1
|
Komolafe O, Buzzetti E, Linden A, Best LM, Madden AM, Roberts D, Chase TJ, Fritche D, Freeman SC, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Milne EJ, Wright K, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Nutritional supplementation for nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 7:CD013157. [PMID: 34280304 PMCID: PMC8406904 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013157.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prevalence of non-alcohol-related fatty liver disease (NAFLD) varies between 19% and 33% in different populations. NAFLD decreases life expectancy and increases risks of liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and the requirement for liver transplantation. Uncertainty surrounds relative benefits and harms of various nutritional supplements in NAFLD. Currently no nutritional supplement is recommended for people with NAFLD. OBJECTIVES • To assess the benefits and harms of different nutritional supplements for treatment of NAFLD through a network meta-analysis • To generate rankings of different nutritional supplements according to their safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until February 2021 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with NAFLD. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) for people with NAFLD, irrespective of method of diagnosis, age and diabetic status of participants, or presence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). 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 whenever possible and calculated differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and rate ratios 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 in the review a total of 202 randomised clinical trials (14,200 participants). Nineteen trials were at low risk of bias. A total of 32 different interventions were compared in these trials. A total of 115 trials (7732 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The remaining trials did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. Follow-up ranged from 1 month to 28 months. The follow-up period in trials that reported clinical outcomes was 2 months to 28 months. During this follow-up period, clinical events related to NAFLD such as mortality, liver cirrhosis, liver decompensation, liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related mortality were sparse. We did not calculate effect estimates for mortality because of sparse data (zero events for at least one of the groups in the trial). None of the trials reported that they measured overall health-related quality of life using a validated scale. The evidence is very uncertain about effects of interventions on serious adverse events (number of people or number of events). We are very uncertain about effects on adverse events of most of the supplements that we investigated, as the evidence is of very low certainty. However, people taking PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acid) may be more likely to experience an adverse event than those not receiving an active intervention (network meta-analysis results: OR 4.44, 95% CrI 2.40 to 8.48; low-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 203 participants; direct evidence: OR 4.43, 95% CrI 2.43 to 8.42). People who take other supplements (a category that includes nutritional supplements other than vitamins, fatty acids, phospholipids, and antioxidants) had higher numbers of adverse events than those not receiving an active intervention (network meta-analysis: rate ratio 1.73, 95% CrI 1.26 to 2.41; 6 trials, 291 participants; direct evidence: rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.25 to 2.40; low-certainty evidence). Data were sparse (zero events in all groups in the trial) for liver transplantation, liver decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma. So, we did not perform formal analysis for these outcomes. The evidence is very uncertain about effects of other antioxidants (antioxidants other than vitamins) compared to no active intervention on liver cirrhosis (HR 1.68, 95% CrI 0.23 to 15.10; 1 trial, 99 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about effects of interventions in any of the remaining comparisons, or data were sparse (with zero events in at least one of the groups), precluding formal calculations of effect estimates. Data were probably because of the very short follow-up period (2 months to 28 months). It takes follow-up of 8 to 28 years to detect differences in mortality between people with NAFLD and the general population. Therefore, it is unlikely that differences in clinical outcomes are noted in trials providing less than 5 to 10 years of follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about effects of nutritional supplementation compared to no additional intervention on all clinical outcomes for people with non-alcohol-related fatty liver disease. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials with adequate follow-up are needed. We propose registry-based randomised clinical trials or cohort multiple randomised clinical trials (study design in which multiple interventions are trialed within large longitudinal cohorts of patients to gain efficiencies and align trials more closely to standard clinical practice) comparing interventions such as vitamin E, prebiotics/probiotics/synbiotics, PUFAs, and no nutritional supplementation. The reason for the choice of interventions is the impact of these interventions on indirect outcomes, which may translate to clinical benefit. Outcomes in such trials should be mortality, health-related quality of life, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver transplantation, and resource utilisation measures including costs of intervention and decreased healthcare utilisation after minimum follow-up of 8 years (to find meaningful differences in clinically important outcomes).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Elena Buzzetti
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Audrey Linden
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Lawrence Mj Best
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Angela M Madden
- School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Danielle Roberts
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Thomas Jg Chase
- Department of General Surgery, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | | | - Kathy Wright
- Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region of Denmark, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Brian R Davidson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Buzzetti E, Linden A, Best LM, Madden AM, Roberts D, Chase TJG, Freeman SC, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Fritche D, Milne EJ, Wright K, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Lifestyle modifications for nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 6:CD013156. [PMID: 34114650 PMCID: PMC8193812 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013156.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prevalence of nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease (NAFLD) varies between 19% and 33% in different populations. NAFLD decreases life expectancy and increases the risks of liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and requirement for liver transplantation. There is uncertainty surrounding the relative benefits and harms of various lifestyle interventions for people with NAFLD. OBJECTIVES To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different lifestyle interventions in the treatment of NAFLD through a network meta-analysis, and to generate rankings of the different lifestyle interventions according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until February 2021 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with NAFLD. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in people with NAFLD, whatever the method of diagnosis, age, and diabetic status of participants, or presence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We planned to perform a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and to calculate the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and rate ratios (RaRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available-participant analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. However, the data were too sparse for the clinical outcomes. We therefore performed only direct comparisons (head-to-head comparisons) with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods. MAIN RESULTS We included a total of 59 randomised clinical trials (3631 participants) in the review. All but two trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 33 different interventions, ranging from advice to supervised exercise and special diets, or a combination of these and no additional intervention were compared in these trials. The reference treatment was no active intervention. Twenty-eight trials (1942 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The follow-up ranged from 1 month to 24 months. The remaining trials did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The follow-up period in the trials that reported clinical outcomes was 2 months to 24 months. During this short follow-up period, clinical events related to NAFLD such as mortality, liver cirrhosis, liver decompensation, liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related mortality were sparse. This is probably because of the very short follow-up periods. It takes a follow-up of 8 years to 28 years to detect differences in mortality between people with NAFLD and the general population. It is therefore unlikely that differences by clinical outcomes will be noted in trials with less than 5 years to 10 years of follow-up. In one trial, one participant developed an adverse event. There were no adverse events in any of the remaining participants in this trial, or in any of the remaining trials, which seemed to be directly related to the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the lifestyle interventions compared with no additional intervention (to general public health advice) on any of the clinical outcomes after a short follow-up period of 2 months to 24 months in people with nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease. Accordingly, high-quality randomised clinical trials with adequate follow-up are needed. We propose registry-based randomised clinical trials or cohort multiple randomised clinical trials (a study design in which multiple interventions are trialed within large longitudinal cohorts of participants to gain efficiencies and align trials more closely to standard clinical practice), comparing aerobic exercise and dietary advice versus standard of care (exercise and dietary advice received as part of national health promotion). The reason for the choice of aerobic exercise and dietary advice is the impact of these interventions on indirect outcomes which may translate to clinical benefit. The outcomes in such trials should be mortality, health-related quality of life, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver transplantation, and resource use measures including costs of intervention and decreased healthcare use after a minimum follow-up of eight years, to find meaningful differences in the clinically important outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elena Buzzetti
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Audrey Linden
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Lawrence Mj Best
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Angela M Madden
- School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Danielle Roberts
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Thomas J G Chase
- Department of General Surgery, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | | | | | - Kathy Wright
- Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region of Denmark, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Brian R Davidson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Roberts D, Best LM, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Arunan S, Begum T, Williams NR, Walshaw D, Milne EJ, Tapp M, Csenar M, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Treatment for bleeding oesophageal varices in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD013155. [PMID: 33837526 PMCID: PMC8094233 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013155.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments. OBJECTIVES To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details. MAIN RESULTS We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danielle Roberts
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Lawrence Mj Best
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Sivapatham Arunan
- General and Colorectal Surgery, Ealing Hospital and Imperial College, London, Northwood, UK
| | | | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical & Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, London, UK
| | - Dana Walshaw
- Acute Medicine, Barts and The London NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Mario Csenar
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Brian R Davidson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Roccarina D, Best LM, Freeman SC, Roberts D, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Benmassaoud A, Plaz Torres MC, Iogna Prat L, Csenar M, Arunan S, Begum T, Milne EJ, Tapp M, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Williams NR, Gurusamy KS. Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD013121. [PMID: 33822357 PMCID: PMC8092414 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013121.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices 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 December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details. MAIN RESULTS We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Davide Roccarina
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Lawrence Mj Best
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Danielle Roberts
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Amine Benmassaoud
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | | | - Laura Iogna Prat
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Mario Csenar
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sivapatham Arunan
- General and Colorectal Surgery, Ealing Hospital and Imperial College, London, Northwood, UK
| | | | | | | | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Brian R Davidson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical & Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, London, UK
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Plaz Torres MC, Best LM, Freeman SC, Roberts D, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Roccarina D, Benmassaoud A, Iogna Prat L, Williams NR, Csenar M, Fritche D, Begum T, Arunan S, Tapp M, Milne EJ, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 3:CD013122. [PMID: 33784794 PMCID: PMC8094621 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013122.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lawrence Mj Best
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Danielle Roberts
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Davide Roccarina
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Amine Benmassaoud
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Laura Iogna Prat
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Surgical & Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, London, UK
| | - Mario Csenar
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | | | | | - Sivapatham Arunan
- General and Colorectal Surgery, Ealing Hospital and Imperial College, London, Northwood, UK
| | | | | | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Brian R Davidson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Benmassaoud A, Freeman SC, Roccarina D, Plaz Torres MC, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Iogna Prat L, Cowlin M, Milne EJ, Hawkins N, Davidson BR, Pavlov CS, Thorburn D, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Treatment for ascites in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1:CD013123. [PMID: 31978257 PMCID: PMC6984622 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013123.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amine Benmassaoud
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentreLondonUK
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Davide Roccarina
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentreLondonUK
| | | | - Alex J Sutton
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Laura Iogna Prat
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentreLondonUK
| | | | | | - Neil Hawkins
- University of GlasgowHEHTAUniversity Ave Glasgow G12 8QQGlasgowUK
| | - Brian R Davidson
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceLondonUKNW3 2QG
| | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Department 7812, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University HospitalCochrane Hepato‐Biliary GroupBlegdamsvej 9CopenhagenDenmarkDK‐2100
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
| | - Douglas Thorburn
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentreLondonUK
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentreLondonUK
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceLondonUKNW3 2QG
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Komolafe O, Roberts D, Freeman SC, Wilson P, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Pavlov CS, Milne EJ, Hawkins N, Cowlin M, Thorburn D, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1:CD013125. [PMID: 31978256 PMCID: PMC6984637 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013125.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Danielle Roberts
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceLondonUKNW3 2PF
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Peter Wilson
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustClinical Microbiology and Virology5th Floor Central250 Euston RoadLondonUKNW1 2PG
| | - Alex J Sutton
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
| | | | - Neil Hawkins
- University of GlasgowHEHTAUniversity Ave Glasgow G12 8QQGlasgowUK
| | | | - Douglas Thorburn
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentrePond StreetLondonUKNW3 2QG
| | - Brian R Davidson
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceLondonUKNW3 2PF
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentrePond StreetLondonUKNW3 2QG
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceLondonUKNW3 2PF
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Best LMJ, Leung J, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Milne EJ, Cowlin M, Payne A, Walshaw D, Thorburn D, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Williams NR, Gurusamy KS. Induction immunosuppression in adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1:CD013203. [PMID: 31978255 PMCID: PMC6984652 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013203.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lawrence MJ Best
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceRowland Hill StreetLondonUKNW32PF
| | - Jeffrey Leung
- University College LondonMedical SchoolGower StreetLondonUKWC1H6BT
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Alex J Sutton
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | | | | | - Anna Payne
- Royal Free London NHS Foundation TrustHPB and Liver Transplant SurgeryPond StreetLondonGreater LondonUKNW3 2QG
| | - Dana Walshaw
- Barts and The London NHS TrustAcute MedicineLondonUK
| | - Douglas Thorburn
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentrePond StreetLondonUKNW3 2QG
| | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
| | - Brian R Davidson
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceRowland Hill StreetLondonUKNW32PF
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentrePond StreetLondonUKNW3 2QG
| | - Norman R Williams
- UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional ScienceSurgical & Interventional Trials Unit (SITU)3rd Floor, Charles Bell House 43 – 45Foley StreetLondonUKW1W 7TY
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceRowland Hill StreetLondonUKNW32PF
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Iogna Prat L, Wilson P, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Roccarina D, Benmassaoud A, Plaz Torres MC, Hawkins N, Cowlin M, Milne EJ, Thorburn D, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Antibiotic treatment for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 9:CD013120. [PMID: 31524949 PMCID: PMC6746213 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013120.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Iogna Prat
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentreLondonUK
| | - Peter Wilson
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustClinical Microbiology and Virology5th Floor Central250 Euston RoadLondonUKNW1 2PG
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Alex J Sutton
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Davide Roccarina
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentreLondonUK
| | - Amine Benmassaoud
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentreLondonUK
| | | | - Neil Hawkins
- University of GlasgowHEHTAUniversity Ave Glasgow G12 8QQGlasgowUK
| | | | | | - Douglas Thorburn
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentreLondonUK
| | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Department 7812, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University HospitalCochrane Hepato‐Biliary GroupBlegdamsvej 9CopenhagenDenmarkDK‐2100
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
| | - Brian R Davidson
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceLondonUKNW3 2QG
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentreLondonUK
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceLondonUKNW3 2QG
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Best LMJ, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Tng E, Csenar M, Hawkins N, Pavlov CS, Davidson BR, Thorburn D, Cowlin M, Milne EJ, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Treatment for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 9:CD013103. [PMID: 31513287 PMCID: PMC6740336 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013103.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lawrence MJ Best
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceRowland Hill StreetLondonUKNW32PF
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Alex J Sutton
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- University of LeicesterDepartment of Health SciencesUniversity RoadLeicesterUKLE1 7RH
| | - Eng‐Loon Tng
- Ng Teng Fong General Hospital National University Health SystemDepartment of Medicine1 Jurong East Street 21SingaporeSingapore609606
| | - Mario Csenar
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceRowland Hill StreetLondonUKNW32PF
| | - Neil Hawkins
- University of GlasgowHEHTAUniversity Ave Glasgow G12 8QQGlasgowUK
| | - Chavdar S Pavlov
- Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Department 7812, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University HospitalCochrane Hepato‐Biliary GroupBlegdamsvej 9CopenhagenDenmarkDK‐2100
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
| | - Brian R Davidson
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceRowland Hill StreetLondonUKNW32PF
| | - Douglas Thorburn
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentrePond StreetLondonUKNW3 2QG
| | | | | | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive HealthSheila Sherlock Liver CentrePond StreetLondonUKNW3 2QG
| | - Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
- University College LondonDivision of Surgery and Interventional ScienceRowland Hill StreetLondonUKNW32PF
- 'Sechenov' First Moscow State Medical UniversityCenter for Evidence‐Based MedicinePogodinskja st. 1\1MoscowRussian Federation119881
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Gurusamy KS, Walmsley M, Davidson BR, Frier C, Fuller B, Madden A, Masson S, Morley R, Safarik I, Tsochatzis EA, Ahmed I, Cowlin M, Dillon JF, Ellicott G, Elsharkawy AM, Farrington L, Glachan A, Kumar N, Milne EJ, Rushbrook SM, Smith A, Stafford L, Yeoman A. Top research priorities in liver and gallbladder disorders in the UK. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e025045. [PMID: 30850408 PMCID: PMC6429888 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES There is a mismatch between research questions considered important by patients, carers and healthcare professionals and the research performed in many fields of medicine. The non-alcohol-related liver and gallbladder disorders priority setting partnership was established to identify the top research priorities in the prevention, diagnostic and treatment of gallbladder disorders and liver disorders not covered by the James-Lind Alliance (JLA) alcohol-related liver disease priority setting partnership. DESIGN The methods broadly followed the principles of the JLA guidebook. The one major deviation from the JLA methodology was the final step of identifying priorities: instead of prioritisation by group discussions at a consensus workshop involving stakeholders, the prioritisation was achieved by a modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS A total of 428 unique valid diagnostic or treatment research questions were identified. A literature review established that none of these questions were considered 'answered' that is, high-quality systematic reviews suggest that further research is not required on the topic. The Delphi panel achieved consensus (at least 80% Delphi panel members agreed) that a research question was a top research priority for six questions. Four additional research questions with highest proportion of Delphi panel members ranking the question as highly important were added to constitute the top 10 research priorities. CONCLUSIONS A priority setting process involving patients, carers and healthcare professionals has been used to identify the top 10priority areas for research related to liver and gallbladder disorders. Basic, translational, clinical and public health research are required to address these uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kurinchi S Gurusamy
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Brian R Davidson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Claire Frier
- HPB Surgery, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Barry Fuller
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Angela Madden
- Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Steven Masson
- Hepatology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | - John F Dillon
- Hepatology and Gastroenterology, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK
| | | | | | - Liz Farrington
- Hepatology, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, UK
| | | | | | | | - Simon M Rushbrook
- Hepatology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK
| | - Amanda Smith
- Pharmacy, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|