficacy. On the other hand, NSBB are strongly recommended in patient with cirrhosis as primary (as alternative to endoscopic band ligation, EBL) and secondary prophylaxis (in addition to EBL) of variceal bleeding. To date, no studies have focused specifically on the effect of gender on NSBB treatment. Data extrapolated from clinical studies show that gender was neither a risk factor for the development of varices nor associated with a different response to treatment in primary or secondary prophylaxis. According to the available guidelines, no different, gender-based treatment for portal hypertension is recommended.

Hemodynamic Response to Carvedilol is Maintained for Long Periods and Leads to Better Clinical Outcome in Cirrhosis: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs), e.g. propranolol, are recommended for prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis. Carvedilol, a newer NSBB with additional anti-α1-adrenergic activity, is superior to propranolol in reducing portal pressure. Repeated HVPG measurements are required to identify responders to NSBB. We aimed to determine whether a single-time HVPG measurement, using acute-hemodynamic-response-testing, is sufficient to predict long-term response to carvedilol, and whether these responders have better clinical outcome.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with cirrhosis, aged 18-70 years, in whom NSBB was indicated for primary/secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and who underwent HVPG were included. Acute-hemodynamic-response was defined as a decrease in HVPG ≥10% from baseline or absolute HVPG value declining to <12 mm Hg, 1 h after 25 mg oral carvedilol. The aims of the study were to determine: the proportion of patients who achieved acute-hemodynamic-response to carvedilol; whether HVPG-response is maintained for 6 months; and clinical outcome of acute-responders to carvedilol therapy for 6 months.

RESULTS

The study included 69 patients (median age 51, males 93%). Alcohol was the most common etiology; 59% patients belonged to Child-Pugh class B. NSBB was indicated for primary prophylaxis in 36% and secondary prophylaxis in 64% patients. According to the response criteria, 67% patients were found to be acute-hemodynamic-responders. At 6 months, 92% patients were found to be still maintaining their hemodynamic response to carvedilol. Using intention-to-treat analysis, 76% patients maintained their response. These acute responders, on chronic treatment with carvedilol during the 6-month period, had lesser episodes of variceal bleeding, better ascites control, and improved MELD and CTP scores, than non-carvedilol treated non-responders. However, survival remained similar in both the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A single-time HVPG measurement with acute-hemodynamic-response-testing is simple and reliable method for identifying patients who are more likely to respond to carvedilol therapy. The HVPG-response is maintained over a long period in majority of these patients and carvedilol therapy leads to better clinical outcome in these patients.

The Beneficial Effect of Beta-Blockers in Patients With Cirrhosis, Portal Hypertension and Ascites

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertensive complications have reduced survival. As such, it has been suggested that nonselective beta-blocker therapy in patients with advanced ascites is harmful. The aim of this study was, therefore, to determine the risk of mortality in patients with cirrhosis and ascites taking nonselective beta-blocker therapy for the prevention of variceal hemorrhage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of 2,419 patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension admitted to Parkland Memorial Hospital (a university-affiliated county teaching hospital) from 2003-2010. Patients were subdivided into those with varices only, ascites only and those with both varices and ascites. The primary outcome measure for this study was all-cause in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 68 of 1,039 (6.5%) patients taking beta-blockers died during their hospitalization, while 223 of 1,380 (16.2%) patients not taking beta-blockers died (P < 0.001). Beta-blocker use was also assessed in specific cohorts; mortality was 21.1% in patients with severe ascites with varices who were not taking beta-blockers compared with 8.9% in patients who were taking beta-blockers (P = 0.05). Overall, fewer patients taking beta-blockers died compared with those not taking beta-blockers in patients with varices only (6.4% versus 12.1%) and those with ascites with or without varices (6.6% versus 18.1%) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality was lower in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension taking nonselective beta-blockers than in those not taking beta-blockers. The use of nonselective beta-blockers provided a significant survival benefit in patients with all grades of ascites, including those with severe ascites.

Does Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and β-Blocker Use Reduce the Risk of Primary Liver Cancer? A Case-Control Study Using the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink

STUDY OBJECTIVE

It has been suggested that use of the antihypertensive drugs angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and β-blockers may decrease the risk of primary liver cancer; thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate whether use of ACE inhibitors and/or β-blockers is associated with a lower risk of liver cancer.

DESIGN

Nested case-control study.

DATA SOURCE

United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

PATIENTS

We identified 490 cases with hypertension and a first-time (incident) diagnosis of primary liver cancer between 1988 and 2011. To account for an induction period, the index date was defined as the date of the first recorded liver cancer diagnosis minus 1 year. Controls were selected from patients with hypertension in the CPRD during the study period with a recorded diagnosis of hypertension who had no diagnosis of liver cancer and were free of any other cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer) before the index date; they were matched up to a 4:1 ratio to cases based on index date (same index date as that of their matched case), age (same year of birth), sex, general practice, and number of years of recorded history in the CPRD before the index date (1909 controls). Both cases and controls were required to have at least 2 years of recorded activity in the database before the index date.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Exposure was defined as receipt of two or more prescriptions for ACE inhibitors and/or β-blockers before the index date; the reference group was nonuse (0-1 prescription) of ACE or β-blocker prescriptions before the index date. We also examined the effect of duration of use and, separately, the effect of individual drugs within each medication class on risk of liver cancer, and conducted analyses restricted to patients without liver disease or diabetes mellitus. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). No association was found between use of ACE inhibitors and/or β-blockers and the risk of liver cancer compared with nonuse (adjusted OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85-1.55). No significant differences were noted in risk by duration of use or by individual drugs, or after restricting the analyses to patients without diabetes or liver disease.

CONCLUSION

Use of ACE inhibitors and/or β-blockers was not associated with reduced risk of primary liver cancer compared with nonuse of these drugs in persons with hypertension.

U.K. guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients

These updated guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage have been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee (CSSC) of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the liver section of the BSG. The original guidelines which this document supersedes were written in 2000 and have undergone extensive revision by 13 members of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG). The GDG comprises elected members of the BSG liver section, representation from British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) and Liver QuEST, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the AGREE II tool.The nature of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients with its complex range of complications makes rigid guidelines inappropriate. These guidelines deal specifically with the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis under the following subheadings: (1) primary prophylaxis; (2) acute variceal haemorrhage; (3) secondary prophylaxis of variceal haemorrhage; and (4) gastric varices. They are not designed to deal with (1) the management of the underlying liver disease; (2) the management of variceal haemorrhage in children; or (3) variceal haemorrhage from other aetiological conditions.

Non-selective beta-blockers may reduce risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) are used in patients with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices. Experimental data suggest that NSBB inhibit angiogenesis and reduce bacterial translocation, which may prevent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We therefore assessed the effect of NSBB on HCC by performing a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized trials.

METHODS

Electronic and manual searches were combined. Authors were contacted for unpublished data. Included trials assessed NSBB for patients with cirrhosis; the control group could receive any other intervention than NSBB. Fixed and random effects meta-analyses were performed with I(2) as a measure of heterogeneity. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression and sequential analyses were performed to evaluate heterogeneity, bias and the robustness of the results after adjusting for multiple testing.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized trials on 2618 patients with cirrhosis were included, of which 12 reported HCC incidence and 23 reported HCC mortality. The mean duration of follow-up was 26 months (range 8-82). In total, 47 of 694 patients randomized to NSBB developed HCC vs 65 of 697 controls (risk difference -0.026; 95% CI-0.052 to -0.001; number needed to treat 38 patients). There was no heterogeneity (I(2) = 7%) or evidence of small study effects (Eggers P = 0.402). The result was not confirmed in sequential analysis, which suggested that 3719 patients were needed to achieve the required information size. NSBB did not reduce HCC-related mortality (RD -0.011; 95% CI -0.040 to 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-selective beta-blockers may prevent HCC in patients with cirrhosis.

The chronic use of beta-blockers and proton pump inhibitors may affect the rate of bacterial infections in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Bacterial infections are among the most common and life-threatening complications in cirrhosis. Qualitative and quantitative modifications of the gut microbiota, dysfunction of the intestinal barrier and multiple immune defects are factors that contribute to a pathological 'bacterial translocation' (BT), leading to a higher susceptibility to infections in cirrhotic patients. Long-term therapies, commonly adopted in cirrhotic patients, may influence BT and modify the risk of infection in these patients. To investigate the influence of chronic therapies on the prevalence and microbiological characteristics of infections in cirrhosis.

METHODS

Consecutive cirrhotic patients hospitalised from 2008 to 2013 were enrolled. All previous treatments were carefully recorded. Infections were actively sought out, patients were actively monitored for infection, and possible risk factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

Four hundred cirrhotic patients were included. The most frequent therapies were proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) (67%), non-absorbable-disaccharides (44%), beta-blockers (BBs) (39%) and non-absorbable-antibiotics (10%). Child-Pugh C (P < 0.001; OR 5; 95%CI: 2.6-9.9) and PPI therapy (P = 0.008; OR 2; 95% CI: 1.2-3.2) were found to be independent predictors of infection, and the use of BBs was a protective factor (P = 0.001; OR 0.46; 95%CI: 0.3-0.7). Cirrhotic patients with bacterial infection showed lower morbidity and mortality when taking BBs.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitors increase the risk of infection in cirrhosis and should not be prescribed in these patients without specific indications. In contrast, the use of BBs is associated with a lower rate of infection and attenuates the consequences of infections in cirrhotic patients.

Microbiota and the gut-liver axis: Bacterial translocation, inflammation and infection in cirrhosis

Liver disease is associated with qualitative and quantitative changes in the intestinal microbiota. In cirrhotic patients the alteration in gut microbiota is characterized by an overgrowth of potentially pathogenic bacteria (i.e., gram negative species) and a decrease in autochthonous familiae. Here we summarize the available literature on the risk of gut dysbiosis in liver cirrhosis and its clinical consequences. We therefore described the features of the complex interaction between gut microbiota and cirrhotic host, the so called “gut-liver axis”, with a particular attention to the acquired risk of bacterial translocation, systemic inflammation and the relationship with systemic infections in the cirrhotic patient. Such knowledge might help to develop novel and innovative strategies for the prevention and therapy of gut dysbiosis and its complication in liver cirrhosis.

Multicentre randomised controlled study comparing carvedilol with variceal band ligation in the prevention of variceal rebleeding

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Rebleeding after an initial oesophageal variceal haemorrhage remains a significant problem despite therapy with band ligation, non-selective β-blockers or a combination of these. Carvedilol is a vasodilating non-selective β-blocker with alpha-1 receptor and calcium channel antagonism. A recent study has suggested it is effective in the prevention of a first variceal bleed. Our aim was to compare oral carvedilol with variceal band ligation (VBL) in the prevention of rebleeding following a first variceal bleed.

METHODS

Patients who were stable 5 days after presentation with a first oesophageal variceal haemorrhage and had not been taking β-blockers were randomised to oral carvedilol or VBL. Patients were followed-up after one week, monthly, then every 3 months. The primary end point was variceal rebleeding on intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

64 patients were randomised, 33 to carvedilol and 31 to VBL. 58 (90.6%) patients had alcohol related liver disease. Age and Child-Pugh score were similar in both groups at baseline. Median follow-up was 26.3 (interquartile range [IQR] 10.2-46.6)months. Compliance was 68% and 65% for carvedilol and VBL respectively (p=0.993) and serious adverse events between the two groups were similar (p=0.968). Variceal rebleeding occurred during follow-up in 12 (36.4%) and 11 (35.5%) patients in the carvedilol and VBL groups, respectively (p=0.857), with 9 (27.3%) and 16 (51.6%) deaths in each group, respectively (p=0.110).

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol is not superior to VBL in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. The trend to a survival benefit for patients taking this drug compared with those undergoing banding requires further exploration.

Drugs plus ligation to prevent rebleeding in cirrhosis: an updated systematic review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Combined therapy with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and β-blockers ± isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) is currently recommended to prevent variceal rebleeding. However, the role of this combined therapy has been challenged by some studies. We performed a systematic review to assess the value of combined therapy with EVL and β-blockers ± ISMN as compared with each treatment alone to prevent rebleeding.

METHODS

Databases, references and meeting abstracts were searched to retrieve randomized trials comparing combined therapy with EVL and β-blockers ± ISMN vs either treatment alone, to prevent variceal rebleeding in cirrhosis. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified five studies comparing EVL alone or combined with drugs, including a total of 476 patients. Combination therapy reduced overall rebleeding [risk ratios (RR) = 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.28-0.69], and showed a trend towards lower mortality (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.33-1.03), without increasing complications. We identified four trials comparing drugs alone or associated with EVL, including 409 patients. All used β-blockers plus ISMN. Variceal rebleeding decreased with combined therapy (P < 0.01) but rebleeding from oesophageal ulcers increased (P = 0.01). Overall, there was a trend towards lower rebleeding (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.58-1.00) without effect on mortality (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.90-1.70).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of drug therapy to EVL improves the efficacy of EVL alone. However, the addition of EVL to β-blockers and ISMN achieves a non-significant decrease of rebleeding with no effect on mortality. Although combination therapy with EVL plus β-blockers ± ISMN is adequate to prevent rebleeding, β-blockers + ISMN alone may be a valid alternative.

Future treatments of cirrhosis

Cirrhosis can be sub-classified in clinical stages with distinct differences in prognosis and can even be reversed in some cases with successful etiological treatment. In this article, we review potential future therapies of cirrhosis, mainly focusing in the expansion of indications of currently licensed drugs. We strongly advocate that future therapies should focus on preventing the advent of complications and further progression of liver disease and should involve both primary and secondary care physicians. Such strategies could be based on the combination of currently licensed, relatively safe and inexpensive drugs and such randomized controlled trials should be prioritized in patients with advanced liver disease. The paradigm should be similar to that of prevention in cardiovascular diseases and long-term follow-up trials are needed.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding: pharmacological therapy versus endoscopic banding

Variceal bleeding is one of the most feared complications in patients with liver cirrhosis. It continues to be a leading cause of death among patients with liver cirrhosis. Although its prognosis has improved over the last several decades, it still carries substantial mortality. Preventing variceal bleeding has been extensively studied and evaluated in several studies in the recent years and the comparison between the different modalities available to prevent variceal bleeding has been an area of discussion. Currently the two most widely used modalities to prevent variceal bleeding are pharmacologic (non-selective beta-blockers [NSBB]) and endoscopic (variceal band ligation [VBL]) which have replaced sclerotherapy in the recent years. In addition to NSBB and recent carvedilol, different other medications have been evaluated including isosorbide mononitrates, spironolactone and angiotensin blocking agents. Comparing the outcomes and adverse effects of these two modalities has been evaluated in different studies. Some studies have showed superiority of VBL until recently, when carvedilol has been included, however; overall mortality has been similar in most trials. Despite that, NSBB remain the first line treatment, as they are cheaper and relatively effective in preventing both esophageal and gastric bleeding. The following sections discuss the primary prevention of variceal bleeding with a focus on NSBB, carvedilol and VBL.

Beta-blockers in portal hypertension: new developments and controversies

There are many studies investigating the role of non-selective beta-blockers in portal hypertension. Satisfactory reduction in portal pressure is possible in a third to half of patients with propranolol and nadolol, although combining these drugs with nitrates may be more effective. Carvedilol is a more potent agent than propranolol in reducing portal pressure, particularly in non-responders, and is better tolerated. All these drugs have been studied in primary and secondary prophylaxis, sometimes in combination with band ligation and/or nitrates. There is some evidence to support combining these agents with band ligation, despite a lack of survival benefit and increased adverse events. Hemodynamic monitoring can help select non-responders who may benefit from additional therapies such as band ligation, as lack of response is associated with worse outcomes. Propranolol should be used with caution in patients with refractory ascites, although the current evidence is not of sufficient quality to justify not using these drugs in such situations. Beta-blockers have been shown to reduce bacterial translocation and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis.

Variceal rebleeding: use of drug therapy and endoscopic band ligation

Patients surviving a variceal bleed are at high risk of re-bleeding with a mortality of 25-50% during a 1-2 year follow-up. Several studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated reduced rates of oesophageal variceal rebleeding with the use of β-blockers. However, their use can be limited by contraindications or intolerance to therapy. Other trials have shown that addition of nitrates may improve the efficacy of β-blockers in prevention of variceal re-bleeding. Endoscopic variceal band ligation (VBL) has been shown in meta-analyses to decrease the rates of rebleeding and mortality compared with endoscopic sclerotherapy. Studies comparing combined drug therapy with VBL have shown similar rebleeding rates although there is a suggestion that survival may be higher in those given drug therapy. Recent data suggest that combined VBL and drug therapy reduces the risk of rebleeding from oesophageal varices compared with either therapy alone; however there appears to be no reduction in overall mortality.

Prevention of upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: current controversies and clinical guidance

Acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common medical emergency and associated with significant morbidly and mortality. The risk of bleeding from peptic ulceration and oesophagogastric varices can be reduced by appropriate primary and secondary preventative strategies. Helicobacter pylori eradication and risk stratification with appropriate gastroprotection strategies when used with antiplatelet drugs and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective in preventing peptic ulcer bleeding, whilst endoscopic screening and either nonselective beta blockade or endoscopic variceal ligation are effective at reducing the risk of variceal haemorrhage. For secondary prevention of variceal haemorrhage, the combination of beta blockade and endoscopic variceal ligation is more effective. Recent data on the possible interactions of aspirin and NSAIDs, clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and the increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events associated with all nonaspirin cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors have increased the complexity of choices for preventing peptic ulcer bleeding. Such choices should consider both the GI and cardiovascular risk profiles. In patients with a moderately increased risk of GI bleeding, a NSAID plus a PPI or a COX-2 selective agent alone appear equivalent but for those at highest risk of bleeding (especially those with previous ulcer or haemorrhage) the COX-2 inhibitor plus PPI combination is superior. However naproxen seems the safest NSAID for those at increased cardiovascular risk. Clopidogrel is associated with a significant risk of GI haemorrhage and the most recent data concerning the potential clinical interaction of clopidogrel and PPIs are reassuring. In clopidogrel-treated patients at highest risk of GI bleeding, some form of GI prevention is indicated.

Management of varices in patients with cirrhosis

Variceal bleeding remains a life-threatening condition with a 6-week mortality rate of ∼20%. Prevention of variceal bleeding can be achieved using nonselective β-blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL), with NSBBs as the first-line treatment. EBL should be reserved for cases of intolerance or contraindications to NSBBs. Although NSBBs cannot be used to prevent varices, if the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is ≤10 mmHg, prognosis is excellent. Survival after acute variceal bleeding has improved over the past three decades, but patients with Child-Pugh grade C cirrhosis remain at greatest risk. Vasoactive drugs combined with endoscopic therapy and antibiotics are the best therapeutic strategy for these patients. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) should be used in patients with uncontrolled bleeding or those who are likely to have difficult-to-control bleeding. Rebleeding from varices occurs in ∼60% of patients 1-2 years after the initial bleeding episode, with a mortality rate of 30%. Secondary prophylaxis should start at day 6 after initial bleeding using a combination of NSBBs and EBL. TIPS with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents are the preferred option in patients who fail combined treatment with NSBBs and EBL. Despite the improvement in patient survival, further studies are needed to direct the management of patients with gastro-oesophageal varices and variceal bleeding.