Transarterial (chemo)embolisation versus no intervention or placebo for liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The liver is affected by two of the most common groups of malignant tumours: primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma or other extrahepatic primary cancers. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer, and long-term survival rate after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in the majority of people; therefore, other treatments have to be considered. One possible option is based on the concept that the blood supply to hepatic tumours originates predominantly from the hepatic artery. Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) of the hepatic artery can be achieved by administering a chemotherapeutic drug followed by vascular occlusive agents, and can lead to selective necrosis of the liver tumour while it may leave normal parenchyma virtually unaffected. This can also be performed without chemotherapy, which is called bland transarterial embolisation (TAE).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of TAE or TACE compared with no intervention or placebo in people with liver metastases.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and four more databases (December 2019). We also searched two trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration database (September 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of TAE or TACE compared with no intervention or placebo for liver metastases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We extracted information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, study design, and trial methods. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We resolved disagreements by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one randomised clinical trial with 61 participants (43 male and 18 female) with colorectal cancer with liver metastases: 22 received transarterial embolisation (TAE; hepatic artery embolisation), 19 received transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE; 5-fluorouracil hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy with degradable microspheres), and 20 received 'no active therapeutic intervention' as a control. Most tumours were synchronous, unresectable metastases involving up to 75% of the liver. Participants were followed for a minimum of seven months. The trial was at high risk of bias. Very-low-certainty evidence found inconclusive results for mortality at 44 months between the TAE and TACE versus no intervention groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.06; 61 participants). Local recurrence was reported in 10 participants without any details about the group allocation. Very-low-certainty evidence found little or no difference in mortality between the TAE and no intervention groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 42 participants). Median survival was 7 months from trial entry (range 2 to 44 months) in the TAE group and 7.9 months (range 1 to 26 months) in the control group, and 8.7 months after diagnosis (range 2 to 49 months) in the TAE group and 9.6 months (range 1 to 27 months) in the control group. The trial authors reported the differences were not statistically significant. There were no reported side effects in the control group. In the TAE group, 18 participants experienced short-term symptoms of 'post-embolisation syndrome', which were relieved with symptomatic treatment; one participant also had a local puncture site haematoma. Very-low-certainty evidence found little or no difference in mortality between the TACE and no intervention groups (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; 39 participants). Median survival in the TACE group was 10.7 months (range 3 to 38 months) from trial entry, and 13.0 months (range 3 to 38 months) after diagnosis. The trial authors reported that differences between groups were not statistically significant. All participants experienced short-term nausea, with or without vomiting, immediately after treatment; one participant developed a wound infection, and one developed deep vein thrombosis. The trial did not measure failure to clear liver metastases, time to progression of liver metastases, tumour response measures, or health-related quality of life. Cancer Research Campaign, a non-profit organisation, provided a grant for the trial; Pharmacia Ltd. delivered the Port-a-Cath arterial delivery systems and degradable starch microspheres. We identified one ongoing trial comparing TACE plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in people with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who failed with first-line chemotherapy (NCT03783559).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on one, small randomised trial at high risk of bias, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of TAE or TACE versus no active therapeutic intervention on mortality for people with liver metastases as the true effect may be substantially different. The trial did not measure failure to clear liver metastases, time to progression of liver metastases, tumour response measures, or health-related quality of life. Short-term, minor adverse events were recorded in the intervention groups only. Large trials, following current standards of conduct and reporting, are required to explore the benefits and harms of TAE or TACE compared with no intervention or placebo in people with resectable and unresectable liver metastasis.

Percutaneous ethanol injection for liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The liver is affected by two of the most common groups of malignant tumours: primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma or other extrahepatic primary cancers. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer, and the reported long-term survival rate after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in the majority of patients; therefore, other treatments have to be considered. One of these is percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), which causes dehydration and necrosis of tumour cells, accompanied by small-vessel thrombosis, leading to tumour ischaemia and destruction of the tumour.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) compared with no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments in people with liver metastases.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 10 September 2019: the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; Science Citation Index Expanded; Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science; Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched clinical trials registers such as ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (17 September 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of percutaneous ethanol injection and its comparators (no intervention, other ablation methods, systemic treatments) for liver metastases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard methodological procedures as outlined by Cochrane. We extracted information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, study design, and trial methods. Two review authors performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias independently. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using GRADE. We resolved disagreements by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only one randomised clinical trial comparing percutaneous intratumour ethanol injection (PEI) in addition to transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE alone. The trial was conducted in China and included 48 trial participants with liver metastases: 25 received PEI plus TACE, and 23 received TACE alone. The trial included 37 male and 11 female participants. Mean participant age was 49.3 years. Sites of primary tumours included colon (27 cases), stomach (12 cases), pancreas (3 cases), lung (3 cases), breast (2 cases), and ovary (1 case). Seven participants had a single tumour, 15 had two tumours, and 26 had three or more tumours in the liver. The bulk diameter of the tumour on average was 3.9 cm, ranging from 1.2 cm to 7.6 cm. Participants were followed for 10 months to 43 months. The trial reported survival data after one, two, and three years. In the PEI + TACE group, 92%, 80%, and 64% of participants survived after one year, two years, and three years; in the TACE alone group, these percentages were 78.3%, 65.2%, and 47.8%, respectively. Upon conversion of these data to mortality rates, the calculated risk ratio (RR) for mortality at last follow-up when PEI plus TACE was compared with TACE alone was 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.33; very low-certainty evidence) after three years of follow-up. Local recurrence was 16% in the PEI plus TACE group and 39.1% in the TACE group, resulting in an RR of 0.41 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.15; very low-certainty evidence). Forty-five out of a total of 68 tumours (66.2%) shrunk by at least 25% in the PEI plus TACE group versus 31 out of a total of 64 tumours (48.4%) in the TACE group. Trial authors reported some adverse events but provided very few details. We did not find data on time to mortality, failure to clear liver metastases, recurrence of liver metastases, health-related quality of life, or time to progression of liver metastases. The single included trial did not provide information on funding nor on conflict of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the effectiveness of PEI plus TACE versus TACE in people with liver metastases is of very low certainty and is based on one small randomised clinical trial at high risk of bias. Currently, it cannot be determined whether adding PEI to TACE makes a difference in comparison to using TACE alone. Evidence for benefits or harms of PEI compared with no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments is lacking.

Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm and the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Its incidence has increased dramatically since the mid-2000s. Although surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only about 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these interventions. Treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include ablative and transarterial interventions - selective yttrium-90 microsphere transarterial radioembolisation - in addition to the drug sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of yttrium-90 (Y-90) microsphere transarterial radioembolisation given as monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or other similar systemic or locoregional interventions for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index - Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science until September 2019. We manually checked the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised clinical trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We extracted information on participants, interventions, outcomes, trial design, and trial methods. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using pre-defined domains and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary review outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were cancer-related mortality, time to progression of the tumour, tumour response, non-serious adverse events, and liver transplantation. For dichotomous variables, we calculated risk ratio (RR), and for continuous variables, we planned to calculate mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We based time-to-event data analyses on hazard ratios (HRs).

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised trials with 1340 participants in total fulfilled the review inclusion criteria and provided data for one or more of our analysed outcomes. All trials were at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low to very low. One trial compared radioembolisation plus sorafenib versus sorafenib alone in people with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. All-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, cancer-related mortality, time to progression, and tumour response rates were not reported. Serious adverse events were reported in 63 trial participants (39.6%) in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus 70 trial participants (38.5%) in the sorafenib group (very low-certainty evidence). Hyperbilirubinaemia was approximately three times more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus the sorafenib group (14.5% versus 4.4%; very low-certainty evidence). Fatigue was more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group than in the sorafenib group, at 35.2% versus 24.2% of trial participants. Two trials compared radioembolisation versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, one-year all-cause mortality was 62.7% in the radioembolisation group versus 53.0% in the sorafenib group (1 trial; n = 360; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences in the quality of life between radioembolisation and sorafenib groups (1 trial). Global health status subscore was better in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (P = 0.0048; 1 trial). Fewer participants had serious adverse events in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (27 (20.8%) in the radioembolisation group versus 57 (35.2%) in the sorafenib group; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 6.1 months versus 5.4 months in the sorafenib group (1 trial). The RR for disease control rate was 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; n = 748; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor sorafenib. In two trials with 734 participants, radioembolisation seemed to be less likely to be associated with hand-foot skin reaction (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence), skin rash (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), diarrhoea (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), and hypertension (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.88; low-certainty evidence). No trial reported cancer-related mortality. Three trials compared radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, none of these trials reported all-cause mortality and cancer-related mortality. The RR for serious adverse events was 1.41 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.14; n = 97; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor chemoembolisation. One trial reported quality of life and noted no differences between intervention groups with regard to this outcome at week 12 (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to progression was not reached in the radioembolisation group and was 6.8 months in the chemoembolisation group (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.027 to 0.557; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 371 days versus 336 days in the chemoembolisation group (P = 0.5764; 1 trial). Disease control rates (complete response + partial response + stable disease) were 73.3% with radioembolisation versus 76.9% with chemoembolisation (1 trial). According to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, tumour response was reported in 52% of participants who received radioembolisation versus 63% of those who received chemoembolisation (1 trial). Patients in the chemoembolisation group experienced diarrhoea (P = 0.031; 1 trial) and hypoalbuminaemia (P < 0.001; 1 trial) more frequently. Four trials were sponsored by industry, and two by University. We found two ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation with or without sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is highly insufficient. We cannot determine if radioembolisation plus sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone affects all-cause mortality or the occurrence of adverse events. Radioembolisation compared with sorafenib seemed to achieve equivalent survival and to cause fewer adverse effects, but our certainty was very low. Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is also highly insufficient. Radioembolisation did not seem to differ from chemoembolisation in terms of serious adverse events and quality of life, but the certainty of evidence was very low. Further high-quality placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials are needed to assess patient-centred outcomes.

Treatment for ascites in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20% of people with cirrhosis develop ascites. Several different treatments are available; including, among others, paracentesis plus fluid replacement, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, aldosterone antagonists, and loop diuretics. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their relative efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for ascites in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for ascites 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 May 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and ascites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and ascites. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation.

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 a total of 49 randomised clinical trials (3521 participants) in the review. Forty-two trials (2870 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, without other features of decompensation, having mainly grade 3 (severe), recurrent, or refractory ascites. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 0.1 to 84 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was low or very low. Approximately 36.8% of participants who received paracentesis plus fluid replacement (reference group, the current standard treatment) died within 11 months. There was no evidence of differences in mortality, adverse events, or liver transplantation in people receiving different interventions compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (very low-certainty evidence). Resolution of ascites at maximal follow-up was higher with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (HR 9.44; 95% CrI 1.93 to 62.68) and adding aldosterone antagonists to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (HR 30.63; 95% CrI 5.06 to 692.98) compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (very low-certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists plus loop diuretics had a higher rate of other decompensation events such as hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, and variceal bleeding compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (rate ratio 2.04; 95% CrI 1.37 to 3.10) (very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials using paracentesis plus fluid replacement reported health-related quality of life or symptomatic recovery from ascites.

FUNDING

the source of funding for four trials were industries which would benefit from the results of the study; 24 trials received no additional funding or were funded by neutral organisations; and the source of funding for the remaining 21 trials was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence, there is considerable uncertainty about whether interventions for ascites in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis decrease mortality, adverse events, or liver transplantation compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis and ascites. Based on very low-certainty evidence, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and adding aldosterone antagonists to paracentesis plus fluid replacement may increase the resolution of ascites compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement. Based on very low-certainty evidence, aldosterone antagonists plus loop diuretics may increase the decompensation rate compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement.

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.

Induction immunosuppression in adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is considered the definitive treatment for people with liver failure. As part of post-liver transplantation management, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections. Immunosuppressive drugs can be classified into those that are used for a short period during the beginning phase of immunosuppression (induction immunosuppression) and those that are used over the entire lifetime of the individual (maintenance immunosuppression), because it is widely believed that graft rejections are more common during the first few months after liver transplantation. Some drugs such as glucocorticosteroids may be used for both induction and maintenance immunosuppression because of their multiple modalities of action. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether induction immunosuppression is necessary and if so, the relative efficacy of different immunosuppressive agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different induction immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different induction immunosuppressive regimens 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 July 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in adults undergoing liver transplantation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults undergoing liver transplantation. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had multivisceral transplantation and those who already had graft rejections.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 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 25 trials (3271 participants; 8 treatments) in the review. Twenty-three trials (3017 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people undergoing primary liver transplantation for various indications and excluded those with HIV and those with renal impairment. The follow-up in the trials ranged from three to 76 months, with a median follow-up of 12 months among trials. All except one trial were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was very low. Overall, approximately 7.4% of people who received the standard regimen of glucocorticosteroid induction died and 12.2% developed graft failure. All-cause mortality and graft failure was lower with basiliximab compared with glucocorticosteroid induction: all-cause mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CrI 0.31 to 0.93; network estimate, based on 2 direct comparison trials (131 participants; low-certainty evidence)); and graft failure (HR 0.44, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.70; direct estimate, based on 1 trial (47 participants; low-certainty evidence)). There was no evidence of differences in all-cause mortality and graft failure between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of differences in serious adverse events (proportion), serious adverse events (number), renal failure, any adverse events (proportion), any adverse events (number), liver retransplantation, graft rejections (any), or graft rejections (requiring treatment) between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). However, because of the wide CrIs, clinically important differences in these outcomes cannot be ruled out. None of the studies reported health-related quality of life.

FUNDING

the source of funding for 14 trials was drug companies who would benefit from the results of the study; two trials were funded by neutral organisations who have no vested interests in the results of the study; and the source of funding for the remaining nine trials was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, basiliximab induction may decrease mortality and graft failure compared to glucocorticosteroids induction in people undergoing liver transplantation. However, there is considerable uncertainty about this finding because this information is based on small trials at high risk of bias. The evidence is uncertain about the effects of different induction immunosuppressants on other clinical outcomes, including graft rejections. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered, employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts (or perform intention-to-treat analysis), and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft failure, and health-related quality of life.

Hepatitis A immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis A

This review is withdrawn because it is outdated. A new review is to be published by the end of 2019.

Xiao Chai Hu Tang, a herbal medicine, for chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis B is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Chronic hepatitis B requires long-term management aiming at reduction of the risks of hepatocellular inflammatory necrosis, liver fibrosis, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer, and improving health-related quality of life. The Chinese herbal medicine formula Xiao Chai Hu Tang has been used to decrease discomfort and replication of the virus in people with chronic hepatitis B. However, the benefits and harms of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula have never been established with rigorous review methodology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula versus placebo or no intervention in people with chronic hepatitis B.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and seven other databases to 1 March 2019. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/), and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry for ongoing or unpublished trials to 1 March 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, and blinding, comparing Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula versus no intervention or placebo in people with chronic hepatitis B. We included participants of any sex and age, diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B according to guidelines or as defined by the trialists. We allowed co-interventions when the co-interventions were administered equally to all the intervention groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently retrieved data from reports and after correspondence with investigators. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were hepatitis B-related mortality, hepatitis B-related morbidity, and adverse events considered 'not to be serious'. We presented the meta-analysed results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risks of bias using risk of bias domains with predefined definitions. We used GRADE methodology to evaluate our certainty in the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised clinical trials with 934 participants, but only five trials with 490 participants provided data for analysis. All the trials compared Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula with no intervention. All trials appeared to have been conducted and published only in China. The included trials assessed heterogeneous forms of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula, administered for three to eight months. One trial included participants with hepatitis B and comorbid tuberculosis, and one trial included participants with hepatitis B and liver cirrhosis. The remaining trials included participants with hepatitis B only. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence for all outcomes that provided data for analyses was very low. We downgraded the evidence by one or two levels because of outcome risk of bias, inconsistency or heterogeneity of results (opposite direction of effect), indirectness of evidence (use of surrogate outcomes instead of clinically relevant outcomes), imprecision of results (the CIs were wide), and publication bias (small sample size of the trials). Additionally, 47 trials lacked the necessary methodological information needed to ensure the inclusion of these trials in our review. None of the included trials aimed to assess clinically relevant outcomes such as all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, or hepatitis B-related morbidity. The effects of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula on the proportion of participants with adverse events considered 'not to be serious' is uncertain (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.98; I² = 69%; very low-certainty evidence). Only three trials with 222 participants reported the proportion of people with detectable hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV-DNA), but the evidence that Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula reduces the presence of HBV-DNA in the blood (a surrogate outcome) is uncertain (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Only two trials with 160 participants reported the proportion of people with detectable hepatitis B virus e-antigen (HBeAg; a surrogate outcome) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.02; I² = 38%; very low-certainty evidence) and the evidence is uncertain. The evidence is also uncertain for separately reported adverse events considered 'not to be serious'.

FUNDING

two of the 10 included trials received academic funding from government or hospital. None of the remaining eight trials reported information on funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The clinical effects of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula for chronic hepatitis B remain unclear. The included trials were small and of low methodological quality. Despite the wide use of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula, we lack data on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, and hepatitis B-related morbidity. The evidence in this systematic review comes from data obtained from a maximum three trials. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low for adverse events considered not to be serious and the surrogate outcomes HBeAg and HBV-DNA. We found a large number of trials which lacked clear description of their design and conduct, and hence, these trials are not included in the present review. As all identified trials were conducted in China, there might be a concern about the applicability of this review outside China. Large-sized, high-quality randomised sham-controlled trials with homogeneous groups of participants and transparent funding are lacking.

Antibiotic treatment for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 2.5% of all hospitalisations in people with cirrhosis are for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). Antibiotics, in addition to supportive treatment (fluid and electrolyte balance, treatment of shock), form the mainstay treatments of SBP. Various antibiotics are available for the treatment of SBP, but there is uncertainty regarding the best antibiotic for SBP.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different antibiotic treatments for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until November 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials on people with cirrhosis and SBP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults with cirrhosis and SBP. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. The outcomes for this review included mortality, serious adverse events, any adverse events, resolution of SBP, liver transplantation, and other decompensation events. We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available-case analysis, according to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 12 trials (1278 participants; 13 antibiotics) in the review. Ten trials (893 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included patients having cirrhosis with or without other features of decompensation of varied aetiologies. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one week to three months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Only one trial was included under each comparison for most of the outcomes. Because of these reasons, there is very low certainty in all the results. The majority of the randomised clinical trials used third-generation cephalosporins, such as intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, or ciprofloxacin as one of the interventions.Overall, approximately 75% of trial participants recovered from SBP and 25% of people died within three months. There was no evidence of difference in any of the outcomes for which network meta-analysis was possible: mortality (9 trials; 653 participants), proportion of people with any adverse events (5 trials; 297 participants), resolution of SBP (as per standard definition, 9 trials; 873 participants), or other features of decompensation (6 trials; 535 participants). The effect estimates in the direct comparisons (when available) were very similar to those of network meta-analysis. For the comparisons where network meta-analysis was not possible, there was no evidence of difference in any of the outcomes (proportion of participants with serious adverse events, number of adverse events, and proportion of participants requiring liver transplantation). Due to the wide CrIs and the very low-certainty evidence for all the outcomes, significant benefits or harms of antibiotics are possible.None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, number of serious adverse events, or symptomatic recovery from SBP.

FUNDING

the source of funding for two trials were industrial organisations who would benefit from the results of the trial; the source of funding for the remaining 10 trials was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Short-term mortality after SBP is about 25%. There is significant uncertainty about which antibiotic therapy is better in people with SBP.We need adequately powered randomised clinical trials, with adequate blinding, avoiding post-randomisation dropouts (or performing intention-to-treat analysis), and using clinically important outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.

Treatment for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatorenal syndrome is defined as renal failure in people with cirrhosis in the absence of other causes. In addition to supportive treatment such as albumin to restore fluid balance, the other potential treatments include systemic vasoconstrictor drugs (such as vasopressin analogues or noradrenaline), renal vasodilator drugs (such as dopamine), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and liver support with molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS). There is uncertainty over the best treatment regimen for hepatorenal syndrome.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trial registers until December 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials on hepatorenal syndrome in people with cirrhosis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. The outcomes for this review included mortality, serious adverse events, any adverse events, resolution of hepatorenal syndrome, liver transplantation, and other decompensation events. We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, hazard ratio (HR), and mean difference (MD) 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 25 trials (1263 participants; 12 interventions) in the review. Twenty-three trials (1185 participants) were included in one or more outcomes. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and all the evidence was of low or very low certainty. The trials included participants with liver cirrhosis of varied aetiologies as well as a mixture of type I hepatorenal syndrome only, type II hepatorenal syndrome only, or people with both type I and type II hepatorenal syndrome. Participant age ranged from 42 to 60 years, and the proportion of females ranged from 5.8% to 61.5% in the trials that reported this information. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one week to six months. Overall, 59% of participants died during this period and about 35% of participants recovered from hepatorenal syndrome. The most common interventions compared were albumin plus terlipressin, albumin plus noradrenaline, and albumin alone.There was no evidence of a difference in mortality (22 trials; 1153 participants) at maximal follow-up between the different interventions. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with serious adverse events (three trials; 428 participants), number of participants with serious adverse events per participant (two trials; 166 participants), proportion of participants with any adverse events (four trials; 402 participants), the proportion of people who underwent liver transplantation at maximal follow-up (four trials; 342 participants), or other features of decompensation at maximal follow-up (one trial; 466 participants). Five trials (293 participants) reported number of any adverse events, and five trials (219 participants) reported treatment costs. Albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer numbers of adverse events per participant (rate ratio 0.51, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.87). Eighteen trials (1047 participants) reported recovery from hepatorenal syndrome (as per definition of hepatorenal syndrome). In terms of recovery from hepatorenal syndrome, in the direct comparisons, albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome than albumin plus terlipressin (HR 0.04; 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.25 and HR 0.26, 95% CrI 0.07 to 0.80 respectively). There was no evidence of differences between the groups in any of the other direct comparisons. In the network meta-analysis, albumin and albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin.

FUNDING

two trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies; five trials were funded by parties who had no vested interest in the results of the trial; and 18 trials did not report the source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence, there is no evidence of benefit or harm of any of the interventions for hepatorenal syndrome with regards to the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (proportion), number of serious adverse events per participant, any adverse events (proportion), liver transplantation, or other decompensation events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer 'any adverse events per participant' than albumin plus terlipressin. Low- or very low-certainty evidence also found that albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin alone had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin.Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered; employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs (or perform an intention-to-treat analysis); and report clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health-related quality of life, adverse events, and recovery from hepatorenal syndrome. Albumin plus noradrenaline and albumin plus terlipressin appear to be the interventions that should be compared in future trials.

Acupuncture for chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis B is a liver disease associated with high morbidity and mortality. Chronic hepatitis B requires long-term management aiming to reduce the risks of hepatocellular inflammatory necrosis, liver fibrosis, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer, as well as to improve health-related quality of life. Acupuncture is being used to decrease discomfort and improve immune function in people with chronic hepatitis B. However, the benefits and harms of acupuncture still need to be established in a rigorous way.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of acupuncture versus no intervention or sham acupuncture in people with chronic hepatitis B.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP (CQVIP), Wanfang Data, and SinoMed to 1 March 2019. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/), and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) for ongoing or unpublished trials until 1 March 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, and blinding, comparing acupuncture versus no intervention or sham acupuncture in people with chronic hepatitis B. We included participants of any sex and age, diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B as defined by the trialists or according to guidelines. We allowed co-interventions when the co-interventions were administered equally to all intervention groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors in pairs individually retrieved data from reports and through correspondence with investigators. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were hepatitis B-related mortality, hepatitis B-related morbidity, and adverse events considered not to be serious. We presented the pooled results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risks of bias using risk of bias domains with predefined definitions. We put more weight on the estimate closest to zero effect when results with fixed-effect and random-effects models differed. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight randomised clinical trials with 555 randomised participants. All included trials compared acupuncture versus no intervention. These trials assessed heterogeneous acupuncture interventions. All trials used heterogeneous co-interventions applied equally in the compared groups. Seven trials included participants with chronic hepatitis B, and one trial included participants with chronic hepatitis B with comorbid tuberculosis. All trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low due to high risk of bias for each outcome, imprecision of results (the confidence intervals were wide), and publication bias (small sample size of the trials, and all trials were conducted in China). Additionally, 79 trials lacked the necessary methodological information to ensure their inclusion in our review.None of the included trials aim to assess all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, and hepatitis B-related morbidity. We are uncertain whether acupuncture, compared with no intervention, has an effect regarding adverse events considered not to be serious (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.06; I² = 0%; 3 trials; 203 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or detectable hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg) (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.68; I² = 98%; 2 trials; 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Acupuncture showed a reduction in detectable hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA (a non-validated surrogate outcome; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; 1 trial, 58 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether acupuncture has an effect regarding the remaining separately reported adverse events considered not to be serious.Three of the eight included trials received academic funding from government or hospital. None of the remaining five trials reported information on funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The clinical effects of acupuncture for chronic hepatitis B remain unknown. The included trials lacked data on all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events, hepatitis-B related mortality, and hepatitis-B related morbidity. The vast number of excluded trials lacked clear descriptions of their design and conduct. Whether acupuncture influences adverse events considered not to be serious is uncertain. It remains unclear if acupuncture affects HBeAg, and if it is associated with reduction in detectable HBV DNA. Based on available data from only one or two small trials on adverse events considered not to be serious and on the surrogate outcomes HBeAg and HBV DNA, the certainty of evidence is very low. In view of the wide usage of acupuncture, any conclusion that one might try to draw in the future should be based on data on patient and clinically relevant outcomes, assessed in large, high-quality randomised sham-controlled trials with homogeneous groups of participants and transparent funding.

Nucleic acid and antigen detection tests for leptospirosis

BACKGROUND

Early diagnosis of leptospirosis may contribute to the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy and early outbreak recognition. Nucleic acid and antigen detection tests have the potential for early diagnosis of leptospirosis. With this systematic review, we assessed the sensitivity and specificity of nucleic acid and antigen detection tests.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic test accuracy of nucleic acid and antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of human symptomatic leptospirosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and regional databases from inception to 6 July 2018. We did not apply restrictions to language or time of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic cross-sectional studies and case-control studies of tests that made use of nucleic acid and antigen detection methods in people suspected of systemic leptospirosis. As reference standards, we considered the microscopic agglutination test alone (which detects antibodies against leptospirosis) or in a composite reference standard with culturing or other serological tests. Studies were excluded when the controls were healthy individuals or when there were insufficient data to calculate sensitivity and specificity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data from each study. We used the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) to assess risk of bias. We calculated study-specific values for sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled the results in a meta-analysis when appropriate. We used the bivariate model for index tests with one positivity threshold, and we used the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model for index tests with multiple positivity thresholds. As possible sources of heterogeneity, we explored: timing of index test, disease prevalence, blood sample type, primers or target genes, and the real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) visualisation method. These were added as covariates to the meta-regression models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies evaluating nine index tests (conventional PCR (in short: PCR), real-time PCR, nested PCR, PCR performed twice, loop-mediated isothermal amplification, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), dot-ELISA, immunochromatography-based lateral flow assay, and dipstick assay) with 5981 participants (1834 with and 4147 without leptospirosis). Methodological quality criteria were often not reported, and the risk of bias of the reference standard was generally considered high. The applicability of findings was limited by the frequent use of frozen samples. We conducted meta-analyses for the PCR and the real-time PCR on blood products.The pooled sensitivity of the PCR was 70% (95% CI 37% to 90%) and the pooled specificity was 95% (95% CI 75% to 99%). When studies with a high risk of bias in the reference standard domain were excluded, the pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI 44% to 98%) and the pooled specificity was 97% (95% CI 60% to 100%). For the real-time PCR, we estimated a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. To illustrate, a point on the curve with 85% specificity had a sensitivity of 49% (95% CI 30% to 68%). Likewise, at 90% specificity, sensitivity was 40% (95% CI 24% to 59%) and at 95% specificity, sensitivity was 29% (95% CI 15% to 49%). The median specificity of real-time PCR on blood products was 92%. We did not formally compare the diagnostic test accuracy of PCR and real-time PCR, as direct comparison studies were lacking. Three of 15 studies analysing PCR on blood products reported the timing of sample collection in the studies included in the meta-analyses (range 1 to 7 days postonset of symptoms), and nine out of 16 studies analysing real-time PCR on blood products (range 1 to 19 days postonset of symptoms). In PCR studies, specificity was lower in settings with high leptospirosis prevalence. Other investigations of heterogeneity did not identify statistically significant associations. Two studies suggested that PCR and real-time PCR may be more sensitive on blood samples collected early in the disease stage. Results of other index tests were described narratively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The validity of review findings are limited and should be interpreted with caution. There is a substantial between-study variability in the accuracy of PCR and real-time PCR, as well as a substantial variability in the prevalence of leptospirosis. Consequently, the position of PCR and real-time PCR in the clinical pathway depends on regional considerations such as disease prevalence, factors that are likely to influence accuracy, and downstream consequences of test results. There is insufficient evidence to conclude which of the nucleic acid and antigen detection tests is the most accurate. There is preliminary evidence that PCR and real-time PCR are more sensitive on blood samples collected early in the disease stage, but this needs to be confirmed in future studies.

Cryotherapy for liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The liver is affected by two of the most common groups of malignant tumours: primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer and long-term survival rates reported for patients after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in the majority of patients. Cryotherapy is performed with the use of an image-guided cryoprobe which delivers liquid nitrogen or argon gas to the tumour tissue. The subsequent process of freezing is associated with formation of ice crystals, which directly damage exposed tissue, including cancer cells.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of cryotherapy compared with no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments in people with liver metastases.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and six other databases up to June 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of cryotherapy and its comparators for liver metastases, irrespective of the location of the primary tumour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We extracted information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, and data on the outcomes important for our review, as well as information on the design and methodology of the trials. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias in each study. One review author performed data extraction and a second review author checked entries.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised clinical trials comparing cryotherapy versus no intervention or versus systemic treatments; however, we identified one randomised clinical trial comparing cryotherapy with conventional surgery. The trial was conducted in Ukraine. The trial included 123 participants with solitary, or multiple unilobar or bilobar liver metastases; 63 participants received cryotherapy and 60 received conventional surgery. There were 36 women and 87 men. The primary sites for the metastases were colon and rectum (66.6%), stomach (7.3%), breast (6.5%), skin (4.9%), ovaries (4.1%), uterus (3.3%), kidney (3.3%), intestines (1.6%), pancreas (1.6%), and unknown (0.8%). The trial was not reported sufficiently enough to assess the risk of bias of the randomisation process, allocation concealment, or presence of blinding. It was also not possible to assess incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting bias. The certainty of evidence was low because of risk of bias and imprecision.The participants were followed for up to 10 years (minimum five months). The trial reported that the mortality at 10 years was 81% (51/63) in the cryotherapy group and 92% (55/60) in the conventional surgery group. The calculated by us relative risk (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.02. We judged the evidence as low-certainty evidence. Regarding adverse events and complications, separately and in total, our calculation showed no evidence of a difference in recurrence of the malignancy in the liver: 86% (54/63) of the participants in the cryotherapy group and 95% (57/60) of the participants in the conventional surgery group developed a new malignancy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence). The frequency of reported complications was similar between the cryotherapy group and the conventional surgery group, except for postoperative pain. Both insignificant and pronounced pain were reported to be more common in the cryotherapy group while intense pain was reported to be more common in the conventional surgery group. However, the authors did not report whether there was any evidence of a difference. There were no intervention-related mortality or bile leakages.We identified no evidence for health-related quality of life, cancer mortality, or time to progression of liver metastases. The study reported tumour response in terms of the carcinoembryonic antigen level in 69% of participants, and reported results in the form of a graph for 30% of participants. The carcinoembryonic antigen level was lower in the cryotherapy group, and decreased to normal values faster in comparison with the control group (P < 0.05).

FUNDING

the trial did not provide information on funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for the effectiveness of cryotherapy versus conventional surgery in people with liver metastases is of low certainty. We are uncertain about our estimate and cannot determine whether cryotherapy compared with conventional surgery is beneficial or harmful. We found no evidence for the benefits or harms of cryotherapy compared with no intervention, or versus systemic treatments.

Total serum bile acids or serum bile acid profile, or both, for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy is a pregnancy-specific liver disorder, possibly associated with an increased risk of severe fetal adverse events. Total serum bile acids (TSBA) concentration, alone or in combination with serum aminotransferases, have been the most often used biomarkers for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in clinical practice. Serum bile acid profile, composed of primary or secondary, conjugated or non-conjugated bile acids, may provide more specific disease information.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare, independently or in combination, the diagnostic accuracy of total serum bile acids or serum bile acids profile, or both, for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in pregnant women, presenting with pruritus. To define the optimal cut-off values for components of serum bile acid profile; to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, BIOSIS, CINAHL, two Chinese databases (CKNI, VIP), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Evidence Search: Health and Social Care by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the World Health Organization (WHO) Reproductive Health Library (RHL), and the Turning Research into Practice database (TRIP). The most recent date of search was 6 May 2019. We identified additional references by handsearching the references of articles, meta-analyses, and evidence-based guidelines retrieved from the computerised databases, on-line trial registries, and grey literature through OpenSIGLE, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Database, and Index to Theses in Great Britain and Ireland.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective or retrospective diagnostic case-control or cross-sectional studies, irrespective of publication date, format, and language, which evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of total serum bile acids (TSBA) or components of serum bile acid profile for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in pregnant women of any age or ethnicity, in any clinical setting, symptomatic for pruritus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected studies by reading titles, abstracts, or full texts, and assessing their fulfilment of our inclusion criteria. We emailed primary authors to request missing data or individual participant data. Having extracted data from each included study, we built the two-by-two tables for each primary study and for all the index tests considered. We estimated sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We presented data in coupled forest plots, showing sensitivities and specificities of each study, and we plotted the studies in the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) space. We performed meta-analyses adopting the hierarchical summary ROC model (HSROC) or the bivariate model to meta-analyse the data. We made indirect comparisons of the considered index tests by adding the index tests as covariates to the bivariate or HSROC models. We performed heterogeneity analysis and sensitivity analysis on studies assessing TSBA accuracy. We used Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) and SAS statistical software, release 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), to perform all statistical analyses. We used QUADAS-2 domains to assess the risk of bias of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search yielded 5073 references, but at the end of our selection process, only 16 studies fulfilled the review inclusion criteria. Nine of these provided individual participant data. We analysed only data concerning TSBA, cholic acid (CA), glycocholic acid (GCA), chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), and CA/CDCA because the remaining planned index tests were assessed in few studies. Only one study had low risk of bias in all four QUADAS-2 domains. The most biased domains were the patient sampling and the reference standard domains. When considering all studies with a cut-off of 10 μmol/L, TSBA overall sensitivity ranged from 0.72 to 0.98 and specificity ranged from 0.81 to 0.97. After a sensitivity analysis excluding case-control studies, TSBA sensitivity ranged from 0.48 to 0.66 and specificity from 0.52 to 0.99. After a sensitivity analysis excluding studies in which TSBA was part of the reference standard, TSBA sensitivity ranged from 0.49 to 0.65 and specificity from 0.53 to 0.99. We found the estimates of the overall accuracy for some serum bile acid components (CA, GCA, CDCA, and CA/CDCA) to be imprecise, with the CI for sensitivity and specificity very wide or impossible to calculate. Indirect comparisons between serum bile acid profile components and TSBA were not statistically significant. None of the heterogeneity analysis performed was statistically significant, except for the timing of assessment of TSBA (onset of symptoms, peak value among multiple assessments, delivery) but without clinically relevant results. We could not analyse the diagnostic accuracy of combinations of index tests because none of the included studies carried them out, and because of the small number of included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The overall high risk of bias, the existing concern regarding applicability of the results in clinical practice, and the great heterogeneity of the results in the included studies prevents us from making recommendations and reaching definitive conclusions at the present time. Thus, we do not find any compelling evidence to recommend or refute the routine use of any of these tests in clinical practice. So far, the diagnostic accuracy of TSBA for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy might have been overestimated. There were too few studies to permit a precise estimate of the accuracy of serum bile acid profile components. Further primary clinical research is mandatory. We need both further phase II and phase III diagnostic studies.

Plasma expanders for people with cirrhosis and large ascites treated with abdominal paracentesis

BACKGROUND

Plasma volume expanders are used in connection to paracentesis in people with cirrhosis to prevent reduction of effective plasma volume, which may trigger deleterious effect on haemodynamic balance, and increase morbidity and mortality. Albumin is considered the standard product against which no plasma expansion or other plasma expanders, e.g. other colloids (polygeline , dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol have been compared. However, the benefits and harms of these plasma expanders are not fully clear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of any plasma volume expanders such as albumin, other colloids (polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus no plasma volume expander or versus another plasma volume expander for paracentesis in people with cirrhosis and large ascites.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index until January 2019. Furthermore, we searched FDA, EMA, WHO (last search January 2019), www.clinicaltrials.gov/, and www.controlled-trials.com/ for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials, no matter their design or year of publication, publication status, and language, assessing the use of any type of plasma expander versus placebo, no intervention, or a different plasma expander in connection with paracentesis for ascites in people with cirrhosis. We considered quasi-randomised, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials only, for reports on harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) using the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model meta-analyses, based on the intention-to-treat principle, whenever possible. If the fixed-effect and random-effects models showed different results, then we made our conclusions based on the analysis with the highest P value (the more conservative result). We assessed risks of bias of the individual trials using predefined bias risk domains. We assessed the certainty of the evidence at an outcome level, using GRADE, and constructed 'Summary of Findings' tables for seven of our review outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 randomised clinical trials for inclusion in this review (24 published as full-text articles and 3 as abstracts). Five of the trials, with 271 participants, assessed plasma expanders (albumin in four trials and ascitic fluid in one trial) versus no plasma expander. The remaining 22 trials, with 1321 participants, assessed one type of plasma expander, i.e. dextran, hydroxyethyl starch, polygeline, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus another type of plasma expander, i.e. albumin in 20 of these trials and polygeline in one trial. Twenty-five trials provided data for quantitative meta-analysis. According to the Child-Pugh classification, most participants were at an intermediate to advanced stage of liver disease in the absence of hepatocellular carcinoma, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, infections, and hepatic encephalopathy. All trials were assessed as at overall high risk of bias. Ten trials seemed not to have been funded by industry; twelve trials were considered unclear about funding; and five trials were considered funded by industry or a for-profit institution.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion on mortality (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.83; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.02 to 5.88; 181 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.27; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.40; 158 participants; 3 trials; very low certainty). Two of the trials stated that no serious adverse events occurred while the remaining trials did not report on this outcome. No trial reported data on health-related quality of life.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between experimental plasma expanders versus albumin on mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; 1014 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty); serious adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.10 to 8.30; 118 participants; 2 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.91; 1107 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 1083 participants; 16 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.85; 977 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty). We found no data on heath-related quality of life and refractory ascites.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review and meta-analysis did not find any benefits or harms of plasma expanders versus no plasma expander or of one plasma expander such as polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus albumin on primary or secondary outcomes. The data originated from few, small, mostly short-term trials at high risks of systematic errors (bias) and high risks of random errors (play of chance). GRADE assessments concluded that the evidence was of very low certainty. Therefore, we can neither demonstrate or discard any benefit of plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion, and differences between one plasma expander versus another plasma expander.Larger trials at low risks of bias are needed to assess the role of plasma expanders in connection with paracentesis. Such trials should be conducted according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines.

Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus other drugs or herbs for chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a liver disease caused by hepatitis B virus, which may lead to serious complications such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. People with HBV infection may also have coinfections including HIV and other hepatitis viruses (hepatitis C or D), and coinfections may increase the risk of all-cause mortality. Chronic HBV infection increases morbidity, psychological stress, and it is an economic burden on people with chronic hepatitis B and their families. Radix Sophorae flavescentis, a herbal medicine, is administered mostly in combination with other drugs or herbs. It is believed that it decreases discomfort and prevents the replication of the virus in people with chronic hepatitis B. However, the benefits and harms of Radix Sophorae flavescentis on patient-centred outcomes are unknown, and its wide usage has never been established with rigorous review methodology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus other drugs or herbs in people with chronic hepatitis B.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases to December 2018. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/), and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry for ongoing or unpublished trials to December 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding, comparing Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus other drugs or herbs for people with chronic hepatitis B. In addition to chronic hepatitis B, participants could also have had cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or any other concomitant disease. We excluded polyherbal blends containing Radix Sophorae flavescentis. We allowed cointerventions when the cointerventions were administered equally to all intervention groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors in pairs individually retrieved data from published reports and after correspondence with investigators. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were hepatitis B-related mortality, hepatitis B-related morbidity, and adverse events considered 'not to be serious'. We presented the meta-analysed results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using domains with predefined definitions. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risks of random errors. We used GRADE methodology to evaluate our certainty in the evidence (i.e. "the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct or are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation").

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised clinical trials with 898 participants. We judged all trials at high risk of bias. The trials covered oral capsules, intravenous infusion, intramuscular injection, and acupoint (a specifically chosen site of acupuncture) injection of Radix Sophorae flavescentis with a follow-up period from 1 to 12 months. The drugs being used as a comparator were lamivudine, adefovir, interferon, tiopronin, thymosin, or other Chinese herbs. Two trials included children up to 14 years old. Participants in one trial had cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis B. None of the trials reported all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events, hepatitis B-related mortality, or morbidity. We are uncertain as to whether Radix Sophorae flavescentis has a beneficial or harmful effect on adverse events considered 'not to be serious' (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.75; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 163 participants; very low-certainty evidence), as well as if it decreases or increases the proportion of participants with detectable HBV-DNA (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.63; I² = 92%; 8 trials, 719 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Radix Sophorae flavescentis showed a reduction in the proportion of participants with detectable hepatitis B virus e-antigen (HBeAg) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; I² = 43%; 7 trials, 588 participants; very low-certainty evidence).Two of the 10 trials were not funded, and one received academic funding. The remaining seven trials provided no information on funding.The randomisation process in another 109 trials was insufficiently reported to ensure the inclusion of any of these studies in our review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included trials lacked data on all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events, hepatitis-B related mortality, and hepatitis-B related morbidity. The evidence on the effect of Radix Sophorae flavescentis on the proportion of participants with adverse events considered 'not to be serious' and on the proportion of participants with detectable HBV-DNA is still unclear. We advise caution regarding the results of Radix Sophorae flavescentis showing a reduction in the proportion of people with detectable HBeAg because the trials were at high risk of bias, because it is a non-validated surrogate outcome, and because of the very low certainty in the evidence. As we were unable to obtain information on a large number of studies regarding their trial design, we were deterred from including them in our review. Undisclosed funding may have influence on trial results and lead to poor design of the trial. In view of the wide usage of Radix Sophorae flavescentis, we need large, unbiased, high-quality placebo-controlled randomised trials assessing patient-centred outcomes.

Band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

The presence of oesophageal varices is associated with the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic variceal ligation is used to prevent this occurrence but the ligation procedure may be associated with complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 9 February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing band ligation verus no intervention regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. Included participants had cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no previous history of variceal bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data independently. The primary outcome measures were all-cause mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. In addition, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTTB) for the primary outcomes . We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains; determined the certainty of the evidence using GRADE; and conducted sensitivity analyses including Trial Sequential Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised clinical trials involving 637 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One of the trials included an additional small number of participants (< 10% of the total) with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension/portal vein block. We classified one trial as at low risk of bias for the outcome, mortality and high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes; the five remaining trials were at high risk of bias for all outcomes. We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty due to the bias risk. We gathered data on all primary outcomes from all trials. Seventy-one of 320 participants allocated to band ligation compared to 129 of 317 participants allocated to no intervention died (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; I² = 0%; NNTTB = 6 persons). In addition, band ligation was associated with reduced risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 61%; NNTTB = 5 persons), serious adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 44%; NNTTB = 4 persons), and variceal bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 56%; NNTTB = 5 persons). The non-serious adverse events reported in association with band ligation included oesophageal ulceration, dysphagia, odynophagia, retrosternal and throat pain, heartburn, and fever, and in the one trial involving participants with either small or large varices, the incidence of non-serious side effects in the banding group was much higher in those with small varices, namely ulcers: small versus large varices 30.5% versus 8.7%; heartburn 39.2% versus 17.4%. No trials reported on health-related quality of life.Two trials did not receive support from pharmaceutical companies; the remaining four trials did not provide information on this issue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found moderate-certainty evidence that, in patients with cirrhosis, band ligation of oesophageal varices reduces mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, and serious adverse events compared to no intervention. It is unlikely that further trials of band ligation versus no intervention would be considered ethical.

Glucocorticosteroids for people with alcoholic hepatitis

BACKGROUND

Alcoholic hepatitis is a form of alcoholic liver disease characterised by steatosis, necroinflammation, fibrosis, and complications to the liver. Typically, alcoholic hepatitis presents in people between 40 and 50 years of age. Alcoholic hepatitis can be resolved if people abstain from drinking, but the risk of death will depend on the severity of the liver damage and abstinence from alcohol. Glucocorticosteroids have been studied extensively in randomised clinical trials to assess their benefits and harms. However, the results have been contradictory.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids in people with alcoholic hepatitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials through electronic searches in Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's (CHB) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded. We looked for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trials registers and pharmaceutical company sources. We also scanned reference lists of the studies retrieved. The last search was 18 January 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroids versus placebo or no intervention in people with alcoholic hepatitis, irrespective of year, language of publication, or format. We considered trials with adults diagnosed with alcoholic hepatitis, which could have been established through clinical or biochemical diagnostic criteria or both. We defined alcoholic hepatitis as mild (Maddrey's score less than 32) and severe (Maddrey's score 32 or more). We allowed cointerventions in the trial groups, provided they were similar.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed Cochrane methodology, performing the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and of continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models for meta-analyses. Whenever there were significant discrepancies in the results, we reported the more conservative point estimate of the two. We considered a P value of 0.01 or less, two-tailed, as statistically significant if the required information size was reached for our three primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and serious adverse events during treatment) and our post hoc decision to include analyses of mortality at more time points. We presented heterogeneity using the I² statistic. If trialists used intention-to-treat analysis to deal with missing data, we used these data in our primary analysis; otherwise, we used the available data. We assessed the bias risk of the trials using bias risk domains and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All trials but one were at overall high risk of bias. Fifteen trials (one of which was an abstract) provided data for analysis (927 participants received glucocorticosteroids and 934 participants received placebo or no intervention). Glucocorticosteroids were administered orally or parenterally for a median 28 days (range 3 days to 12 weeks). The participants were between 25 and 70 years old, had different stages of alcoholic liver disease, and 65% were men. Follow-up, when reported, was up to the moment of discharge from the hospital, until they died (median of 63 days), or for at least one year. There was no evidence of effect of glucocorticosteroids on all-cause mortality up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.15; participants = 1861; trials = 15; very low-certainty evidence) or on health-related quality of life up to three months, measured with the European Quality of Life - 5 Dimensions - 3 Levels scale (MD -0.04 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.03; participants = 377; trial = 1; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of effect on the occurrence of serious adverse events during treatment (random-effects RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; participants = 1861; trials = 15; very low-certainty evidence), liver-related mortality up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.14; participants = 1861; trials = 15; very low-certainty evidence), number of participants with any complications up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; participants = 1861; very low-certainty evidence), and number of participants of non-serious adverse events up to three months' follow-up after end of treatment (random-effects RR 1.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 5.48; participants = 160; trials = 4; very low-certainty evidence). Based on the information that we collected from the published trial reports, only one of the trials seems not to be industry-funded, and the remaining 15 trials did not report clearly whether they were partly or completely funded by the industry.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the effect estimate of no difference between glucocorticosteroids and placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events during treatment because the certainty of evidence was very low, and low for health-related quality of life. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude increases in adverse events. As the CIs were wide, we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of glucocorticosteroids. Therefore, we need placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials, designed according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines. Future trials ought to report depersonalised individual participant data, so that proper individual participant data meta-analyses of the effects of glucocorticosteroids in subgroups can be conducted.

Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus no intervention or placebo for chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, a liver disease caused by hepatitis B virus, may lead to serious complications such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. People with HBV infection may have co-infections including HIV and other hepatitis viruses (hepatitis C or D), and co-infection may increase the risk of all-cause mortality. Chronic HBV infection increases morbidity and psychological stress and is an economic burden on people with chronic hepatitis B and their families. Radix Sophorae flavescentis, an herbal medicine, is administered most often in combination with other drugs or herbs. It is believed that it decreases discomfort and prevents replication of the virus in people with chronic hepatitis B. However, the benefits and harms of Radix Sophorae flavescentis for patient-centred outcomes are not known, and its wide usage has never been established with rigorous review methodology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus placebo or no intervention in people with chronic hepatitis B.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP (CQVIP), Wanfang Data, and SinoMed. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/), and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry for ongoing or unpublished trials. We conducted the last search in December 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding, comparing Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus no intervention or placebo in people with chronic hepatitis B. We excluded polyherbal blends containing Radix Sophorae flavescentis. We allowed co-interventions when the co-interventions were administered equally to all intervention groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Review authors in pairs retrieved data from individual published reports and after correspondence with investigators. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were hepatitis B-related mortality, hepatitis B-related morbidity, and adverse events considered 'not to be serious'. We presented meta-analysed results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using domains with pre-defined definitions. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risk of random errors. We used GRADE methodology to evaluate our certainty in the evidence (i.e. "the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct or are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation").

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 randomised clinical trials with 3556 participants. One trial compared Radix Sophorae flavescentis with placebo; the remaining 34 trials compared effects of Radix Sophorae flavescentis in addition to a co-intervention versus the same co-intervention. The included trials assessed heterogenous forms and ways of administering Radix Sophorae flavescentis (e.g. oral capsules, oral tablets, intravenous infusion, intramuscular injection, acupoint (a specifically chosen site of acupuncture) injection) with treatment duration of 1 to 24 months. Two of the trials included children up to 14 years old. Participants in two trials had cirrhosis in addition to chronic hepatitis B. All trials were assessed at high risk of bias, and certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low.Only one of the 35 trials assessed mortality; no deaths occurred. Ten trials assessed serious adverse events; no serious adverse events occurred. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, or morbidity. Adverse events considered 'not to be serious' was an outcome in 19 trials; nine of these trials had zero events in both groups. Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus placebo or no intervention showed no difference in effects on adverse events considered 'not to be serious' (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.59; I² = 49%; 10 trials, 1050 participants). Radix Sophorae flavescentis showed a reduction in the proportion of participants with detectable HBV-DNA (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.68; I² = 56%; 29 trials, 2914 participants) and in the proportion of participants with detectable HBeAg (hepatitis B e-antigen) (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.76; I² = 19%; 20 trials, 2129 participants).Seven of the 35 randomised clinical trials received academic funding from government or hospital. Four trials received no funding. The remaining 24 trials provided no information on funding.Additionally, 432 trials lacked the methodological information needed to ensure inclusion of these trials in our review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included trials lacked data on health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, and hepatitis B-related morbidity. The effects of Radix Sophorae flavescentis on all-cause mortality and on the proportion of participants with serious adverse events and adverse events considered 'not to be serious' remain unclear. We advise caution in interpreting results showing that Radix Sophorae flavescentis reduced the proportion of people with detectable HBV-DNA and detectable HBeAg because the trials reporting on these outcomes are at high risk of bias and both outcomes are non-validated surrogate outcomes. We were unable to obtain information on the design and conduct of a large number of trials; therefore, we were deterred from including them in our review. Undisclosed funding may influence trial results and may lead to poor trial design. Given the wide usage of Radix Sophorae flavescentis, we need large, unbiased, high-quality placebo-controlled randomised trials in which patient-centred outcomes are assessed.

Transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation followed by three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy versus transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation alone for primary hepatocellular carcinoma in adults

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma, also called malignant hepatoma, is a primary malignancy of the liver. Despite regular surveillance conducted in high-risk populations, most people with hepatocellular carcinoma are diagnosed at an advanced stage. Consequently, only a minority of people with the disease are suitable for surgical resection when diagnosed.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) followed by three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3-DCRT) versus TACE alone in adults with primary hepatocellular carcinoma, considered unsuitable for surgical resection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science up to 31 May 2018. We checked reference lists for all included studies and related reviews for further relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing TACE followed by 3-DCRT versus TACE alone in people with primary hepatocellular carcinoma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as suggested by Cochrane. We presented the results of the fixed-effect model in the absence of statistical heterogeneity. Otherwise, we reported the results from the random-effects model meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using bias risk domains and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE. Our main conclusions were based on the analysis up to three years' follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight randomised clinical trials (632 participants) that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All eight trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as low to very low certainty. The mean age ranged from 16 years to 78 years. The proportion of men ranged from 60% to 75% and the proportion of people with stage III primary hepatocellular carcinoma ranged from 22% to 85%. The median follow-up duration was 12 months (2 months to 38 months).TACE followed by 3-DCRT compared with TACE alone may have reduced all-cause mortality at three years' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.88; 552 participants; 7 trials; low-certainty evidence). TACE followed by 3-DCRT compared with TACE alone may reduce the proportion of participants without tumour response (complete response plus partial response) (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61; 632 participants; 8 trials; low-certainty evidence). Data, from one trial on health-related quality of life, favoured the TACE followed by 3-DCRT group, but the provided data were ill-defined (very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported serious adverse events. The results on non-serious adverse events were as follows: TACE followed by 3-DCRT compared with TACE alone showed no difference in the results for proportion of participants with leukopenia (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.34; 438 participants; 5 trials; very low-certainty evidence) and serum transaminases elevation (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.66 to 4.27; 280 participants; 4 trials; very low-certainty evidence). However, the proportion of participants with total bilirubin elevation was larger in the TACE followed by 3-DCRT group than in the TACE alone group (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.40; 172 participants; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence). The rate of participants with serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) without decline or normalisation was significantly lower in the TACE followed by 3-DCRT group than in the TACE group, but these data were from one trial only (Chi² = 7.24, P = 0.007; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

TACE followed by 3-DCRT may be associated with lower all-cause mortality and increased tumour response, despite the increased toxicity expressed by a higher rise of total bilirubin. Our review findings should be considered with caution because of the methodological weaknesses in the included trials, resulting in low- to very low-certainty evidence. Data on serious adverse events and health-related quality of life are lacking. We are also very much uncertain in the results of the reported non-serious adverse events. High-quality trials are needed to assess further the role of TACE followed by 3-DCRT for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Acetyl-L-carnitine for patients with hepatic encephalopathy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Physical exercise for people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Loss of muscle mass and muscle weakness are common complications to cirrhosis and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Therefore, physical exercise may benefit people with cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of physical exercise versus sham exercise or no exercise for people with cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and three other databases, including manual searches through reference lists, abstracts, and presentations at conferences and meetings, Google Scholar, and online trial registers in February 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials regardless of publication status or language. Inclusion criteria were cirrhosis irrespective of the aetiology or stage. Interventions were physical exercise compared with sham exercise or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I² values as markers of imprecision and heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains and determined the credibility of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six randomised clinical trials with 173 participants. All participants had Child-Pugh stage A or B cirrhosis. The intervention groups participated in eight to 14 weeks of physical exercise (aerobic: three trials; resistance: one trial; or aerobic plus resistance training: two trials). Control groups underwent sham exercise (supervised relaxation: one trial) or no intervention (five trials). None of the 89 participants allocated to exercise versus two of 84 participants in the control group died (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.73; moderate-quality evidence). The cause of death was acute-on-chronic liver disease for both participants. Nine participants in the exercise group and 13 in the control group experienced serious adverse events (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.94; low-quality evidence).Physical exercise showed no beneficial or detrimental effect on health-related quality of life assessed by the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.67; low-quality evidence). Likewise, physical exercise had no clear effect on physical fitness measured by peak exercise oxygen uptake (MD 0.3 mL/kg/minute, 95 % CI -2.74 to 3.35; low-quality evidence) and Six-Minute Walk Test (MD 56.06 min, 95% CI -9.14 to 121.26; very low-quality evidence). Physical exercise showed no clear effect on mid-thigh circumference (MD 1.76 cm, 95% CI -0.26 to 3.77; low-quality evidence), but showed an increase in mid-arm circumference (MD 2.61 cm, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.85; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effect of physical exercise on mortality, morbidity, or health-related quality of life. Further evidence is needed to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of physical exercise on clinical outcomes.

Pharmacological interventions for acute hepatitis C infection

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a single-stranded RNA (ribonucleic acid) virus that has the potential to cause inflammation of the liver. The traditional definition of acute HCV infection is the first six months following infection with the virus. Another commonly used definition of acute HCV infection is the absence of HCV antibody and subsequent seroconversion (presence of HCV antibody in a person who was previously negative for HCV antibody). Approximately 40% to 95% of people with acute HCV infection develop chronic HCV infection, that is, have persistent HCV RNA in their blood. In 2010, an estimated 160 million people worldwide (2% to 3% of the world's population) had chronic HCV infection. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HCV remains controversial. Chronic HCV infection can damage the liver.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HCV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers to April 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for acute HCV infection.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with acute HCV infection. We excluded trials which included previously liver transplanted participants and those with other coexisting viral diseases. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with placebo or each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on the available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 randomised clinical trials with 488 randomised participants that met our inclusion criteria. All the trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, the evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality evidence. Nine trials (467 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. Three trials (99 participants) compared interferon-alpha versus no intervention. Three trials (90 participants) compared interferon-beta versus no intervention. One trial (21 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus no intervention, but it did not provide any data for analysis. One trial (41 participants) compared MTH-68/B vaccine versus no intervention. Two trials (237 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin. None of the trials compared direct-acting antivirals versus placebo or other interventions. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from six to 36 months.There was no short-term mortality (less than one year) in any group in any trial except for one trial where one participant died in the pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin group (1/95: 1.1%). In the trials that reported follow-up beyond one year, there were no further deaths. The number of serious adverse events was higher with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin than with pegylated interferon-alpha (rate ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.40 to 5.33; participants = 237; trials = 2; I² = 0%). The proportion of people with any adverse events was higher with interferon-alpha and interferon-beta compared with no intervention (OR 203.00, 95% CI 9.01 to 4574.81; participants = 33; trials = 1 and OR 27.88, 95% CI 1.48 to 526.12; participants = 40; trials = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, liver transplantation, decompensated liver disease, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma. The proportion of people with chronic HCV infection as indicated by the lack of sustained virological response was lower in the interferon-alpha group versus no intervention (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.76; participants = 99; trials = 3; I² = 0%). The differences between the groups were imprecise or not estimable (because neither group had any events) for all the remaining comparisons.Four of the 10 trials (40%) received financial or other assistance from pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the findings of the research; the source of funding was not available in five trials (50%), and one trial (10%) was funded by a hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that interferon-alpha may decrease the incidence of chronic HCV infection as measured by sustained virological response. However, the clinical impact such as improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease, and liver transplantation has not been reported. It is also not clear whether this finding is applicable in the current clinical setting dominated by the use of pegylated interferons and direct-acting antivirals, although we found no evidence to support that pegylated interferons or ribavirin or both are effective in people with acute HCV infection. We could find no randomised trials comparing direct-acting antivirals with placebo or other interventions for acute HCV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the benefits and harms of the interventions, and high-quality randomised clinical trials are required.

Surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Variceal haemorrhage that is refractory or recurs after pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy requires a portal decompression shunt (either surgical shunts or radiologic shunt, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)). TIPS has become the shunt of choice; however, is it the preferred option? This review assesses evidence for the comparisons of surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We also searched on-line trial registries, reference lists of relevant articles, and proceedings of relevant associations for trials that met the inclusion criteria for this review (date of search 8 March 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus TIPS for the treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data using methodological standards expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias according to domains and risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found four randomised clinical trials including 496 adult participants diagnosed with variceal haemorrhage due to cirrhotic portal hypertension. The overall risk of bias in all the trials was judged at high risk. All the trials were conducted in the United States of America (USA). Two of the trials randomised participants to selective surgical shunts versus TIPS. The other two trials randomised participants to non-selective surgical shunts versus TIPS. The diagnosis of liver cirrhosis was by clinical and laboratory findings. We are uncertain whether there is a difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days between surgical portosystemic shunts compared with TIPS (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.99; participants = 496; studies = 4). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in encephalopathy between surgical shunts compared with TIPS (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; participants = 496; studies = 4). We found evidence suggesting an increase in the occurrence of the following harms in the TIPS group compared with surgical shunts: all-cause mortality at five years (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; participants = 496; studies = 4); variceal rebleeding (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; participants = 496; studies = 4); reinterventions (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.28; participants = 496; studies = 4); and shunt occlusion (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.51; participants = 496; studies = 4). We could not perform an analysis of health-related quality of life but available evidence appear to suggest improved health-related quality of life in people who received surgical shunt compared with TIPS. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days and five years, irreversible shunt occlusion, and encephalopathy to very low because of high risk of bias (due to lack of blinding); inconsistency (due to heterogeneity); imprecision (due to small sample sizes of the individual trials and few events); and publication bias (few trials reporting outcomes). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for variceal rebleeding and reintervention to very low because of high risk of bias (due to lack of blinding); imprecision (due to small sample sizes of the individual trials and few events); and publication bias (few trials reporting outcomes). The small sample sizes and few events did not allow us to produce meaningful trial sequential monitoring boundaries, suggesting plausible random errors in our estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence suggesting that surgical portosystemic shunts may have benefit over TIPS for treatment of refractory or recurrent variceal haemorrhage in people with cirrhotic portal hypertension. Given the very low-certainty of the available evidence and risks of random errors in our analyses, we have very little confidence in our review findings.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha₁-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Transabdominal ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound for diagnosis of gallbladder polyps

BACKGROUND

Approximately 0.6% to 4% of cholecystectomies are performed because of gallbladder polyps. The decision to perform cholecystectomy is based on presence of gallbladder polyp(s) on transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), or both. These polyps are currently considered for surgery if they grow more than 1 cm. However, non-neoplastic polyps (pseudo polyps) do not need surgery, even when they are larger than 1 cm. True polyps are neoplastic, either benign (adenomas) or (pre)malignant (dysplastic polyps/carcinomas). True polyps need surgery, especially if they are premalignant or malignant. There has been no systematic review and meta-analysis on the accuracy of TAUS and EUS in the diagnosis of gallbladder polyps, true gallbladder polyps, and (pre)malignant polyps.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise and compare the accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for the detection of gallbladder polyps, for differentiating between true and pseudo gallbladder polyps, and for differentiating between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps of the gallbladder in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registrations (last date of search 09 July 2018). We had no restrictions regarding language, publication status, or prospective or retrospective nature of the studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy data (true positive, false positive, false negative and true negative) of the index test (TAUS or EUS or both) for detection of gallbladder polyps, differentiation between true and pseudo polyps, or differentiation between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps. We only accepted histopathology after cholecystectomy as the reference standard, except for studies on diagnosis of gallbladder polyp. For the latter studies, we also accepted repeated imaging up to six months by TAUS or EUS as the reference standard.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened abstracts, selected studies for inclusion, and collected data from each study. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool. The bivariate random-effects model was used to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, to compare diagnostic performance of the index tests, and to assess heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included. All studies reported on TAUS and EUS as separate tests and not as a combination of tests. All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, ten studies had high applicability concerns in participant selection (because of inappropriate participant exclusions) or reference standards (because of lack of follow-up for non-operated polyps), and three studies had unclear applicability concerns in participant selection (because of high prevalence of gallbladder polyps) or index tests (because of lack of details on ultrasound equipment and performance). A meta-analysis directly comparing results of TAUS and EUS in the same population could not be performed because only limited studies executed both tests in the same participants. Therefore, the results below were obtained only from indirect test comparisons. There was significant heterogeneity amongst all comparisons (target conditions) on TAUS and amongst studies on EUS for differentiating true and pseudo polyps.Detection of gallbladder polyps: Six studies (16,260 participants) used TAUS. We found no studies on EUS. The summary sensitivity and specificity of TAUS for the detection of gallbladder polyps was 0.84 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.95) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), respectively. In a cohort of 1000 people, with a 6.4% prevalence of gallbladder polyps, this would result in 37 overdiagnosed and seven missed gallbladder polyps.Differentiation between true polyp and pseudo gallbladder polyp: Six studies (1078 participants) used TAUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.68 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.85) and the summary specificity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.91). Three studies (209 participants) used EUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.97) and the summary specificity was 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.96). In a cohort of 1000 participants with gallbladder polyps, with 10% having true polyps, this would result in 189 overdiagnosed and 32 missed true polyps by TAUS, and 90 overdiagnosed and 15 missed true polyps by EUS. There was no evidence of a difference between the diagnostic accuracy of TAUS and EUS (relative sensitivity 1.06, P = 0.70, relative specificity 1.15, P = 0.12).Differentiation between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps of the gallbladder: Four studies (1,009 participants) used TAUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.90) and the summary specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.97). Three studies (351 participants) used EUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.92) and the summary specificity was 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.95). In a cohort of 1000 participants with gallbladder polyps, with 5% having a dysplastic polyp/carcinoma, this would result in 105 overdiagnosed and 11 missed dysplastic polyps/carcinomas by TAUS and 76 overdiagnosed and seven missed dysplastic polyps/carcinomas by EUS. There was no evidence of a difference between the diagnostic accuracy of TAUS and EUS (log likelihood test P = 0.74).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although TAUS seems quite good at discriminating between gallbladder polyps and no polyps, it is less accurate in detecting whether the polyp is a true or pseudo polyp and dysplastic polyp/carcinoma or adenoma/pseudo polyp. In practice, this would lead to both unnecessary surgeries for pseudo polyps and missed cases of true polyps, dysplastic polyps, and carcinomas. There was insufficient evidence that EUS is better compared to TAUS in differentiating between true and pseudo polyps and between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps. The conclusions are based on heterogeneous studies with unclear criteria for diagnosis of the target conditions and studies at high or unclear risk of bias. Therefore, results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality, with clearly stated criteria for diagnosis of gallbladder polyps, true polyps, and dysplastic polyps/carcinomas are needed to accurately determine diagnostic accuracy of EUS and TAUS.

L-ornithine L-aspartate for prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis and has high associated morbidity and mortality. The condition is classified as overt if it is clinically apparent or minimal if only evident though psychometric testing. The exact pathogenesis of this syndrome is unknown although ammonia is thought to play a key role. L-ornithine L-aspartate has ammonia-lowering properties and may, therefore, benefit people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo, no intervention, or other active interventions in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook electronic searches of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2017 and manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and corresponded with investigators and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. We included participants with cirrhosis who had minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy or who were at risk for developing hepatic encephalopathy. We compared: L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo or no intervention; and L-ornithine L-aspartate versus other active agents such as non-absorbable disaccharides, antibiotics, probiotics, or branched-chain amino acids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented the results as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; we evaluated the risk of publication bias and other small trial effects in regression analyses; conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses; and performed Trial Sequential Analyses. We determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 36 randomised clinical trials, involving at least 2377 registered participants, which fulfilled our inclusion criteria including 10 unpublished randomised clinical trials. However, we were only able to access outcome data from 29 trials involving 1891 participants. Five of the included trials assessed prevention, while 31 trials assessed treatment. Five trials were at low risk of bias in the overall assessment of mortality; one trial was at low risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes.L-ornithine L-aspartate had a beneficial effect on mortality compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.72; I² = 0%; 19 trials; 1489 participants; very low quality evidence), but not when the analysis was restricted to the trials at low risk of bias (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.58; 4 trials; 244 participants). It had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; 22 trials; 1375 participants; I² = 62%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 63 participants). The analysis of serious adverse events showed a potential benefit of L-ornithine L-aspartate when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; 1 trial; 1489 participants; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias for this outcome (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.65; 63 participants). The Trial Sequential Analyses of mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events found insufficient evidence to support or refute beneficial effects. Subgroup analyses showed no difference in outcomes in the trials evaluating evaluating the prevention or treatment of either overt or minimal hepatic encephalopathy or trials evaluating oral versus intravenous administration We were unable to undertake a meta-analysis of the three trials involving 288 participants evaluating health-related quality of life. Overall, we found no difference between L-ornithine L-aspartate and placebo or no intervention in non-serious adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; 14 trials; 1076 participants; I² = 40%). In comparison with lactulose, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.17; 4 trials; 175 participants; I² = 0%); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.57); serious adverse events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11); or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.18). In comparison with probiotics, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.51); serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.88); or changes in blood ammonia concentrations from baseline (RR -2.30 95% CI -6.08 to 1.48), but it had a possible beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90). Finally, in comparison with rifaximin, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.03; 2 trials; 105 participants); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.96); serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42), or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review suggest a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events in comparisons with placebo or no-intervention, but, because the quality of the evidence is very low, we are very uncertain about these findings. There was very low quality evidence of a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on hepatic encephalopathy, when compared with probiotics, but no other benefits were demonstrated in comparison with other active agents. Additional access to data from completed, but unpublished trials, and new randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials are needed.

Glucocorticosteroids for infants with biliary atresia following Kasai portoenterostomy

BACKGROUND

Biliary atresia is a life-threatening disease characterised by progressive destruction of both intra- and extra-hepatic biliary ducts. The mainstay of treatment is Kasai portoenterostomy, as soon as the disease has been confirmed. Glucocorticosteroids are steroid hormones which act on the glucocorticoid receptor and have a range of metabolic and immunomodulatory effects. Glucocorticosteroids are used to improve the postoperative outcomes in infants who have undergone Kasai portoenterostomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of glucocorticosteroid administration versus placebo or no intervention following Kasai portoenterostomy in infants with biliary atresia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and online trial registries (last search: 20 December 2017) for randomised controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials which assessed glucocorticosteroids for infants who have undergone Kasai portoenterostomy. For harm, we also considered quasi-randomised studies, observational studies, and case-control studies that were identified amongst the search results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias for each trial according to prespecified domains. We analysed data using both random-effects and fixed-effect models. We performed the analyses using Review Manager 5.3 and Trial Sequental Analysis software. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less, two-tailed, as statistically significant. We planned to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. For all association measures, we planned to use 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as well as Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted CIs. We used Trial Sequential Analyisis to control the risks of random errors; however, we were often unable to implement this beyond calculating the required information size as there were few trials and data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found two randomised controlled trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria of our review. The trials provided data for meta-analysis. We judged the two trials as trials at low risk of bias. The two trials randomised a total of 213 infants to glucocorticosteroids versus placebo. In our Trial Sequential Analysis, the required information size (that is, the meta-analytic sample size) was not reached for any outcome. Trials were funded by charities, public organisations, and received support from private sector companies, none of which seemed to have an interest in the outcome of the respective trials. The effect of glucocorticosteroids after Kasai portoenterostomy on all-cause mortality is uncertain; the confidence interval is consistent with appreciable benefit and harm (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.14 to 6.90; low-certainty evidence). The results showed little or no difference in adverse effects between the use of glucocorticosteroids or placebo after Kasai portoenterostomy, however this analysis was based on a single trial and we have low certainty in the result (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20;). Available data suggest that the proportions of infants who do not clear their jaundice at six months is similar between the two groups (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality or liver transplantation did not differ at two years between the two groups (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.39; low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding health-related quality of life.Our searches also yielded 19 observational studies, some of them containing limited information on harmful effects of glucocorticosteroid treatment. We presented the extracted information narratively. We identified one further ongoing trial with no currently available results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The two meta-analysed randomised clinical trials present insufficient evidence to determine the effects of using glucocorticosteroids versus placebo after Kasai portoenterostomy in infants with biliary atresia on any of the primary or secondary review outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to support glucocorticosteroid use in the postoperative management of infants with biliary atresia for long-term outcomes of all-cause mortality or liver transplantation. It is also unclear if glucocorticosteroids are able to reduce the numbers of infants who did not clear their jaundice by six months. Further randomised, placebo-controlled trials are required to be able to determine if glucocorticosteroids may be of benefit in the postoperative management of infants with biliary atresia treated with Kasai portoenterostomy. Such trials need to be conducted as multicentre trials.

Laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct

BACKGROUND

The management of gallbladder stones (lithiasis) concomitant with bile duct stones is controversial. The more frequent approach is a two-stage procedure, with endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal from the bile duct followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous combines the two techniques in a single-stage operation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (the single-stage rendezvous technique) versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (two stages) in people with gallbladder and common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded Web of Science, and two trials registers (February 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials that enrolled people with concomitant gallbladder and common bile duct stones, regardless of clinical status or diagnostic work-up, and compared laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy procedures in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We excluded other endoscopic or surgical methods of intraoperative clearance of the bile duct, e.g. non-aided intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or laparoscopic choledocholithotomy (surgical incision of the common bile duct for removal of bile duct stones).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised clinical trials with 517 participants (257 underwent a laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous technique versus 260 underwent a sequential approach), which fulfilled our inclusion criteria and provided data for analysis. Trial participants were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy because of suspected cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. Male/female ratio was 0.7; age of men and women ranged from 21 years to 87 years. The run-in and follow-up periods of the trials ranged from 32 months to 84 months. Overall, the five trials were judged at high risk of bias. Athough all trials measured mortality, there was just one death reported in one trial, in the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous group (low-quality evidence). The overall morbidity (surgical morbidity plus general morbidity) may be lower with laparoscopic rendezvous (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.20; participants = 434, trials = 4; I² = 28%; low-quality evidence); the effect was a little more certain when a fixed-effect model was used (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.99). There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the two approaches on the failure of primary clearance of the bile duct (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.38; participants = 517; trials = 5; I² = 58%; very low-quality evidence). The effects of either approach on clinical post-operative pancreatitis were unclear (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.12; participants = 517, trials = 5; I² = 24%; low-quality evidence). Hospital stay appeared to be lower in the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous group by about three days (95% CI 3.51 to 2.50 days shorter; 515 participants in five trials; low-quality evidence). There was very low-quality evidence that suggested longer operative time with laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous (MD 34.07 minutes, 95% CI 11.41 to 56.74; participants = 313; trials = 3; I² = 93%). The Trial Sequential Analyses of operating time and the length of hospital stay indicated that all the trials crossed the conventional boundaries, suggesting that the sample sizes were adequate, with a low risk of random error.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy on mortality and morbidity. The laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous procedure may lead to longer operating times, but it may reduce the length of the hospital stay when compared with preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, no firm conclusions could be drawn because the quality of evidence was low or very low. If confirmed by future trials, these data might re-design the scenario of treatment of this condition, albeit requiring greater organisational effort. Future trials should also address issues such as quality of life and cost analysis.

Glucocorticosteroid-free versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted patients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. Now that newer, more potent immunosuppressants have been developed, glucocorticosteroids may no longer be needed and their removal may prevent adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression following liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, Literatura Americano e do Caribe em Ciencias da Saude (LILACS), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and The Transplant Library until May 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal versus glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression for liver transplanted people. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants should have received the same co-interventions. We included trials that assessed complete glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids, as well as trials that assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan to conduct meta-analyses, calculating risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model and a fixed-effect model and reported both results where a discrepancy existed; otherwise we reported only the results from the fixed-effect model. We assessed the risk of systematic errors using 'Risk of bias' domains. We controlled for random errors by performing Trial Sequential Analysis. We presented our results in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 completed randomised clinical trials, but only 16 studies with 1347 participants provided data for the meta-analyses. Ten of the 16 trials assessed complete postoperative glucocorticosteroid avoidance (excluding intra-operative use or treatment of acute rejection) versus short-term glucocorticosteroids (782 participants) and six trials assessed short-term glucocorticosteroids versus long-term glucocorticosteroids (565 participants). One additional study assessed complete post-operative glucocorticosteroid avoidance but could only be incorporated into qualitative analysis of the results due to limited data published in an abstract. All trials were at high risk of bias. Only eight trials reported on the type of donor used. Overall, we found no statistically significant difference for mortality (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.44; low-quality evidence), graft loss including death (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), or infection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05; very low-quality evidence) when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression. Acute rejection and glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection were statistically significantly more frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.64; low-quality evidence; and RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.02; very low-quality evidence). Diabetes mellitus and hypertension were statistically significantly less frequent when glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal was compared with glucocorticosteroid-containing immunosuppression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99; low-quality evidence; and RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.90; low-quality evidence). We performed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes. None of the outcomes crossed the monitoring boundaries or reached the required information size. Hence, we cannot exclude random errors from the results of the conventional meta-analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many of the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal remain uncertain because of the limited number of published randomised clinical trials, limited numbers of participants and outcomes, and high risk of bias in the trials. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal appears to reduce diabetes mellitus and hypertension whilst increasing acute rejection, glucocorticosteroid-resistant rejection, and renal impairment. We could identify no other benefits or harms of glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal. Glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal may be of benefit in selected patients, especially those at low risk of rejection and high risk of hypertension or diabetes mellitus. The optimal duration of glucocorticosteroid administration remains unclear. More randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroid avoidance or withdrawal are needed. These should be large, high-quality trials that minimise the risk of random and systematic error.

Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract carcinomas

BACKGROUND

Biliary tract cancers are a group of rare heterogeneous malignant tumours. They include intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, gallbladder carcinomas, and ampullary carcinomas. Surgery remains the optimal modality of therapy leading to long-term survival for people diagnosed with resectable biliary tract carcinomas. Unfortunately, most people with biliary tract carcinomas are diagnosed with either unresectable locally-advanced or metastatic disease, and they are only suitable for palliative chemotherapy or supportive care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy versus placebo, or no intervention, or other treatments (excluding gemcitabine) in adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science up to June 2017. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually, for further related articles (cross-references).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language or publication status, comparing intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based combination to placebo, to no intervention, or to treatments other than gemcitabine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risks of bias of the included trials using definitions of predefined bias risk domains, and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven published randomised clinical trials with 600 participants. All included trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as very low quality. Cointerventions were equally applied in three trials (gemcitabine plus S-1 (a combination of tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil) versus S-1 monotherapy; gemcitabine plus S-1 versus gemcitabine monotherapy versus S-1 monotherapy; and gemcitabine plus vandetanib versus gemcitabine plus placebo versus vandetanib monotherapy), while four trials compared gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin; gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin C; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus chemoradiotherapy; and gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive care. The seven trials were conducted in India, Japan, France, China, Austria, South Korea, and Italy. The median age of the participants in the seven trials was between 50 and 60 years, and the male/female ratios were comparable in most of the trials. Based on these seven trials, we established eight comparisons. We could not perform all planned analyses in all comparisons because of insufficient data.Gemcitabine versus vandetanibOne three-arm trial compared gemcitabine versus vandetanib versus both drugs in combination. It reported no data for mortality, health-related quality of life, or tumour progression outcomes. We rated the increased risk of serious adverse events, anaemia, and overall response rate as very low-certainty evidence.Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatinFrom one trial of 96 participants, we found very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine can lower the risk of mortality at one year when used with cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.98; P = 0.04; participants = 96). The trial did not report data for serious adverse events, quality of life, or tumour response outcomes. There is very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination leads to a higher risk of high-grade thrombocytopenia compared with S-1 plus cisplatin combination (RR 5.28, 95% CI 1.23 to 22.55; P = 0.02; participants = 96).Gemcitabine plus S-1 versus S-1From two trials enrolling 151 participants, we found no difference between the two groups in terms of risk of mortality at one year or risk of serious adverse events. Gemcitabine plus S-1 combination was associated with a higher overall response rate compared with S-1 alone (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.75; P = 0.007; participants = 140; trials = 2; I² = 0%; very low certainty of evidence). Neither of the trials reported data for health-related quality of life or time to progression of the tumour.Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive careOne three-arm trial compared gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive care. It reported no data for serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or tumour progression. We rated the evidence for mortality and for overall response rate as of very low certainty.Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapyOne trial of 34 participants compared gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapy. It reported no data for quality of life, overall response rate, or tumour progression outcomes. We rated the evidence for mortality and serious adverse events as of very low certainty.Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin COne trial of 51 participants compared gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin C. It reported no data for serious adverse events, quality of life, or tumour progression. We rated the evidence for mortality, overall response rate and thrombocytopenia as of very low certainty.We also identified three ongoing trials evaluating outcomes of interest for our review, which we can incorporate in future updates.For-profit bias: there was a high risk of for-profit bias in two trials (because of industry sponsorship) while there was a low risk of for-profit bias in another three trials, and unclear risk in two trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas, the effects of gemcitabine or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy are uncertain on mortality and overall response compared with a range of inactive or active controls. The very low certainty of evidence is due to risk of bias, lack of information in the analyses and hence large imprecision, and possible publication bias. The confidence intervals do not rule out meaningful benefits or lack of effect of gemcitabine in all comparisons but one on mortality where gemcitabine plus cisplatin is compared with S-1 plus cisplatin. Gemcitabine-based regimens showed an increase in non-serious adverse events (particularly haematological toxicities). Further randomised clinical trials are mandatory, to further explore the best therapeutic options for adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas.

Interventions for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most widely used non-prescription analgesic in the world. Paracetamol is commonly taken in overdose either deliberately or unintentionally. In high-income countries, paracetamol toxicity is a common cause of acute liver injury. There are various interventions to treat paracetamol poisoning, depending on the clinical status of the person. These interventions include inhibiting the absorption of paracetamol from the gastrointestinal tract (decontamination), removal of paracetamol from the vascular system, and antidotes to prevent the formation of, or to detoxify, metabolites.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of interventions for paracetamol overdosage irrespective of the cause of the overdose.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (January 2017), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2017), Embase (1974 to January 2017), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to January 2017). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov database (US National Institute of Health) for any ongoing or completed trials (January 2017). We examined the reference lists of relevant papers identified by the search and other published reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing benefits and harms of interventions in people who have ingested a paracetamol overdose. The interventions could have been gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or activated charcoal, or various extracorporeal treatments, or antidotes. The interventions could have been compared with placebo, no intervention, or to each other in differing regimens.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used fixed-effect and random-effects Peto odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis of the review outcomes. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risks of bias (i.e. systematic errors leading to overestimation of benefits and underestimation of harms). We used Trial Sequential Analysis to control risks of random errors (i.e. play of chance) and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence and constructed 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE software.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 randomised clinical trials (of which one acetylcysteine trial was abandoned due to low numbers recruited), assessing several different interventions in 700 participants. The variety of interventions studied included decontamination, extracorporeal measures, and antidotes to detoxify paracetamol's toxic metabolite; which included methionine, cysteamine, dimercaprol, or acetylcysteine. There were no randomised clinical trials of agents that inhibit cytochrome P-450 to decrease the activation of the toxic metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine.Of the 11 trials, only two had two common outcomes, and hence, we could only meta-analyse two comparisons. Each of the remaining comparisons included outcome data from one trial only and hence their results are presented as described in the trials. All trial analyses lack power to access efficacy. Furthermore, all the trials were at high risk of bias. Accordingly, the quality of evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. Interventions that prevent absorption, such as gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or activated charcoal were compared with placebo or no intervention and with each other in one four-armed randomised clinical trial involving 60 participants with an uncertain randomisation procedure and hence very low quality. The trial presented results on lowering plasma paracetamol levels. Activated charcoal seemed to reduce the absorption of paracetamol, but the clinical benefits were unclear. Activated charcoal seemed to have the best risk:benefit ratio among gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or supportive treatment if given within four hours of ingestion. There seemed to be no difference between gastric lavage and ipecacuanha, but gastric lavage and ipecacuanha seemed more effective than no treatment (very low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal interventions included charcoal haemoperfusion compared with conventional treatment (supportive care including gastric lavage, intravenous fluids, and fresh frozen plasma) in one trial with 16 participants. The mean cumulative amount of paracetamol removed was 1.4 g. One participant from the haemoperfusion group who had ingested 135 g of paracetamol, died. There were no deaths in the conventional treatment group. Accordingly, we found no benefit of charcoal haemoperfusion (very low quality of evidence). Acetylcysteine appeared superior to placebo and had fewer adverse effects when compared with dimercaprol or cysteamine. Acetylcysteine superiority to methionine was unproven. One small trial (low quality evidence) found that acetylcysteine may reduce mortality in people with fulminant hepatic failure (Peto OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.94). The most recent randomised clinical trials studied different acetylcysteine regimens, with the primary outcome being adverse events. It was unclear which acetylcysteine treatment protocol offered the best efficacy, as most trials were underpowered to look at this outcome. One trial showed that a modified 12-hour acetylcysteine regimen with a two-hour acetylcysteine 100 mg/kg bodyweight loading dose was associated with significantly fewer adverse reactions compared with the traditional three-bag 20.25-hour regimen (low quality of evidence). All Trial Sequential Analyses showed lack of sufficient power. Children were not included in the majority of trials. Hence, the evidence pertains only to adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight the paucity of randomised clinical trials comparing different interventions for paracetamol overdose and their routes of administration and the low or very low level quality of the evidence that is available. Evidence from a single trial found activated charcoal seemed the best choice to reduce absorption of paracetamol. Acetylcysteine should be given to people at risk of toxicity including people presenting with liver failure. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and adequate number of participants are required to determine which regimen results in the fewest adverse effects with the best efficacy. Current management of paracetamol poisoning worldwide involves the administration of intravenous or oral acetylcysteine which is based mainly on observational studies. Results from these observational studies indicate that treatment with acetylcysteine seems to result in a decrease in morbidity and mortality, However, further evidence from randomised clinical trials comparing different treatments are needed.

Vitamin D supplementation for chronic liver diseases in adults

BACKGROUND

Vitamin D deficiency is often reported in people with chronic liver diseases. Therefore, improving vitamin D status could have a beneficial effect on people with chronic liver diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation in people with chronic liver diseases.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We also searched databases of ongoing trials and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials. All searches were up to January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults with chronic liver diseases. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D₂ (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcidiol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We contacted authors of the trials to ask for missing information. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs), and for continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and Trial Sequential Analyses-adjusted CIs. We calculated Peto odds ratio (OR) for rare events. We considered risk of bias in domains to assess the risk of systematic errors. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risk of random errors. We assessed the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 randomised clinical trials with 1034 participants randomised. All trials had a parallel group design. Nine trials were conducted in high-income countries and six trials in middle-income countries. All trials were at high risk of bias. Six trials included participants with chronic hepatitis C, four trials included participants with liver cirrhosis, four trials included participants with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and one trial included liver transplant recipients. All included trials reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants. Participants in six trials had baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at or above vitamin D adequacy (20 ng/mL), while participants in the remaining nine trials were vitamin D insufficient (less than 20 ng/mL). All trials administered vitamin D orally. Mean duration of vitamin D supplementation was 0.5 years and follow-up was 0.6 years. Eleven trials (831 participants; 40% women; mean age 52 years) tested vitamin D₃, one trial (18 men; mean age 61 years) with three intervention groups tested vitamin D₂ and 25-dihydroxyvitamin D in separate groups, and three trials (185 participants; 55% women; mean age 55 years) tested 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D. Seven trials used placebo, and eight trials used no intervention in the control group.The effect of vitamin D on all-cause mortality at the end of follow-up is uncertain because the results were imprecise (Peto OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.38; I² = 32%; 15 trials; 1034 participants; very low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis on all-cause mortality was performed based on a mortality rate in the control group of 10%, a relative risk reduction of 28% in the experimental intervention group, a type I error of 2.5%, and type II error of 10% (90% power). There was no diversity. The required information size was 6396 participants. The cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit or harm after the 15th trial, and the Trial Sequential Analyses-adjusted CI was 0.00 to 2534.The effect of vitamin D on liver-related mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.66; 1 trial; 18 participants) and on serious adverse events such as hypercalcaemia (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.8; 1 trial; 76 participants), myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.08 to 6.81; 2 trials; 86 participants), and thyroiditis (RR 0.33 95% CI 0.01 to 7.91; 1 trial; 68 participants) is uncertain because the results were imprecise. The evidence on all these outcomes is of very low quality. The effect of vitamin D₃ on non-serious adverse events such as glossitis (RR 3.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 87.6; 1 trial; 65 participants; very low quality of evidence) is uncertain because the result was imprecise.Due to few data, we did not conduct Trial Sequential Analysis on liver-related mortality, and serious and non-serious adverse events.We found no data on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life in the randomised trials included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain as to whether vitamin D supplements in the form of vitamin D₃, vitamin D₂, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, or 25-dihydroxyvitamin D have important effect on all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, or on serious or non-serious adverse events because the results were imprecise. There is no evidence on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life. Our conclusions are based on few trials with an insufficient number of participants and on lack of data on clinically important outcomes. In addition, the analysed trials are at high risk of bias with significant intertrial heterogeneity. The overall quality of evidence is very low.

Terlipressin versus other vasoactive drugs for hepatorenal syndrome

BACKGROUND

Hepatorenal syndrome is defined as severe renal failure occurring in people with cirrhosis and ascites. Systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials found that, compared with placebo, terlipressin may reduce mortality and improve renal function in people with hepatorenal syndrome, but we need current evidence from systematic reviews on the benefits and harms of terlipressin versus other vasoactive drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of terlipressin versus other vasoactive drugs for people with hepatorenal syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded; conducted manual searches of references in relevant literature; and wrote to experts and pharmaceutical companies (date of last search November 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing terlipressin versus any other type of vasoactive drugs for hepatorenal syndrome. We allowed albumin and other cointerventions if provided equally in the comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently extracted data. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatorenal syndrome (persistent hepatorenal syndrome despite treatment), and serious adverse events. We conducted meta-analyses and present the results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We performed sensitivity, subgroup, and Trial Sequential Analyses and evaluated bias control based on the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised clinical trials with 474 participants. The trials compared terlipressin versus noradrenaline (seven trials), octreotide (one trial), midodrine and octreotide (one trial), or dopamine (one trial). All participants in both groups received albumin as cointervention. We classified two trials at low risk of bias and eight trials at high risk of bias in the assessment of mortality and all trials at high risk of bias for remaining outcomes. In five trials, investigators specifically stated that they did not receive funding from for-profit organisations. We had no information about the funding source from the remaining five trials.Terlipressin was not superior or inferior compared with other vasoactive drugs in regard to mortality when including the two trials with a low risk of bias (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; 94 participants, very low quality evidence) or when including all 10 trials (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06; 474 participants; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence). One meta-analysis including nine trials suggested a beneficial effect of terlipressin on hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99; 394 participants; I² = 26%; very low quality evidence). Due to the high mortality of hepatorenal syndrome, the registration of other serious adverse events is uncertain, but comparing terlipressin and other vasoactive drugs we found no significant difference (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06; 474 participants; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence). Several trials did not report systematically of adverse events, but terlipressin seemed to increase the risks of diarrhoea or abdominal pain, or both (RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 10.27; 221 participants; 5 trials, I² = 0%). However, Trial Sequential Analyses found insufficient evidence to support or refute any differences between interventions for all outcomes. Considering reversal of hepatorenal syndrome, subgroup analyses on the type of other vasoactive drugs found that terlipressin was superior compared with midodrine and octreotide (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.72) or octreotide alone (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.96), but each subgroup only included one small trial. None of the remaining subgroup or sensitivity analyses found differences between terlipressin and other vasoactive drugs. We downgraded the evidence to very low quality because of the high risk of bias, imprecision, and the results of the Trial Sequential Analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found insufficient evidence to support or refute beneficial or harmful effects of terlipressin and albumin versus other vasoactive drugs and albumin. Additional research is needed to evaluate if clinically meaningful differences exist between interventions.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Terlipressin versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome

BACKGROUND

Hepatorenal syndrome is a potentially reversible renal failure associated with severe liver disease. The disease is relatively common among people with decompensated cirrhosis. Terlipressin is a drug that increases the blood flow to the kidneys by constricting blood vessels. The previous version of this systematic review found a potential beneficial effect of terlipressin on mortality and renal function in people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of terlipressin versus placebo/no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified eligible trials through searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded, and manual searches until 21 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving participants with cirrhosis and type 1 or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome allocated to terlipressin versus placebo or no intervention. We allowed co-administration with albumin administered to both comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from trial reports and undertook correspondence with the authors. Primary outcomes were mortality, hepatorenal syndrome, and serious adverse events. We conducted sensitivity analyses of RCTs in which participants received albumin, subgroup analyses of participants with type 1 or type 2 hepatorenal syndrome, and Trial Sequential Analyses to control random errors. We reported random-effects meta-analyses with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias based on the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. We graded the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs with a total of 534 participants with cirrhosis and ascites. One RCT had a low risk of bias for mortality and a high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes. All included trials had a high risk of bias for non-mortality outcomes. In total, 473 participants had type 1 hepatorenal syndrome. Seven RCTs specifically evaluated terlipressin and albumin. Terlipressin was associated with a beneficial effect on mortality when including all RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; 534 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 10.3 people; low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis including all RCTs also found a beneficial effect of terlipressin. Additional analyses showed a beneficial effect of terlipressin and albumin on reversal of hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.82; 510 participants; 8 RCTs; NNTB 4 people; low-quality evidence). Terlipressin increased the risk of serious cardiovascular adverse events (RR 7.26, 95% CI 1.70 to 31.05; 234 participants; 4 RCTs), but it had no effect on the risk of serious adverse events when analysed as a composite outcome (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; 534 participants; 9 RCTs; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome 24.5 people; low-quality evidence). Non-serious adverse events were mainly gastrointestinal, including diarrhoea (RR 5.76, 95% CI 2.19 to 15.15; 240 participants; low-quality evidence) and abdominal pain (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.43; 294 participants; low-quality evidence).We identified one ongoing trial on terlipressin versus placebo in participants with cirrhosis, ascites, and hepatorenal syndrome type 1.Three RCTs reported funding from a pharmaceutical company. The remaining trials did not report funding or did not receive funding from pharmaceutical companies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that terlipressin may be associated with beneficial effects on mortality and renal function in people with cirrhosis and type 1 hepatorenal syndrome, but it is also associated with serious adverse effects. We downgraded the strength of the evidence due to methodological issues including bias control, clinical heterogeneity, and imprecision. Consequently, additional evidence is needed.

Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.

Branched-chain amino acids for people with hepatic encephalopathy

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy is a brain dysfunction with neurological and psychiatric changes associated with liver insufficiency or portal-systemic shunting. The severity ranges from minor symptoms to coma. A Cochrane systematic review including 11 randomised clinical trials on branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) versus control interventions has evaluated if BCAA may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of BCAA versus any control intervention for people with hepatic encephalopathy.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials through manual and electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, and LILACS (May 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of the bias control, language, or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors independently extracted data based on published reports and collected data from the primary investigators. We changed our primary outcomes in this update of the review to include mortality (all cause), hepatic encephalopathy (number of people without improved manifestations of hepatic encephalopathy), and adverse events. The analyses included random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, regression, and trial sequential analyses to evaluate sources of heterogeneity (including intervention, and participant and trial characteristics), bias (using The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group method), small-study effects, and the robustness of the results after adjusting for sparse data and multiplicity. We graded the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 16 randomised clinical trials including 827 participants with hepatic encephalopathy classed as overt (12 trials) or minimal (four trials). Eight trials assessed oral BCAA supplements and seven trials assessed intravenous BCAA. The control groups received placebo/no intervention (two trials), diets (10 trials), lactulose (two trials), or neomycin (two trials). In 15 trials, all participants had cirrhosis. We classed seven trials as low risk of bias and nine trials as high risk of bias (mainly due to lack of blinding or for-profit funding). In a random-effects meta-analysis of mortality, we found no difference between BCAA and controls (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.11; 760 participants; 15 trials; moderate quality of evidence). We found no evidence of small-study effects. Sensitivity analyses of trials with a low risk of bias found no beneficial or detrimental effect of BCAA on mortality. Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size was not reached, suggesting that additional evidence was needed. BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 827 participants; 16 trials; high quality of evidence). We found no small-study effects and confirmed the beneficial effect of BCAA in a sensitivity analysis that only included trials with a low risk of bias (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96). The trial sequential analysis showed that firm evidence was reached. In a fixed-effect meta-analysis, we found that BCAA increased the risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 5.56; 2.93 to 10.55; moderate quality of evidence). We found no beneficial or detrimental effects of BCAA on nausea or vomiting in a random-effects meta-analysis or on quality of life or nutritional parameters. We did not identify predictors of the intervention effect in the subgroup, sensitivity, or meta-regression analyses. In sensitivity analyses that excluded trials with a lactulose or neomycin control, BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92). Additional sensitivity analyses found no difference between BCAA and lactulose or neomycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.30).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this updated review, we included five additional trials. The analyses showed that BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy. We found no effect on mortality, quality of life, or nutritional parameters, but we need additional trials to evaluate these outcomes. Likewise, we need additional randomised clinical trials to determine the effect of BCAA compared with interventions such as non-absorbable disaccharides, rifaximin, or other antibiotics.

Platelet count, spleen length, and platelet count-to-spleen length ratio for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices in people with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend screening of people with oesophageal varices via oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy at the time of diagnosis of hepatic cirrhosis. This requires that people repeatedly undergo unpleasant invasive procedures with their attendant risks, although half of these people have no identifiable oesophageal varices 10 years after the initial diagnosis of cirrhosis. Platelet count, spleen length, and platelet count-to-spleen length ratio are non-invasive tests proposed as triage tests for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectives To determine the diagnostic accuracy of platelet count, spleen length, and platelet count-to-spleen length ratio for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices of any size in paediatric or adult patients with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis, irrespective of aetiology. To investigate the accuracy of these non-invasive tests as triage or replacement of oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy. Secondary objectives To compare the diagnostic accuracy of these same tests for the diagnosis of high-risk oesophageal varices in paediatric or adult patients with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis, irrespective of aetiology.We aimed to perform pair-wise comparisons between the three index tests, while considering predefined cut-off values.We investigated sources of heterogeneity.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), and Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science) (14 June 2016). We applied no language or document-type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of platelet count, spleen length, and platelet count-to-spleen length ratio for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices via oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy as the reference standard in children or adults of any age with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis, who did not have variceal bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standard Cochrane methods as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test of Accuracy Reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 71 studies, 67 of which enrolled only adults and four only children. All included studies were cross-sectional and were undertaken at a tertiary care centre. Eight studies reported study results in abstracts or letters. We considered all but one of the included studies to be at high risk of bias. We had major concerns about defining the cut-off value for the three index tests; most included studies derived the best cut-off values a posteriori, thus overestimating accuracy; 16 studies were designed to validate the 909 (n/mm³⁾/mm cut-off value for platelet count-to-spleen length ratio. Enrolment of participants was not consecutive in six studies and was unclear in 31 studies. Thirty-four studies assessed enrolment consecutively. Eleven studies excluded some included participants from the analyses, and in only one study, the time interval between index tests and the reference standard was longer than three months. Diagnosis of varices of any size. Platelet count showed sensitivity of 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.77) and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.88) (cut-off value of around 150,000/mm³ from 140,000 to 150,000/mm³; 10 studies, 2054 participants). When examining potential sources of heterogeneity, we found that of all predefined factors, only aetiology had a role: studies including participants with chronic hepatitis C reported different results when compared with studies including participants with mixed aetiologies (P = 0.036). Spleen length showed sensitivity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91) and specificity of 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62) (cut-off values of around 110 mm, from 110 to 112.5 mm; 13 studies, 1489 participants). Summary estimates for detection of varices of any size showed sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97) and specificity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91) in 17 studies, and 2637 participants had a cut-off value for platelet count-to-spleen length ratio of 909 (n/mm³)/mm. We found no effect of predefined sources of heterogeneity. An overall indirect comparison of the HSROCs of the three index tests showed that platelet count-to-spleen length ratio was the most accurate index test when compared with platelet count (P < 0.001) and spleen length (P < 0.001). Diagnosis of varices at high risk of bleeding. Platelet count showed sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.85) and specificity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.77) (cut-off value of around 150,000/mm³ from 140,000 to 160,000/mm³; seven studies, 1671 participants). For spleen length, we obtained only a summary ROC curve as we found no common cut-off between studies (six studies, 883 participants). Platelet count-to-spleen length ratio showed sensitivity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.93) and specificity of 0.66 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.77) (cut-off value of around 909 (n/mm³)/mm; from 897 to 921 (n/mm³)/mm; seven studies, 642 participants). An overall indirect comparison of the HSROCs of the three index tests showed that platelet count-to-spleen length ratio was the most accurate index test when compared with platelet count (P = 0.003) and spleen length (P < 0.001). DIagnosis of varices of any size in children. We found four studies including 277 children with different liver diseases and or portal vein thrombosis. Platelet count showed sensitivity of 0.71 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.80) and specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.91) (cut-off value of around 115,000/mm³; four studies, 277 participants). Platelet count-to-spleen length z-score ratio showed sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81) and specificity of 0.64 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.84) (cut-off value of 25; two studies, 197 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Platelet count-to-spleen length ratio could be used to stratify the risk of oesophageal varices. This test can be used as a triage test before endoscopy, thus ruling out adults without varices. In the case of a ratio > 909 (n/mm³)/mm, the presence of oesophageal varices of any size can be excluded and only 7% of adults with varices of any size would be missed, allowing investigators to spare the number of oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy examinations. This test is not accurate enough for identification of oesophageal varices at high risk of bleeding that require primary prophylaxis. Future studies should assess the diagnostic accuracy of this test in specific subgroups of patients, as well as its ability to predict variceal bleeding. New non-invasive tests should be examined.

Pharmacological interventions for alcoholic liver disease (alcohol-related liver disease): an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-related liver disease is due to excessive alcohol consumption. It includes a spectrum of liver diseases such as alcohol-related fatty liver, alcoholic hepatitis, and alcoholic cirrhosis. Mortality associated with alcoholic hepatitis is high. The optimal pharmacological treatment of alcoholic hepatitis and other alcohol-related liver disease remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the management of alcohol-related liver disease through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological interventions according to their safety and efficacy in order to identify potential treatments. However, even in the subgroup of participants when the potential effect modifiers appeared reasonably similar across comparisons, there was evidence of inconsistency by one or more methods of assessment of inconsistency. Therefore, we did not report the results of the network meta-analysis and reported the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and randomised controlled trials registers until February 2017 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological treatments for alcohol-related liver diseases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) including participants with alcohol-related liver disease. We excluded trials that included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation and those with co-existing chronic viral diseases. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 81 randomised clinical trials. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and the overall quality of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Alcoholic hepatitisFifty randomised clinical trials included 4484 participants with alcoholic hepatitis. The period of follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. Because of concerns about transitivity assumption, we did not perform the network meta-analysis. None of the active interventions showed any improvement in any of the clinical outcomes reported in the trials, which includes mortality (at various time points), cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplantation. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Severe alcoholic hepatitisOf the trials on alcoholic hepatitis, 19 trials (2545 participants) included exclusively participants with severe alcoholic hepatitis (Maddrey Discriminat Function > 32). The period of follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. There was no alteration in the conclusions when only people with severe alcoholic hepatitis were included in the analysis.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

Eleven trials were funded by parties with vested interest in the results. Sixteen trials were funded by parties without vested interest in the results. The source of funding was not reported in 23 trials. Other alcohol-related liver diseasesThirty-one randomised clinical trials included 3695 participants with other alcohol-related liver diseases (with a wide spectrum of alcohol-related liver diseases). The period of follow-up ranged from one to 48 months. The mortality at maximal follow-up was lower in the propylthiouracil group versus the no intervention group (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78; 423 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). However, this result is based on two small trials at high risk of bias and further confirmation in larger trials of low risk of bias is necessary to recommend propylthiouracil routinely in people with other alcohol-related liver diseases. The mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the ursodeoxycholic acid group versus the no intervention group (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.90; 226 participants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence).

SOURCE OF FUNDING

Twelve trials were funded by parties with vested interest in the results. Three trials were funded by parties without vested interest in the results. The source of funding was not reported in 16 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of very low-quality evidence, there is uncertainty in the effectiveness of any pharmacological intervention versus no intervention in people with alcoholic hepatitis or severe alcoholic hepatitis. Based on low-quality evidence, propylthiouracil may decrease mortality in people with other alcohol-related liver diseases. However, these results must be confirmed by adequately powered trials with low risk of bias before propylthiouracil can be considered effective.Future randomised clinical trials should be conducted with approximately 200 participants in each group and follow-up of one to two years in order to compare the benefits and harms of different treatments in people with alcoholic hepatitis. Randomised clinical trials should include health-related quality of life and report serious adverse events separately from adverse events. Future randomised clinical trials should have a low risk of bias and low risk of random errors.

Maintenance immunosuppression for adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As part of liver transplantation, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections resulting from the immune response of the body against transplanted organ or tissues from a different person whose tissue antigens are not compatible with those of the recipient. The optimal maintenance immunosuppressive regimen after liver transplantation remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different maintenance immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different immunosuppressive regimens 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 October 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on immunosuppression for liver transplantation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adult participants undergoing liver transplantation (or liver retransplantation) for any reason. We excluded trials in which participants had undergone multivisceral transplantation or participants with established graft rejections. We considered any of the various maintenance immunosuppressive regimens compared with each other.

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 a total of 26 trials (3842 participants) in the review, and 23 trials (3693 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The vast majority of the participants underwent primary liver transplantation. All of the trials were at high risk of bias, and all of the evidence was of low or very low quality. In addition, because of sparse data involving trials at high risk of bias, it is not possible to entirely rely on the results of the network meta-analysis. The trials included mainly participants undergoing primary liver transplantation of varied aetiologies. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 3 to 144 months. The most common maintenance immunosuppression used as a control was tacrolimus. There was no evidence of difference in mortality (21 trials; 3492 participants) or graft loss (15 trials; 2961 participants) at maximal follow-up between the different maintenance immunosuppressive regimens based on the network meta-analysis. In the direct comparison, based on a single trial including 222 participants, tacrolimus plus sirolimus had increased mortality (HR 2.76, 95% CrI 1.30 to 6.69) and graft loss (HR 2.34, 95% CrI 1.28 to 4.61) at maximal follow-up compared with tacrolimus. There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with serious adverse events (1 trial; 719 participants), proportion of people with any adverse events (2 trials; 940 participants), renal impairment (8 trials; 2233 participants), chronic kidney disease (1 trial; 100 participants), graft rejections (any) (16 trials; 2726 participants), and graft rejections requiring treatment (5 trials; 1025 participants) between the different immunosuppressive regimens. The network meta-analysis showed that the number of adverse events was lower with cyclosporine A than with many other immunosuppressive regimens (12 trials; 1748 participants), and the risk of retransplantation (13 trials; 1994 participants) was higher with cyclosporine A than with tacrolimus (HR 3.08, 95% CrI 1.13 to 9.90). None of the trials reported number of serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or costs.

FUNDING

14 trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the results of the trial; two trials were funded by parties who had no vested interest in the results of the trial; and 10 trials did not report the source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-quality evidence from a single small trial from direct comparison, tacrolimus plus sirolimus increases mortality and graft loss at maximal follow-up compared with tacrolimus. Based on very low-quality evidence from network meta-analysis, we found no evidence of difference between different immunosuppressive regimens. We found very low-quality evidence from network meta-analysis and low-quality evidence from direct comparison that cyclosporine A causes more retransplantation compared with tacrolimus. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered; performed in people who are generally seen in the clinic rather than in highly selected participants; employ blinding; avoid postrandomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs; and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft loss, renal impairment, chronic kidney disease, and retransplantation. Such trials should use tacrolimus as one of the control groups. Moreover, such trials ought to be designed in such a way as to ensure low risk of bias and low risks of random errors.

Pharmacological interventions for non-alcohol related fatty liver disease (NAFLD): an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-alcohol related fatty liver disease (commonly called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)) is liver steatosis in the absence of significant alcohol consumption, use of hepatotoxic medication, or other disorders affecting the liver such as hepatitis C virus infection, Wilson's disease, and starvation. NAFLD embraces the full spectrum of disease from pure steatosis (i.e. uncomplicated fatty liver) to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), via NASH-cirrhosis to cirrhosis. The optimal pharmacological treatment for people with NAFLD remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of NAFLD through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.com to August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with NAFLD. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on an available participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 77 trials including 6287 participants that met the inclusion criteria of this review. Forty-one trials (3829 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. Only one trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. All other trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, all the evidence was very low quality. Thirty-five trials included only participants with non-alcohol related steatohepatitis (NASH) (based on biopsy confirmation). Five trials included only participants with diabetes mellitus; 14 trials included only participants without diabetes mellitus. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one month to 24 months.We present here only the comparisons of active intervention versus no intervention in which two or more trials reported at least one of the following outcomes: mortality at maximal follow-up, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life, the outcomes that determine whether a treatment should be used. Antioxidants versus no interventionThere was no mortality in either group (87 participants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence). None of the participants developed serious adverse events in the trial which reported the proportion of people with serious adverse events (87 participants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of difference in the number of serious adverse events between antioxidants and no intervention (rate ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.19; 254 participants; 2 trials; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Bile acids versus no interventionThere was no evidence of difference in mortality at maximal follow-up (OR 5.11, 95% CI 0.24 to 107.34; 659 participants; 4 trials; very low quality evidence), proportion of people with serious adverse events (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.88; 404 participants; 3 trials; very low quality evidence), or the number of serious adverse events (rate ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.54; 404 participants; 3 trials; very low quality evidence) between bile acids and no intervention. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Thiazolidinediones versus no interventionThere was no mortality in either group (74 participants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence). None of the participants developed serious adverse events in the two trials which reported the proportion of people with serious adverse events (194 participants; 2 trials; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of difference in the number of serious adverse events between thiazolidinediones and no intervention (rate ratio 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.05; 357 participants; 3 trials; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Source of fundingTwenty-six trials were partially- or fully-funded by pharmaceutical companies that would benefit, based on the results of the trial. Twelve trials did not receive any additional funding or were funded by parties with no vested interest in the results. The source of funding was not provided in 39 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very low quality evidence, we are very uncertain about the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for people with NAFLD including those with steatohepatitis. Further well-designed randomised clinical trials with sufficiently large sample sizes are necessary.

Pharmacological interventions for primary sclerosing cholangitis: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Primary sclerosing cholangitis is a chronic cholestatic liver disease that is associated with both hepatobiliary and colorectal malignancies, which can result in liver cirrhosis and its complications. The optimal pharmacological treatment for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in people with primary sclerosing cholangitis by performing a network meta-analysis, and to generate rankings of available pharmacological interventions according to their safety and efficacy. Given that it was not possible to assess whether potential effect modifiers were similar across comparisons, we did not perform the network meta-analysis but instead used standard Cochrane methods.When trials begin to provide an adequate description of potential effect modifiers, we will attempt to conduct network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index - Expanded, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers until February 2017 to identify randomised clinical trials (RCT) on pharmacological interventions for primary sclerosing cholangitis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in which participants were given a diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis. We excluded trials that included previously liver-transplanted participants. We considered any of various pharmacological interventions compared with one other or with placebo. We excluded trials that compared different doses of various pharmacological interventions or that reported different treatment durations, except for ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). As UDCA is the drug most commonly investigated for primary sclerosing cholangitis, we performed a second analysis in which we stratified the dose of UDCA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the odds ratio and the rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 22 RCTs in which 1211 participants were randomised to 13 different interventions. Most were placebo-controlled trials. Trials had few restrictions apart from an established diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis, evidence of cholestasis, absence of decompensated liver disease, and absence of malignancy. However, some trials included symptomatic participants only, and others included both symptomatic and asymptomatic participants. A total of 11 RCTs (706 participants) provided data for one or more outcomes. The period of follow-up ranged from three months to three years in most trials. Only three trials reported follow-up longer than three years. Investigators found no evidence of differences in important clinical benefits such as reduction in mortality at maximal follow-up and improvement in health-related quality of life. Primary outcomes Mortality: Effect estimates: colchicine versus placebo: odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.07, participants = 84, one trial; penicillamine versus placebo: odds ratio 1.18, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.58, participants = 70, one trial; steroids versus placebo: odds ratio 3.00, 95% CI 0.10 to 90.96, participants = 11, one trial; ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo: odds ratio 1.51, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.63, participants = 348, two trials, I² = 0%; vancomycin versus placebo: not estimable because no events in either group, participants = 29, one trial. Serious adverse events (proportion): Effect estimates: infliximab versus placebo: odds ratio not estimable (because of zero events in both arms), participants = 7, one trial; steroids versus placebo: odds ratio 20.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 429.90, participants = 11, one trial; vancomycin versus placebo: not estimable because no events in either group, participants = 29, one trial. Serious adverse events (number): Effect estimates: infliximab versus placebo: rate ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.02 to 40.44, participants = 7, one trial; penicillamine versus placebo: rate ratio 13.60, 95% CI 0.78 to 237.83, participants = 70, one trial; steroids versus placebo: rate ratio 3.32, 95% CI 0.71 to 15.62, participants = 11, one trial. Adverse events (proportion): Effect estimates: steroids versus placebo: odds ratio 20.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 429.90, participants = 11, one trial; ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo: odds ratio 1.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.17, participants = 198, one trial; vancomycin versus placebo: not estimable because no events in either group, participants = 29, one trial. Adverse events (number): Effect estimates: cyclosporin versus placebo: rate ratio 2.64, 95% CI 0.99 to 7.03, participants = 26, one trial; steroids versus placebo: rate ratio 3.32, 95% CI 0.71 to 15.62, participants = 11, one trial; ursodeoxycholic acid plus metronidazole versus ursodeoxycholic acid: rate ratio 2.36, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.71, participants = 71, one trial. Health-related quality of life: ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo: mean difference 1.30, 95% CI -5.61 to 8.21, participants = 198, one trial (Short Form (SF)-36 General Health Scale). Secondary outcomes Studies provided no evidence of differences in clinical benefits such as a reduction in the requirement for liver transplantation or a reduction in the incidence proportion of cholangiocarcinoma. One small trial (29 participants) comparing vancomycin versus placebo reported no malignancies, no liver decompensation, and no liver transplantation in either group after a very short follow-up period of 12 weeks after treatment. None of the remaining trials clearly reported other clinical benefits such as decreased development of all malignancies, colorectal cancer, liver decompensation, time to liver decompensation, time to liver transplantation, or requirement for cholecystectomy to allow comparisons between different interventions.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

Fifteen trials reported the source of funding; three were funded by parties without vested interest in results of the trial, and 12 were funded in part or in full by drug companies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is currently insufficient to show differences in effectiveness measures such as mortality, health-related quality of life, cirrhosis, or liver transplantation between any active pharmacological intervention and no intervention. However, trials were at high risk of bias and included small numbers of participants, had short follow-up periods, and reported few clinical outcomes. An urgent need exists to identify an effective medical treatment for primary sclerosing cholangitis through well-designed RCTs with adequate follow-up that aim to identify differences in outcomes important to people with primary sclerosing cholangitis.

Pharmacological interventions for primary biliary cholangitis: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Primary biliary cholangitis (previously primary biliary cirrhosis) is a chronic liver disease caused by the destruction of small intra-hepatic bile ducts resulting in stasis of bile (cholestasis), liver fibrosis, and liver cirrhosis. The optimal pharmacological treatment of primary biliary cholangitis remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers to February 2017 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for primary biliary cholangitis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with primary biliary cholangitis. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 74 trials including 5902 participants that met the inclusion criteria of this review. A total of 46 trials (4274 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. All the trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, all the evidence was low or very low quality. The proportion of participants with symptoms varied from 19.9% to 100% in the trials that reported this information. The proportion of participants who were antimitochondrial antibody (AMA) positive ranged from 80.8% to 100% in the trials that reported this information. It appeared that most trials included participants who had not received previous treatments or included participants regardless of the previous treatments received. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 1 to 96 months.The proportion of people with mortality (maximal follow-up) was higher in the methotrexate group versus the no intervention group (OR 8.83, 95% CI 1.01 to 76.96; 60 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). The proportion of people with mortality (maximal follow-up) was lower in the azathioprine group versus the no intervention group (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98; 224 participants; 2 trials; I² = 0%; low quality evidence). However, it has to be noted that a large proportion of participants (25%) was excluded from the trial that contributed most participants to this analysis and the results were not reliable. There was no evidence of a difference in any of the remaining comparisons. The proportion of people with serious adverse events was higher in the D-penicillamine versus no intervention group (OR 28.77, 95% CI 1.57 to 526.67; 52 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). The proportion of people with serious adverse events was higher in the obeticholic acid plus ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) group versus the UDCA group (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.51; 216 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in any of the remaining comparisons for serious adverse events (proportion) or serious adverse events (number of events). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life at any time point.

FUNDING

nine trials had no special funding or were funded by hospital or charities; 31 trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies; and 34 trials provided no information on source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence that any intervention is beneficial for primary biliary cholangitis. However, the follow-up periods in the trials were short and there is significant uncertainty in this issue. Further well-designed randomised clinical trials are necessary. Future randomised clinical trials ought to be adequately powered; performed in people who are generally seen in the clinic rather than in highly selected participants; employ blinding; avoid post-randomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs; should have sufficient follow-up period (e.g. five or 10 years or more); and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health-related quality of life, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver transplantation. Alternatively, very large groups of participants should be randomised to facilitate shorter trial duration.

Pharmacological interventions for acute hepatitis B infection: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. Apart from chronic HBV infection, the complications related to acute HBV infection are severe acute viral hepatitis and fulminant hepatitis characterised by liver failure. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HBV infection remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HBV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available treatments according to their safety and efficacy. As it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, assessed the benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) registers to August 2016 to identify RCTs on pharmacological interventions for acute HBV infection.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status in participants with acute HBV infection. We excluded trials if participants had previously undergone liver transplantation and had other coexisting viral diseases such as hepatitis C virus and HIV. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo, or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials (597 participants) met our review inclusion criteria. All trials provided information for one or more outcomes; however, five participants were excluded from analysis by study authors. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Overall, all the evidence was low or very low quality evidence because of risk of bias (downgraded one level for risk of bias), small sample size (downgraded one level for imprecision), and wide CIs (downgraded one more level for imprecision in some comparisons). Of the seven trials, six were two-armed trials, while one trial was a three-armed trial. The comparisons included hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) versus placebo (one trial; 55 participants); interferon versus placebo (two trials; 200 participants); lamivudine versus placebo or no intervention (four trials; 316 participants); lamivudine versus entecavir (one trial; 90 participants); and entecavir versus no intervention (one trial; 131 participants). One trial included only people with acute HBV with hepatic encephalopathy (i.e. people with fulminant liver failure); one trial included only people with severe acute HBV, but it did not state whether any of the people also had fulminant HBV infection; three trials excluded fulminant HBV infection; and two trials did not report the severity of acute HBV infection. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from three to 12 months in the trials that provided this information.There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality (less than one year) in any of the comparisons: HBIG versus placebo (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.54; participants = 55; 1 trial), lamivudine versus placebo or no intervention (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.99; participants = 250; 2 trials); lamivudine versus entecavir (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 11.65; participants = 90; 1 trial), or entecavir versus no intervention (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.12 to 9.47; participants = 131; 1 trial). The proportion of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection was higher in the lamivudine group than the placebo or no intervention group (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.77; participants = 285; 3 trials) and in the lamivudine group versus entecavir group (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 10.13; participants = 90; 1 trial). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection between the entecavir and the no intervention groups (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.49; participants = 131; 1 trial). None of the trials reported progression to fulminant HBV infection. Three trials with 371 participants reported serious adverse events. There were no serious adverse events in any of the groups (no intervention: 0/183 (0%), interferon: 0/67 (0%), lamivudine: 0/100 (0%), and entecavir: 0/21 (0%)). The proportion of people with adverse events was higher in the interferon group than the placebo group (OR 348.16, 95% CI 45.39 to 2670.26; participants = 200; 2 trials). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of people with adverse events between the lamivudine group and the placebo or no intervention group (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.94; participants = 35; 1 trial) or number of adverse events between the lamivudine group and the placebo or no intervention group (rate ratio 1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.91; participants = 35; 1 trial). One trial with 100 participants reported quality of life at one week. The scale used to report the health-related quality of life was not stated and lacked information on whether higher score meant better or worse, making it difficult to interpret the results. None of the trials reported quality of life beyond one week or other clinical outcomes such as mortality beyond one year, liver transplantation, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma.Two trials received funding from pharmaceutical companies; three trials were funded by parties without any vested interest in the results or did not receive any special funding; the source of funding was not available in the remaining two trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low or very low quality evidence suggests that progression to chronic HBV infection was higher in people receiving lamivudine compared with placebo, no intervention, or entecavir. Low quality evidence suggests that interferon may increase the adverse events after treatment for acute HBV infection. Based on a very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of benefit of any intervention in acute HBV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the results and further RCTs are required.

Interventions for hereditary haemochromatosis: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hereditary haemochromatosis is a genetic disorder related to proteins involved in iron transport, resulting in iron load and deposition of iron in various tissues of the body. This iron overload leads to complications including liver cirrhosis (and related complications such as liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma), cardiac failure, cardiac arrhythmias, impotence, diabetes, arthritis, and skin pigmentation. Phlebotomy (venesection or 'blood letting') is the currently recommended treatment for hereditary haemochromatosis. The optimal treatment of hereditary haemochromatosis remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions in the treatment of hereditary haemochromatosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, we found only one comparison. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised clinical trials registers to March 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on treatments for hereditary haemochromatosis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with hereditary haemochromatosis. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various interventions compared with each other or with inactive treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 based on available-participant analysis. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials with 146 participants met the inclusion criteria of this review. Two parallel group trials with 100 participants provided information on one or more outcomes. The remaining trial was a cross-over trial, with no usable data for analysis. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Overall, all the evidence was of very low quality. All three trials compared erythrocytapheresis (removal of red cells only, instead of whole blood) versus phlebotomy. Two of the trials shared the same first author. The mean or median age in the three trials ranged from 42 to 55 years. None of the trials reported whether the included participants were symptomatic or asymptomatic or a mixture of both. Two trials were conducted in people who were haemochromatosis treatment-naive. The trial that provided most data for this review excluded people with malignancy, heart failure, and serious cardiac arrhythmias. We found no trials assessing iron-chelating agents.Only one of the trials with 38 participants reported no short-term mortality and no serious adverse events at the end of the short-term follow-up (eight months). Two trials reported the proportion of people with adverse events: 10/49 (20.4%) in the erythrocytapheresis group versus 11/51 (21.6%) in the phlebotomy group. One of these two trials provided data on adverse event rates (42.1 events per 100 participants with erythrocytapheresis versus 52.6 events per 100 participants with phlebotomy). There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with adverse events and the number of adverse events (serious and non-serious) between the groups (proportion of people with adverse events: OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.43; participants = 100; trials = 2; number of adverse events: rate ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.03; participants = 38; trial = 1). There was no difference between the groups regarding short-term health-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% CI -10.80 to 12.80; participants = 38; trials = 1). This outcome was measured using EQ-VAS (range: 0 to 100 where a higher score indicates better health-related quality of life). None of the trials reported mortality beyond one year, health-related quality of life beyond one year, liver transplantation, decompensated liver disease, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, diabetes, or cardiovascular complications during the long-term follow-up.The two trials that provided data for this review were funded by parties with no vested interest in the results; the source of funding of the third trial was not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to determine whether erythrocytapheresis is beneficial or harmful compared with phlebotomy. Phlebotomy has less equipment requirements and remains the treatment of choice in people with hereditary haemochromatosis who require blood letting in some form. However, it should be noted that there is no evidence from randomised clinical trials that blood letting in any form is beneficial in people with hereditary haemochromatosis. Having said this, a trial including no treatment is unlikely to be conducted. Future trials should compare different frequencies of phlebotomy and erythrocytapheresis versus phlebotomy with and without different iron-chelating agents compared with each other, and with placebo. Such trials should include long-term follow-up of participants (e.g. using national record linkage databases) to determine whether treatments are beneficial or harmful in terms of clinical outcomes such as deaths, health-related quality of life, liver damage and its consequences, heart damage and its consequences, and other outcomes that are of importance to people with hereditary haemochromatosis.

Hepatitis B immunoglobulin during pregnancy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis is a viral infection of the liver. It is mainly transmitted between people through contact with infected blood, frequently from mother to baby in-utero. Hepatitis B poses significant risk to the fetus and up to 85% of infants infected by their mothers at birth develop chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) is a purified solution of human immunoglobulin that could be administered to the mother, newborn, or both. HBIG offers protection against HBV infection when administered to pregnant women who test positive for hepatitis B envelope antigen (HBeAg) or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), or both. When HBIG is administered to pregnant women, the antibodies passively diffuse across the placenta to the child. This materno-fetal diffusion is maximal during the third trimester of pregnancy. Up to 1% to 9% infants born to HBV-carrying mothers still have HBV infection despite the newborn receiving HBIG plus active HBV vaccine in the immediate neonatal period. This suggests that additional intervention such as HBIG administration to the mother during the antenatal period could be beneficial to reduce the transmission rate in utero.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) administration to pregnant women during their third trimester of pregnancy for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), SCOPUS, African Journals OnLine, and INDEX MEDICUS up to June 2016. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in December 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing HBIG versus placebo or no intervention in pregnant women with HBV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently. We analysed dichotomous outcome data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcome data using mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For meta-analyses, we used a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model, along with an assessment of heterogeneity. If there were statistically significant discrepancies in the results, we reported the more conservative point estimate. If the two estimates were equal, we used the estimate with the widest CI as our main result. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group suggested bias risk domains and risk of random errors using Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

All 36 included trials originated from China and were at overall high risk of bias. The trials included 6044 pregnant women who were HBsAg, HBeAg, or hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV-DNA) positive. Only seven trials reported inclusion of HBeAg-positive mothers. All 36 trials compared HBIG versus no intervention. None of the trials used placebo.Most of the trials assessed HBIG 100 IU (two trials) and HBIG 200 IU (31 trials). The timing of administration of HBIG varied; 30 trials administered three doses of HBIG 200 IU at 28, 32, and 36 weeks of pregnancy. None of the trials reported all-cause mortality or other serious adverse events in the mothers or babies. Serological signs of hepatitis B infection of the newborns were reported as HBsAg, HBeAg, and HBV-DNA positive results at end of follow-up. Twenty-nine trials reported HBsAg status in newborns (median 1.2 months of follow-up after birth; range 0 to 12 months); seven trials reported HBeAg status (median 1.1 months of follow-up after birth; range 0 to 12 months); and 16 trials reported HBV-DNA status (median 1.2 months of follow-up; range 0 to 12 months). HBIG reduced mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HBsAg when compared with no intervention (179/2769 (6%) with HBIG versus 537/2541 (21%) with no intervention; RR 0.30, TSA-adjusted CI 0.20 to 0.52; I² = 36%; 29 trials; 5310 participants; very low quality evidence). HBV-DNA reduced MTCT of HBsAg (104/1112 (9%) with HBV-DNA versus 382/1018 (38%) with no intervention; RR 0.25, TSA-adjusted CI 0.22 to 0.27; I² = 84%; 16 trials; 2130 participants; low quality evidence). TSA supported both results. Meta-analysis showed that maternal HBIG did not decrease HBeAg in newborns compared with no intervention (184/889 (21%) with HBIG versus 232/875 (27%) with no intervention; RR 0.68, TSA-adjusted CI 0.04 to 6.37; I² = 90%; 7 trials; 1764 participants; very low quality evidence). TSA could neither support nor refute this observation as data were too sparse. None of the trials reported adverse events of the immunoglobulins on the newborns, presence of local and systemic adverse events on the mothers, or cost-effectiveness of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to very low to low quality evidence found in this review, we are uncertain of the effect of benefit of antenatal HBIG administration to the HBV-infected mothers on newborn outcomes, such as HBsAg, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg compared with no intervention. The results of the effects of HBIG on HBsAg and HBeAg are surrogate outcomes (raising risk of indirectness), and we need to be critical while interpreting the findings. We found no data on newborn mortality or maternal mortality or both, or other serious adverse events. Well-designed randomised clinical trials are needed to determine the benefits and harms of HBIG versus placebo in prevention of MTCT of HBV.

Methods to decrease blood loss during liver resection: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver resection is a major surgery with significant mortality and morbidity. Specialists have tested various methods in attempts to limit blood loss, transfusion requirements, and morbidity during elective liver resection. These methods include different approaches (anterior versus conventional approach), use of autologous blood donation, cardiopulmonary interventions such as hypoventilation, low central venous pressure, different methods of parenchymal transection, different methods of management of the raw surface of the liver, different methods of vascular occlusion, and different pharmacological interventions. A surgeon typically uses only one of the methods from each of these seven categories. The optimal method to decrease blood loss and transfusion requirements in people undergoing liver resection is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different interventions for decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements during elective liver resection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded to September 2015 to identify randomised clinical trials. We also searched trial registers and handsearched the references lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different methods of decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements in people undergoing liver resection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane domains. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method in WinBUGS 1.4, following the guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance documents. We calculated the odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) for the binary outcomes, mean differences (MD) with 95% CrI for continuous outcomes, and rate ratios with 95% CrI for count outcomes, using a fixed-effect model or random-effects model according to model-fit. We assessed the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 67 randomised clinical trials involving a total of 6197 participants. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 5771 participants from 64 trials provided data for one or more outcomes included in this review. There was no evidence of differences in most of the comparisons, and where there was, these differences were in single trials, mostly of small sample size. We summarise only the evidence that was available in more than one trial below. Of the primary outcomes, the only one with evidence of a difference from more than one trial under the pair-wise comparison was in the number of adverse events (complications), which was higher with radiofrequency dissecting sealer than with the clamp-crush method (rate ratio 1.85, 95% CrI 1.07 to 3.26; 250 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, the only differences we found from more than one trial under the pair-wise comparison were the following: blood transfusion (proportion) was higher in the low central venous pressure group than in the acute normovolemic haemodilution plus low central venous pressure group (OR 3.19, 95% CrI 1.56 to 6.95; 208 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence); blood transfusion quantity (red blood cells) was lower in the fibrin sealant group than in the control (MD -0.53 units, 95% CrI -1.00 to -0.07; 122 participants; 2; very low-quality evidence); blood transfusion quantity (fresh frozen plasma) was higher in the oxidised cellulose group than in the fibrin sealant group (MD 0.53 units, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.71; 80 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence); blood loss (MD -0.34 L, 95% CrI -0.46 to -0.22; 237 participants; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence), total hospital stay (MD -2.42 days, 95% CrI -3.91 to -0.94; 197 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and operating time (MD -15.32 minutes, 95% CrI -29.03 to -1.69; 192 participants; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence) were lower with low central venous pressure than with control. For the other comparisons, the evidence for difference was either based on single small trials or there was no evidence of differences. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or time needed to return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paucity of data meant that we could not assess transitivity assumptions and inconsistency for most analyses. When direct and indirect comparisons were available, network meta-analysis provided additional effect estimates for comparisons where there were no direct comparisons. However, the paucity of data decreases the confidence in the results of the network meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence suggests that liver resection using a radiofrequency dissecting sealer may be associated with more adverse events than with the clamp-crush method. Low-quality evidence also suggests that the proportion of people requiring a blood transfusion is higher with low central venous pressure than with acute normovolemic haemodilution plus low central venous pressure; very low-quality evidence suggests that blood transfusion quantity (red blood cells) was lower with fibrin sealant than control; blood transfusion quantity (fresh frozen plasma) was higher with oxidised cellulose than with fibrin sealant; and blood loss, total hospital stay, and operating time were lower with low central venous pressure than with control. There is no evidence to suggest that using special equipment for liver resection is of any benefit in decreasing the mortality, morbidity, or blood transfusion requirements (very low-quality evidence). Radiofrequency dissecting sealer should not be used outside the clinical trial setting since there is low-quality evidence for increased harm without any evidence of benefits. In addition, it should be noted that the sample size was small and the credible intervals were wide, and we cannot rule out considerable benefit or harm with a specific method of liver resection.

Non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs for biliary colic

BACKGROUND

Cholelithiasis refers to the presence of gallstones, which are concretions that form in the biliary tract, usually in the gallbladder. Cholelithiasis is one of the most common surgical problems worldwide and is particularly prevalent in most Western countries.Biliary colic is the term used for gallbladder pain experienced by a person with gallstones and without overt infection around the gallbladder. It is the most common manifestation of cholelithiasis, observed in over one-third of people with gallstones over the course of 10 or more years. Non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely used to relieve biliary colic pain, but their role needs further elucidation. They may decrease the frequency of short-term complications, such as mild form of acute cholecystitis, jaundice, cholangitis, and acute pancreatitis, but they may also increase the occurrence of more severe and possibly life-threatening adverse events such as gastrointestinal bleeding, renal function impairment, cardiovascular events, or milder events such as abdominal pain, drowsiness, headache, dizziness, or cutaneous manifestations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of NSAIDs in people with biliary colic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and ClinicalTrials.gov until July 2016. We applied no language limitation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials recruiting participants presenting with biliary colic and comparing NSAIDs versus no intervention, placebo, or other drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (MF and AC) independently identified trials for inclusion. We used risk ratios (RR) to express intervention effect estimates, and we analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses, depending on the amount of heterogeneity. We controlled random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the methodological quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve randomised clinical trials (RCTs) met our predefined review protocol criteria for analysis. We found only one trial to be at low risk of bias, considering the remaining trials to be at high risk of bias. The risk of selection bias in nine studies was unclear due to poor reporting, leading to uncertainty in the pooled effect estimates. Five trials compared NSAIDs versus placebo, four trials compared NSAID versus opioids, and four trials compared NSAID versus spasmolytic drugs (one of the 12 trials was a three-arm study comparing NSAIDs versus both opioids and spasmolytic drugs). There were 828 randomised participants (minimum 30 and maximum 324 per trial), of whom 416 received NSAIDs and 412 received placebo, spasmolytic drugs, or opioids. Twenty-four per cent of the participants were males. The age of the participants in the trials ranged from 18 to 86 years. All people were admitted to emergency departments for acute biliary pain. There was no mortality. When compared with placebo, NSAIDs obtained a significantly lower proportion of participants without complete pain relief (RR 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; I² = 0%; 5 trials; moderate-quality evidence), which was confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis, but not regarding participants with complications (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15; I² = 26%; 3 trials; very low-quality evidence). NSAIDs showed more pain control than spasmolytic drugs (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71; I² = 0%; 4 trials; low-quality evidence), which was not confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis, and a significantly lower proportion of participants with complications (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; I² = 0%; 2 trials; low-quality evidence), which was also not confirmed by Trial Sequential Analysis. We found no difference in the proportions of participants without complete pain relief when comparing NSAIDs versus opioids (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.07; I² = 52%), suggesting moderate heterogeneity among trials (4 trials; very low-quality evidence). Only one trial comparing NSAIDs versus opioids reported results on complications, finding no significant difference between treatments. None of the included trials reported severe adverse events. Seven out of the 12 trials assessed non-severe adverse events: in two out of the seven trials, adverse events were not observed, and minor events were reported in the remaining five trials.In addition, we found one ongoing RCT assessing the analgesic efficacy of intravenous ibuprofen in biliary colic.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs have been assessed in relatively few trials including a limited number of participants for biliary colic, considering its common occurrence. We found only one trial to be at low risk of bias. There was no mortality. None of the included trials reported quality of life. The generalisability of the review is low as most of the RCTs included neither elderly people nor participants with comorbidities, who are more prone to complications as compared to others with biliary colic.The beneficial effect of NSAIDs compared with placebo on pain relief was confirmed when we applied Trial Sequential Analysis.The quality of evidence according to GRADE criteria was moderate for the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo regarding the outcome lack of pain relief and low or very low for the other outcomes and comparisons.We found only one trial at low risk of bias, following the predefined 'Risk of bias' domains. We found the risk of selection bias to be unclear in nine studies due to poor reporting, leading to uncertainty in the pooled effect estimates.

Booster dose vaccination for preventing hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Antibodies against hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) wane over time following hepatitis B immunisation; hence, it is unclear whether people vaccinated in three-dose or four-dose schedules of the hepatitis B vaccine are still immune when the hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) level in their body is undetectable, or lower than the level usually considered protective. This question may potentially be answered indirectly by measuring the anamnestic immune response to a booster dose of vaccine. The term 'booster' (or revaccination) refers to an additional dose of hepatitis B vaccine (HBV) given some time post-primary vaccination to induce immune memory and improve protection against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of booster dose hepatitis B vaccination, more than five years after the primary vaccination, for preventing HBV infection in healthy individuals previously vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine, and with hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) levels below 10 mIU/mL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, conference databases, and reference lists of articles to January 2016. We also contacted authors of articles. In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials (May 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials addressing anamnestic immune response to a booster dose of hepatitis B vaccine, more than five years after the primary vaccination, in apparently healthy participants, vaccinated in a three-dose or four-dose schedule of the hepatitis B vaccine during the primary vaccination, without receiving an additional dose or immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both review authors decided if the identified studies met the inclusion criteria or not. Primary outcomes included the proportion of participants with anamnestic immune response in non-protected participants and signs of HBV infection. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants that developed local and systemic adverse events following a booster dose injection. We planned to report the weighted proportion with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

There were no eligible randomised clinical trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to include any randomised clinical trials on the topic; only randomised clinical trials will be able to provide an answer as to whether a booster dose vaccination is able to protect against hepatitis B infection.