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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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 We wrote to authors and pharmaceutical companies for information on other published, unpublished, or ongoing trials.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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors infusion for people with compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Advanced chronic liver disease is characterised by a long compensated phase followed by a rapidly progressive 'decompensated' phase, which is marked by the development of complications of portal hypertension and liver dysfunction. Advanced chronic liver disease is considered responsible for more than one million deaths annually worldwide. No treatment is available to specifically target fibrosis and cirrhosis; liver transplantation remains the only curative option. Researchers are investigating strategies to restore liver functionality to avoid or slow progression towards end-stage liver disease. Cytokine mobilisation of stem cells from the bone marrow to the liver could improve liver function. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a 175-amino-acid protein currently available for mobilisation of haematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow. Multiple courses of G-CSF, with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, might be associated with accelerated hepatic regeneration, improved liver function, and survival.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of G-CSF with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, compared with no intervention or placebo in people with compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers (October 2022) together with reference-checking and web-searching to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions on language and document type.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only included randomised clinical trials comparing G-CSF, independent of the schedule of administration, as a single treatment or combined with stem or progenitor cell infusion, or with other medical co-interventions, with no intervention or placebo, in adults with chronic compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease or acute-on-chronic liver failure. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, outcomes reported, or language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane procedures. All-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life were our primary outcomes, and liver disease-related morbidity, non-serious adverse events, and no improvement of liver function scores were our secondary outcomes. We undertook meta-analyses, based on intention-to-treat, and presented results using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 statistic values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE, evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses, and conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials (1419 participants; sample size ranged from 28 to 259), which lasted between 11 and 57 months. Nineteen trials included only participants with decompensated cirrhosis; in one trial, 30% had compensated cirrhosis. The included trials were conducted in Asia (15), Europe (four), and the USA (one). Not all trials provided data for our outcomes. All trials reported data allowing intention-to-treat analyses. The experimental intervention consisted of G-CSF alone or G-CSF plus any of the following: growth hormone, erythropoietin, N-acetyl cysteine, infusion of CD133-positive haemopoietic stem cells, or infusion of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells. The control group consisted of no intervention in 15 trials and placebo (normal saline) in five trials. Standard medical therapy (antivirals, alcohol abstinence, nutrition, diuretics, β-blockers, selective intestinal decontamination, pentoxifylline, prednisolone, and other supportive measures depending on the clinical status and requirement) was administered equally to the trial groups. Very low-certainty evidence suggested a decrease in mortality with G-CSF, administered alone or in combination with any of the above, versus placebo (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.72; I2 = 75%; 1419 participants; 20 trials). Very low-certainty evidence suggested no difference in serious adverse events (G-CSF alone or in combination versus placebo: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.61; I2 = 66%; 315 participants; three trials). Eight trials, with 518 participants, reported no serious adverse events. Two trials, with 165 participants, used two components of the quality of life score for assessment, with ranges from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate better quality of life, with a mean increase from baseline of the physical component summary of 20.7 (95% CI 17.4 to 24.0; very low-certainty evidence) and a mean increase from baseline of the mental component summary of 27.8 (95% CI 12.3 to 43.3; very low-certainty evidence). G-CSF, alone or in combination, suggested a beneficial effect on the proportion of participants who developed one or more liver disease-related complications (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92; I2 = 62%; 195 participants; four trials; very low-certainty evidence). When we analysed the occurrences of single complications, there was no suggestion of a difference between G-CSF, alone or in combination, versus control, in participants in need of liver transplantation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.85; 692 participants; five trials), in the development of hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.30; 520 participants; six trials), in the occurrence of variceal bleeding (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.23; 614 participants; eight trials), and in the development of encephalopathy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.01; 605 participants; seven trials) (very low-certainty evidence). The same comparison suggested that G-CSF reduces the development of infections (including sepsis) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.84; 583 participants; eight trials) and does not improve liver function scores (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; 319 participants; two trials) (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

G-CSF, alone or in combination, seems to decrease mortality in people with decompensated advanced chronic liver disease of whatever aetiology and with or without acute-on-chronic liver failure, but the certainty of evidence is very low because of high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. The results of trials conducted in Asia and Europe were discrepant; this could not be explained by differences in participant selection, intervention, and outcome measurement. Data on serious adverse events and health-related quality of life were few and inconsistently reported. The evidence is also very uncertain regarding the occurrence of one or more liver disease-related complications. We lack high-quality, global randomised clinical trials assessing the effect of G-CSF on clinically relevant outcomes.

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic intervention with or without medical treatment for prevention of rebleeding in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

People with liver cirrhosis who have had one episode of variceal bleeding are at risk for repeated episodes of bleeding. Endoscopic intervention and portosystemic shunts are used to prevent further bleeding, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of shunts (surgical shunts (total shunt (TS), distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)) versus endoscopic intervention (endoscopic sclerotherapy or banding, or both) with or without medical treatment (non-selective beta blockers or nitrates, or both) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with liver cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CHBG Controlled Trials Register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS (Bireme); Science Citation Index - Expanded (Web of Science); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science); as well as conference proceedings and the references of trials identified until 22 June 2020. We contacted study investigators and industry researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing shunts versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When possible, we collected data to allow intention-to-treat analysis. For each outcome, we estimated a meta-analysed estimate of treatment effect across trials (risk ratio for binary outcomes). We used random-effects model meta-analysis as our main analysis and as a means of presenting results. We reported differences in means for continuous outcomes without a meta-analytic estimate due to high variability in their assessment among all trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 randomised trials with 1828 participants. Three trials assessed TSs, five assessed DSRSs, and 19 trials assessed TIPSs. The endoscopic intervention was sclerotherapy in 16 trials, band ligation in eight trials, and a combination of band ligation and either sclerotherapy or glue injection in three trials. In eight trials, endoscopy was combined with beta blockers (in one trial plus isosorbide mononitrate). We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all the outcome review results as very low (i.e. the true effects of the results are likely to be substantially different from the results of estimated effects). The very low evidence grading is due to the overall high risk of bias for all trials, and to imprecision and publication bias for some outcomes. Therefore, we are very uncertain whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment have effects on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; 1828 participants; 27 trials), on rebleeding (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50; 1769 participants; 26 trials), on mortality due to rebleeding (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 1779 participants; 26 trials), and on occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, both acute (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.92; 1649 participants; 24 trials) and chronic (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.55; 956 participants; 13 trials). No data were available regarding health-related quality of life. Analysing each modality of portosystemic shunts individually (i.e. TS, DSRS, and TIPS) versus endoscopic interventions with or without medical treatment, we are very uncertain if each type of shunt has effect on all-cause mortality: TS, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.33; 352 participants; 4 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31; 1312 participants; 19 trial; on rebleeding: TS, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56; 127 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; 330 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55; 1312 participants; 19 trials; on mortality due to rebleeding: TS, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 164 participants; 3 trials; DSRS, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.74; 352 participants; 5 trials; and TIPS, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; 1263 participants; 18 trials; on acute hepatic encephalopathy: TS, RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.92; 115 participants; 2 trials; DSRS, RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.08; 287 participants; 4 trials, TIPS, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.99; 1247 participants; 18 trials; and chronic hepatic encephalopathy: TS, Fisher's exact test P = 0.11; 69 participants; 1 trial; DSRS, RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.46 to 16.23; 170 participants; 2 trials; and TIPS, RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.80; 717 participants; 10 trials. The proportion of participants with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was overall 37% (95% CI 33% to 40%). It was 3% (95% CI 0.8% to 10%) following TS, 7% (95% CI 3% to 13%) following DSRS, and 47.1% (95% CI 43% to 51%) following TIPS. Shunt dysfunction in trials utilising polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents was 17% (95% CI 11% to 24%). Length of inpatient hospital stay and cost were not comparable across trials. Funding was unclear in 16 trials; 11 trials were funded by government, local hospitals, or universities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts versus endoscopy interventions with or without medical treatment in people with cirrhosis and previous hypertensive portal bleeding have little or no effect on all-cause mortality is very uncertain. Evidence on whether portosystemic shunts may reduce bleeding and mortality due to bleeding while increasing hepatic encephalopathy is also very uncertain. We need properly conducted trials to assess effects of these interventions not only on assessed outcomes, but also on quality of life, costs, and length of hospital stay.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Detection by Plasma Methylated DNA: Discovery, Phase I Pilot, and Phase II Clinical Validation

Early detection improves hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) outcomes, but better noninvasive surveillance tools are needed. We aimed to identify and validate methylated DNA markers (MDMs) for HCC detection. Reduced representation bisulfite sequencing was performed on DNA extracted from 18 HCC and 35 control tissues. Candidate MDMs were confirmed by quantitative methylation-specific PCR in DNA from independent tissues (74 HCC, 29 controls). A phase I plasma pilot incorporated quantitative allele-specific real-time target and signal amplification assays on independent plasma-extracted DNA from 21 HCC cases and 30 controls with cirrhosis. A phase II plasma study was then performed in 95 HCC cases, 51 controls with cirrhosis, and 98 healthy controls using target enrichment long-probe quantitative amplified signal (TELQAS) assays. Recursive partitioning identified best MDM combinations. The entire MDM panel was statistically cross-validated by randomly splitting the data 2:1 for training and testing. Random forest (rForest) regression models performed on the training set predicted disease status in the testing set; median areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUCs; and 95% confidence interval [CI]) were reported after 500 iterations. In phase II, a six-marker MDM panel (homeobox A1 [HOXA1], empty spiracles homeobox 1 [EMX1], AK055957, endothelin-converting enzyme 1 [ECE1], phosphofructokinase [PFKP], and C-type lectin domain containing 11A [CLEC11A]) normalized by beta-1,3-galactosyltransferase 6 (B3GALT6) level yielded a best-fit AUC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.99) with HCC sensitivity of 95% (88%-98%) at specificity of 92% (86%-96%). The panel detected 3 of 4 (75%) stage 0, 39 of 42 (93%) stage A, 13 of 14 (93%) stage B, 28 of 28 (100%) stage C, and 7 of 7 (100%) stage D HCCs. The AUC value for alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) was 0.80 (0.74-0.87) compared to 0.94 (0.9-0.97) for the cross-validated MDM panel (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: MDMs identified in this study proved to accurately detect HCC by plasma testing. Further optimization and clinical testing of this promising approach are indicated.

Non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and lactulose versus lactitol for the prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Non-absorbable disaccharides (lactulose and lactitol) are recommended as first-line treatment for hepatic encephalopathy. The previous (second) version of this review included 10 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and eight RCTs evaluating lactulose versus lactitol for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. The review found no evidence to either support or refute the use of the non-absorbable disaccharides and no differences between lactulose versus lactitol.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of i) non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and ii) lactulose versus lactitol in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to 19 October 2015; manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We presented the results of meta-analyses as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) and bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. Our analyses included regression analyses of publication bias and other small study effects, Trial Sequential Analyses to detect type 1 and type 2 errors, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 RCTs with a total of 1828 participants. Eight RCTs had a low risk of bias in the assessment of mortality. All trials had a high risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a beneficial effect of non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention on mortality when including all RCTs with extractable data (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.87; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence) and in the eight RCTs with a low risk of bias (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; 705 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis with the relative risk reduction (RRR) reduced to 30% confirmed the findings when including all RCTs, but not when including only RCTs with a low risk of bias or when we reduced the RRR to 22%. Compared with placebo/no intervention, the non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with beneficial effects on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.69; 1415 participants; 22 RCTs; I(2) = 32%; moderate quality evidence). Additional analyses showed that non-absorbable disaccharides can help to reduce serious adverse events associated with the underlying liver disease including liver failure, hepatorenal syndrome, and variceal bleeding (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.60; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We confirmed the results in Trial Sequential Analysis. Tests for subgroup differences showed no statistical differences between RCTs evaluating prevention, overt, or minimal hepatic encephalopathy. The evaluation of secondary outcomes showed a potential beneficial effect of the non-absorbable disaccharides on quality of life, but we were not able to include the data in an overall meta-analysis (very low quality evidence). Non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with non-serious (mainly gastrointestinal) adverse events (very low quality evidence). None of the RCTs comparing lactulose versus lactitol evaluated quality of life. The review found no differences between lactulose and lactitol for the remaining outcomes (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review includes a large number of RCTs evaluating the prevention or treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. The analyses found evidence that non-absorbable disaccharides may be associated with a beneficial effect on clinically relevant outcomes compared with placebo/no intervention.